Metaphorical, allegorical, even sometimes historical!
ims sorry but what is this?
You have straw plucked my post and quoted it such that it appears to claim the complete opposite of what i actually believe and said. Please edit your post and quote it in its proper context! (i have not included my quote in your post as its done in such a way as to twist my belief)
Moving on from the gross misrepresentation of what i wroteā¦
When i read the above, i feel that it does not appear to me to come from one who believes in the scriptural reliability of the bible or the inerrancy of Gods word.
God doesnt ask us to understandā¦he fundamentally demands that we comply. You may not like this, but at the simplest levels of Christianity, this is what we must accept.
Now whilst you may adhear to what the secular science interprets, however, from my perspective that is ignorant of the religious view that sin entered this world and corrupted all creation. That is without doubt a fundamental Bible doctrine. No one who follows bible reading can deny that principle.
I can already hear you arguingā¦āno the gospel is the basic conceptā
My answer THE GOSPEL ONLY BECAME NECESSARY BECAUSE MAN DID NOT OBEY! (and that is the most significant flaw in TEism in my viewā¦in that it slides right past the foundational principle of why salvation even became necessaryā¦and how it happened)
I have thus far read 56%. Certainly his theology is a very different perspective to what i am used too, and considering he is fundamentally Catholic, its a surprising read to be honest.
I suspect i am going to have to go back and re-read sections to be able to criticize the mans theology properly, however, for now, Iām enjoying it.
A very important point T_aquaticus.
I do not believe we should rigidly make the claim that two individuals who do not reach the same conclusions are ignoring evidence.
There are two main premises hereā¦that there is no God and there is a God. To TEist that is a no brainer and not even worth arguing over, however from a YEC perspective its more problematic than that.
As far as i can tell, an atheist for example, looks at the world around right now, and is unable to see rapid changeā¦in fact, there is very little significant evolutionary change in terms of major kinds of animals. We do not see ancestors of apes and humans, we do not see humans evolving into something higher (whatever that is supposed to be)ā¦
So, then theoretical mathematical calculations start to come into viewā¦we have to theorize about how long it would take, given current evolutionary progress, for one ākindā to evolve into another.
The point is, secularists who donāt believe in a God who can perform miracles in the past, are left with no valid option for the existence of anything. So they have concocted an entire narrative on top of the old age worldview of non believers. A TEist who follows the naturalistic approach is following an atheistic world views observations, calculations, and interpretations.The Lindy Chamberlain āDingo took my babyā conviction fiasco highlights just how wrong presuppositions can influence the interpretation of evidence and result in contrasting conclusions!
A YEC simply reads the bible and takes its statements as written. The bible very clearly tells us that its writers (patriarchs, judges, prophets, kings, apostles) have interpreted Gods will to us through their writingsā¦ Its that simple. therefore contrary to what TEists attempt to claim, it is a fallacy that readers of the bible need to interpret Gods word. YEC do not read anything into any of what the bible states about genealogies, the origins of man, creation, or the future. The Bible clearly outlines why the world looks the way it does right nowā¦sin and corruption from sin!
BTW the irony for me is that i think most agree that the fossil record is contained within sedimentary layersā¦laid down by water and yet apparently, a biblical global flood cant be responsible for related sedimentary deposits found all around the globe.
Indeed, the Chalcedon was greatly influenced by the imperial authority - like almost every Council of the epoch. It was also affected by the partisan spirit that has immensely complicated a great number of theological discussions throughout the Church history. To assume that minor differences could lead the other side to far greater mistakes or even to apostasy; to begin treating the opponents as if they have already committed the anticipated mistakes, crimes, and so forth; and, finally, to ratify the breach by proclaiming anathemas - that was the logic of the partisan spirit, which remains powerful among Christians till nowadays. Neither the episcopal collegiality nor any other institutional device has ever managed to restrain it.
In short, Iām not trying to denigrate the idea of episcopal authority as such, or to commend any other church polity in its stead; but Iām trying to say that the life of the Church is always messy, no institutional models work in line with the initial plan, and people still adopting and preserving Christian faith border on miracle. Nonetheless, there are (and, hopefully, there will be) such people. Suppose thatās how the Holy Spirit acts in history.
2 Likes
You say that Iāve grossly misinterpreted your point of view. But your own words in this very post prove that Iāve got you quite right. You have arbitrarily chosen a āfundamental premiseā and stick to it without even trying to justify it. You insist that the Bible must be accepted as the word of God without any doubt or questioning. This very position is your arbitrarily chosen premise! You refuse to acknowledge that Christians are surrounded by many other people who may legitimately ask, āwhy is it so?ā In other words, why is the Bible the word of God? Why should anyone accept the Bible rather than any other scriptures or just nothing?
As for me, Iāve given some of my answers in the post that you quote. I do believe that robust creation theology - the one that shows, without deprecating or distorting the modern sciences, that the book of Nature demonstrates the same truths as the books of the Bible - should be an indispensable part of the Christian answer to the legitimate questions of non-Christians.
1 Like
Rigidly, no. However, when someone claims Satan is tricking them if the evidence doesnāt line up with their beliefs then you can start to make some judgments.
Thatās not it. The two main premises are facts matter and facts donāt matter. Some YEC organizations have made their position clear:
This seems to be the approach you have taken. Any evidence that seems to contradict YEC is just Satan trying to fool us.
False. What scientists, both theist and atheist, see is mountains of evidence that species share a common ancestor and changed through evolutionary mechanisms. For example:
These are facts, facts that you probably will never address or consider.
And there we go. You have joined the side where facts donāt matter.
You have never shown that any of these sedimentary layers were formed at the same time nor were they formed recently. Thatās because you donāt have the facts on your side.
2 Likes
The fact is, I admit that sin entered this world and corrupted creation. But why does God tolerate sin? Why does God allow sin to corrupt creation? The only plausible - that is, consistent with Godās character as we know it from the Bible - answer is that God wants the created world to be a real thing - with its own internal logic, its own regularities, its own existence. In this world, human beings are sustained by God but behave according to their own logic, which implies both dependence on circumstances and ability to make choices.
Creating and sustaining this world requires a great deal of self-restraint and even self-humiliation. Thus, the creative Word of God must also be the Son of God who shares the creaturesā agony.
Emil Brunner has beautifully outlined this perspective: āHe limits Himself by the fact that the world over against Himself is a real existence. ā¦ Now we begin to see what a large measure of self-limitation He has imposed upon Himself, and how far He has emptied Himself, in order to realize this aim, to achieve it, indeed, in a creature which has misused its creaturely freedom to such an extent as to defy God. The ĪŗĪĪ½ĻĻĪ¹Ļ, which reaches its paradoxical climax in the Cross of Christ, began with the Creation of the world.ā (Brunner, Emil. 1952. Dogmatics, Vol. 2, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. 1952. P. 20).
Godās self-abasement is only temporary - as he is the first and the last, he encompasses all the created times; he already knows (unlike us) his final victory and the healing of creation. But in the meanwhile this temporal self-abasement is quite real.
3 Likes
Kendel, you are quite correct. The issue of speech is not the problem with the reading of Scripture. Spiritual blindness is the problem according to the Apostle Paul, āAnd even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to fthose who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of ithe gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of Godā (2 Cor. 4;3-4).
In his letter, Paul accused such people of quibbling, arguing, and chest thumping over words. Paul said that one should focus on the gospel and leave salvation to him. If people turn away from the gospel, it is their own fault and not others. They also show that they have a hard heart like Pharoah and refuse to listen to the words of redemption. Quibblers show they do not listen to God or others.
Thanks for bringing this up.
Quibble, quibble.
No.
This is a truncated charicature.
1 Like
Absolutelyā¦and the bible is very clear on exactly this point.
Please expand as to how and enlighten me on the points I surfaced concerning him.
What on earth is all of this?
I take the biblical model in its entiretyā¦no personal suppositionsā¦
God created a perfect world
Satan corrupted that world by tempting Adam and Eve into disobedience
The corruption of sin brought death into this world
Christ died on the cross to redeem and restore all of creation (the earth and us) back to its former glory
Its so simpleā¦where do you get all of that other rubbish from? Just read the bible for goodness sakeā¦stop trying to find authors who intetlntionally twist biblical theology and doctrineā¦the bible is self interpretingā¦its already deciferred Gods word, his wishesā¦thats the whole point of it!
Omgā¦you clearly dont study outside of the third hand drip fed ideas that form your world viewā¦there are buckloads of research about exactly that pointā¦including on this very forum.
Please dont make intelligence insulting comments like thatā¦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.
āTaking the biblical modelā 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 doesnāt require to twist or deny sciences. I sympathize with YEC proponents as long as they try to defend the orthodox (small āoā) 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. Thatās the exact opposite of what most people would consider a healthy epistemology.
2 Likes
Like this research? [for a start]
1 Like