Omg…you clearly dont study outside of the third hand drip fed ideas that form your world view…there are buckloads of research about exactly that point…including on this very forum.
Please dont make intelligence insulting comments like that…it makes a mockery of the very belief you adhear to so rigidly.
No,
Any evidence that is interpreted in such a way as to contradict the bible is satan trying to trick us! And that is self revealing biblical theology btw.
“Taking the biblical model” is already a personal supposition. You suppose that the Bible is the word of God. Somebody else supposes that, e. g., Bhagavad Gita is the word of God. Someone else supposes there is no such thing as divine revelation; and so forth. All these ideas are personal suppositions. Nothing wrong with it, of course. But are you ready to demonstrate that the world where we live is related to your supposition?
Traditionally, that was the task of natural theology. But, unfortunately, many modern Christians, liberals and fundamentalists alike, have abandoned natural theology. The latter (or, at least, a part of them) have also tried to replace it with a kind of pseudo-science.
My point is that natural theology may still be fruitful and doable; at the same time, it doesn’t require to twist or deny sciences. I sympathize with YEC proponents as long as they try to defend the orthodox (small “o”) Christian faith. But six-thousand-year Universe without evolution is simply not required to protect any creedal Christian doctrine.
1 Like
So there is no observable fact that could ever change your mind, correct?
2 Likes
Then in your epistemology there is only one conclusion that is allowed, and the evidence is never allowed to indicate otherwise. That’s the exact opposite of what most people would consider a healthy epistemology.
2 Likes
Like this research? [for a start]
1 Like
The Incarnation is the basic concept. It is the foundation of the covenants, the message of the prophets, the culmination of priesthood and kingship.
That makes Jesus “Plan B”. He is not; He is the only plan there ever was.
Show me that TEism says that human beings are perfect and I’ll concede that you have a point.
Jesus doesn’t even say your “foundational principle” applies; His invitation is different and skips right over that:
Come to Me all who labor and are heavy burdened, and I shall give you rest; take up My yoke and learn from Me for I am meek and humble of heart, and you’ll find rest for your souls.
Jesus seems to regard being weary and heavily-burdened sufficient as a reason to come to Him.
1 Like
That’s propaganda, not reality. Scientists pursue where evidence leads; they don’t for the most part care about theological claims.
It’s also a category error: you’re trying to put science into the class called “religion”, when it isn’t even related.
Unfortunately that’s not true. The reality is that YECists ignore what the Bible is and treat it as though it’s s friend’s great-grandfather’s journal of events he observes.
It’s impossible to read something without interpreting; interpreting things flows naturally from a person’s worldview. The YEC worldview is that the Bible has to be 100% scientifically and historically true as read in modern English. Unfortunately that’s a definition of truth that can’t be found in scripture, and which comes from the worldview of scientific materialism.
That’s because there are no sedimentary deposits yet discovered that match what would occur from a worldwide flood but they do match processes we see happening around us.
That’s echoed by Polkinghorne in his book about science and the Trinity.
2 Likes
If you assume that all religious “models” are “personal suppositions”, then you are left with the words of man and no hope. That is what the Apostle Paul taught (Ephesians 2:12-14). In doing so, you argue from the perspective of men in attempting to convince these same men to believe your very tiny personal circle of subjective personal suppositions.
Paul did not fall for that trap. Rather, he began with the objective gospel empowered by God himself. When God converted Paul, Paul rejected and left the way of the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Greek philosophers who always operated under the rule of man and not the rule of God’s objective truth. The Saducees were the Jewish natural religionists of their day. Paul then proceeded to frame divine relevation from the view of faith, revelation, AND reason rather than reason alone through naturalism. Reason and naturalism rejects the objective truth found in the Bible.
You will notice that on Mars Hill with the philosophers, Paul never began where the Greek philosophers did, which led to unending and fruitless speculation and argumentations. Rather, he turn the tables on the Greek philosophers and began with God and his revelation rather than with natural religion and human reason alone. He saw human’s philosophy’s way as fruitless. From there he commenced to proclaim the gospel (Acts 17:22-31). He did the same thing in Romans by beginning with the gospel itself (Romans 1:1-17). Then he immediately tackled the “futile thinking” of the philosophers and immediately accused them of idolatry after outright rejection of God.
Therefore, the Bible itself informs us today how to begin when talking about God and redemption: the gospel. Paul declared, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the POWER (my emphasis) of God unto salvation to everyone who believes” (1:16). We do not need to spend an enormous amount of time to attempt to prove the Bible is the word of God, argument for God’s exists, or about the resurrection as William Lane Craig does. Beginning with perspective of one’s “personal suppositions” begins with fallen humanity’s ways and is fruitless and fails to believe the power of the gospel. Doing so conjures up merits and dependence on man.
Rather, we begin where Paul began, with the objective truth of the gospel itself. Reasoning someone to God never works, because no matter what we say in all our arguments people in their natural and fallen condition will never believe. If our words through reason worked, then we would not need the gospel or we would redefine it from the view of fallen man. Paul rested on the power of God in the gospel. Only God’s power alone will convert anyone through the gospel message.
So, there is no “biblical model” that stands on “personal supposition.” Rather, there is God’s objective truth found only in the gospel, the power of God unto salvation. Believing a “biblical model” as a “personal supposition” rejects the gospel of Christ and fails to trust God’s power in it.
You have already shown that you will only reach one conclusion, no matter what the facts are. How can you honestly claim that there is research supporting a young Earth and a recent global flood when there is no evidence you would ever accept that would indicate otherwise?
Let’s look at this from the reverse angle. According to you, what features would a geologic formation need in order for it to evidence an old Earth and a lack of a recent global flood? What facts, if observed, would falsify YEC with respect to observations in geology?
3 Likes
Thus you endorse falsehood – and denigrate your own posts.
Except it is no such thing. You’re ascribing power and glory to Satan, and the Bible is very clear that ascribing power and glory constitutes worship.
So we see that in order to uphold their idiosyncratic dogmas YECists are willing to embrace the Adversary.
Not in the text.
Only human death – anything beyond that is adding to the text.
Only if you read it in the original language, understanding the original type of literature, and grasping the original worldview.
It is baffling that people will easily grasp the need to understand the language, the literary type, and the cultural context of something written in, for example, Belarussian or Xhosa, but when it comes to the Bible they think they can just pick it up and understand it.
He had it right: you put your YEC dogma above scripture and think the result is what the Bible says.
True enough; at least I can’t think of any way it impinges on Christology.
It’s an easy superstition for those uninterested in actually learning about the scriptures, but it doesn’t rise to the level of heresy.
That’s not where he began at the Areopagus; he began with something they had in common.
No. Paul began with the God who is there and not their gods but the God he preached, “What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth” (Acts 17:23). The Greeks turned the true biblical God into just another idol as fallen men were accustomed to doing in every place. They did not know the God Paul preached so that the stone they raised was not to that God or that God. Paul discussed this very act in Romans 1:21-23, “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”
These Athenians claimed to be wise by making a monument to a god they thought they knew but rejected and exchanged an “unknown god” for the one true God. Paul acknowledged their false worship, because they did not worship God but an idol they exchanged for God to be their god and raised a monument stone to it for worship. Paul informed them that they were mistaken in their belief about this “unknown god,” because it was a god according to their own imagination and not according to the gospel. The only true God (the triune God) is the one preached in the gospel whom they did not know. If they knew God, then Paul would not have had a need to preach the true God to them. He then commenced to declare the gospel to them about Christ and the resurrection.
To say that Paul pointed to the “unknown god” as the one true God would have affirmed their false worship and their “exchange of the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal manand birds and animals and creeping things” (Romans 1:23). Then Paul himself would have been preaching a false gospel. They denigrated God to the material world and called that worship and a false gospel. They did not believe through the stone work they made the gospel Paul preached, because they created an idol from stone and cast the name on it “To an unknown god.” That was idolatry according to Paul’s letter to the Romans.
A FOOTNOTE: The Athenians played Babel all over again. The people in Babel built a tower to give a name for themselves. That is, they worshiped themselves. In engaging in idolatry, the Athenians also engaged in materialistic self worship. In both cases, polytheism surfaced and grew into a pantheon of gods with one as the superior one. The Greeks also had a pantheon as did the other nations before them. They also established a superior god over the rest.
you are conflating the idea that theologically, power equals glory attributable only to a deity.
The bible warns us numerous times about the power of the evil one and that he most definitely is more than able to directly interact with this world with physical consequences as well as spiritual ones.
1 John 5:19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.
Colossians 1:12-13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, :14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. According to this, if you have received Jesus, then God ‘has’ delivered you from the power of darkness.
Romans 6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.
Acts 5:3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?
Indeed, Polkinghorne has made a significant contribution to the kenotic interpretation of creation. A lot of what I say here is the rephrasing of his “free-process defense”.
“There is an unavoidable cost attached to a world allowed to make itself. Creatures will behave in accordance with their natures: lions will kill their prey; earthquakes will happen; volcanoes will erupt and rivers flood. I have called this insight “the free-process defense” in relation to physical evil, in analogy with the familiar free-will defense in relation to moral evil.” ( Polkinghorne, John. “Kenotic Creation and Divine Action”. In The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis, edited by John Polkinghorne, 90-106. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans. 2001. P. 95).
At the same time, I’m not exactly happy with his approach to divine omniscience; but that’s another question.
1 Like
Please take notice that I have never denied the power of the Gospel. Surely, the Gospel of Jesus Christ has power to captivate human hearts and minds. Otherwise, there would be no Christian faith. That’s exactly what I have already written in this very thread:
But the very texts that you cite support my approach: there is an inevitable question of how the world where we live is connected with this Gospel; and the apostle didn’t eschew the question. He has not forgotten to mention, even before going on to the exposition of the Gospel, that the glory of God is discernible through the created things (Romans 1:20).
Certainly, this connection can’t be “proven” scientifically - scientific proof implies carrying out reproducible experiments, whereas human beings are obviously incapable of controlling and reproducing divine activity. But some kind of reasonable demonstration is always welcome. According to the scriptural text, that’s what the apostle did when quoted the well-known literary source (Acts 17:28).
The YEC proponents are also trying to show that divine revelation and the world are connected. But their approach is extremely bizarre: they propose to read the parts of the Bible as a science manual that describes the world; the problem is, this purported “manual” doesn’t match the world where we live.
The most odd aspect is that the YEC position is not required by any sound theological, exegetical, or apologetical need.
First of all, the significant Old Testament doctrines, including the doctrine of creation, were restated, reframed, and explained by the New Testament writers in order to reveal their true meaning in the light of God Incarnate. For Christians, the Old Testament remains authoritative and useful as long as it is read and interpreted through the lens of the New Testament - as the prequel to the latter.
The New Testament contains the creation narratives (first of all, the Prologue to John) that are quite sufficient to confirm and uphold the Christian doctrine of creation as presented by the Nicene or the other ecumenical Creeds. These creation narratives do not require adherence to the YEC dogmas of the 24-hour creation days and the six-thousand-year-old Universe. Moreover, some New Testament texts are almost incompatible with the first of these dogmas.
The second issue is the discrepancy between the YEC approach and the sound hermeneutics - one can’t understand the meaning of a text without figuring out the genre (how is it written?), the audience (to whom is it addressed?), and the cultural context (what do the readers already know about the issue? with what are they expected to compare the text? how are they expected to understand the text?).
And only the third problem is the huge divergence between the world anticipated by the YEC approach and the world as it is actually seen by natural sciences - physics, geology, biology, etc.
2 Likes
The Bible teaches that conversion comes through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit not through “being facinated by the image, words, and deeds of Jesus” (Titus 3:5-8). Many Jews were facinated with Jesus, even the Pharisees and the Romans, but they rejected him. They were facinated with his healing powers, but once he spoke to them about their sins, they left and pointed their fingers at others. If through facination, etc., then conversion would depend on man’s initiative. If initiative begins with man, then another gospel derives. No man even takes one step toward God without spiritual regeneration, “No one comes to God, no not one.” (Roman 3:10). Please take note that the gospel is the ONLY power to change human hearts. Faith begins with God as a gift from him through spiritual regeneration
“That’s what the apostle did?” Did what? I am not following you. What is your conclusion in response in terms of your citation of what I wrote. You do not explain how Acts 17:28 relates to what you are saying. You do not exegete Paul’s use of his quotation. You appear to be making sort sort of connection between “scientific proof” and the preceding cited passage. I never mentioned anything about science in your citation of me, so science is irrelevant to this discussion.
I am not sure what your above statement means. What and whose “reasonable demonstration”? Whose demonstration? Welcome? Your statement is contextually unclear.
This immediate discussion is not about YEC, so it is a digression.
They are connected. The Bible teaches two types of revelation: general revelation and special revelation with each having its purpose as described by the bibical authors, specifically Paul in Romans and the Hebrews author (11:2). What is your point?
Who specifically? Who are they? You are addressing your comments to me and not some “they”.
What specific “manual”? Cite your sources. What are you comparing?
I was never discussing YEC and any related theological position, exegesis, or apologetics. Stick to the topic at hand.
Citations please. Who “restated” what?
False!!! Paul clearly stated OT usefulness, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16). Peter also stated that the word of God (to him, the OT) led to holiness and was a guard against false doctrines (2 Peter 1:19-2:3). Jesus himself said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” A true Christian believes it because it is the word of God and sufficient for all life and godliness. That is the primary reason for faith. Faith rests on Christ alone and the Scriptures alone. It is without qualification authoritative and final authority bar none. That’s the reason the Reformers claimed Scriptures alone! While the NT provides commentary on the OT, the OT remains the complete word of God in spite of no citations of it in the NT. God inspired both the OT and NT equally. What you claim is not true.
What creation narratives? Where? Your statement is the logical fallacy of argument from absence and irrelevant to this discussion. You are reading modern ideology (YEC) back into the Scriptures written 2,000 + years before. It is not an argument to what I wrote, making it a straw man. Besides, argument from abscence is erroneous logic. You also digress. I do not follow rabbit trail digressions. If you want to discuss the YEC topic, start another thread.
Besides, much qualified scholarly works have been written on the days of creation you ignore and omit, much more than you have probably engaged. That goes with your subsequent quotes from yourself. Before, going there, you need to conduct a search of the literature and engage it rather than make unsupported hasty generalized statements. Your terse statements demonstrate that you have not adequately engaged six-day creation for even offering any sort of rebuttal. You cannot do that in just a few sentences. Citing yourself is inadequate.
This is my last reply to you and Roymond. I have also blocked seeing any of your responses. After reviewing both of your comments, I walk away with the view that they ironically resemble the disputing and argumentative Athenians who scoffed at Paul. Paul referred to some as “ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.” Roymond selects minutia snippits and refrains addressing the primary ideas I laid out in what I wrote. In fact, he was simply dead wrong on several things, because he failed to read carefully what I wrote, especially about the Athens polytheism and its predecessors from Babel forward to which I referred.
I have no interest in such erroneous argumentative ways but in pointing to the gospel as the ultimate authority that surpasses any materialistic and humanistic ideology of anthropology that includes evolution at its center. It is tiresome as is censoring the free exchange of ideas. This site frowns on on ideas that go counter to its faulty ideology of evolution. Such false knowledge of evolution and viewing the Bible as a secondary authority through the lens of evolution is wearisome and dishonors God. The new Babel has indeed arisen here and has promoted monolitic uncritical thinking so that those who express disagreement become censored and cancelled. So much for free exchange of ideas.
I realize this post will probably get censored, but that will only confirm what I wrote.
-
Certainly, I’ve not quoted myself as an authority, who I’m not; I’ve just repeated some of my previous words because they are also relevant here.
-
When a person is captivated by the Gospel narratives about Jesus, this is an action of the Holy Spirit in this person. And the same Spirit impels Christians to seek understanding, to look for harmony between their faith and the things they know about the world. Thus, it doesn’t make sense to postulate a contradiction between the action of the Holy Spirit and human longing for understanding.
-
As for the YEC-related issues - well, there is a simple question: do you claim that the correct (“literal”- that is, looking for author’s original intent) and Spirit-induced biblical exegesis will inevitably lead to the doctrines of six-thousand-year-old Universe and 24-hour days of creation?
1 Like
As for the Old Testament’s authority - surely, no Christian teacher since the apostles may understand the Old Testament apart from its interpretation by the New Testament. E. g., we read Genesis 1 through the lens of John 1:1-18 - and, therefore, assume that the Genesis narrative hints at the Trinity and that the word of God that is repeatedly mentioned in Genesis 1 is, in fact, the Word of God - who is God himself and through whom everything has been created and sustained.
1 Like