: ) so there is an exception to my iron clad rule, but I perceive that you [sorry, your good self] are not it.
People who are really thinking about these matters, looking for real answers about harmony between Christianity and science will eventually recognize the mud-slinging tactics. Even if it takes time to figure that out. If Biologos resorted to it, and the kind of double-talk that is needed by groups like CMI, it will be kicked to the curb by the people who need it most or are looking for a thoughtful place.
Don’t let Klax paint you with his broad brushes. I’ll trust a man’s revealed and highest elevated heart to be the higher prize over or perhaps even in spite of some of his variously received or currently accepted dogmas. And I’ll hope you can bestow the same needed grace on me.
Have just finished spiritually bathing in one of G. Macdonald’s novels: “David Elginbrod” which really came into its own in the final (3rd) book. Nothing lifts a person’s gaze like being in the presence of an author who so steadfastly points you toward the Master Himself.
7 Likes
Thank you for reminding me of that book. It is one of my favorite of his–actually, one that Klax would agree is one of the most anti- “damnationist” of all. I’d be interested in what he thinks of it.
2 Likes
Plenty of people , including me, don’t believe in original sin. I mean I’ve searched for it again and again and it’s not in the Bible. Original sin is a Catholic doctrine that claims everyone is born guilty of sin the moment they are born and that if a baby is not sanctified through infant baptism when the die they go to hell or maybe purgatory”. That’s not something I see in the Bible. I see nothing in the Bible that we are guilty of Adam’s sin. That’s original sin. If you mean it as something else then you’re referring to something other than original sin.
In recent years Protestants have tried to hijack the term and use it to explain why we are able to sin. That Adam’s sin somehow made us able to sin and before that, we could not sin. But that’s also illogical and not in the Bible. If humanity could not sin before Adam sinned the how did Eve sin before Adam? How did Adam sun before his first sin? They sinned by simply disobeying God. Same way we do it now. Sin has always been possible for any human. We are all guilty of only our sin, not anyone else’s. So someone can definitely reject OS.
2 Likes
Out of curiosity is damnist some term for anyone who does not full heartedly buy into the belief of universalism? I’m obviously not an admin and I don’t know what they all believe but there has definitely been several threads and posts showcasing an assortment of beliefs on the after life on here ranging from eternal conscious torment, to conditional immortality, to universalism and even a few that seemed to believe in purgatory. I imagine the moderator views vary from person to person just like it does with the random poster which reflects the reality of the church.
Indeed - and I’m one of those moderators around here whose beliefs around these things is no doubt way too close to universalism for some. But it doesn’t matter. Whether one has such status around here or not - we don’t speak for Biologos in any official capacity, but might presume to speak up “for it” while we are acting in official status (as volunteer moderators).
This may help explain commentary about Biologos. People can find comments promoting the most outrageously provocative things (stuff to help keep their base whipped up into its money-sending froth) and voila! “We found this over on the Biologos public forum, so of course it must be what Biologos promotes!” Especially if it is stuff that moderators didn’t delete or censor which is what certainly would happen on AIG’s or CMI’s sites. It might not occur to them that we wouldn’t operate as they might in any forum, quickly banishing anything that wasn’t “on message” and aligned with Biologos ideologies.
But the reality is, Biologos hosts a whole lot of speakers and writers - with much of their work even archived on this site for public access. That work would be a solid step closer than our public forum toward concluding: “Aha! --Surely Biologos must believe this, then!” But even there, this fails of the truth as Biologos has essays from a wide variety of groups and people, not all of whom believe or write the same things. We do try to remain “big tent” in terms of Christian traditions. It’s why you don’t see the Biologos “We believe” statements (where people should really be going if they want to know what “Biologos” believes) straying much beyond science/faith issues. It isn’t that all the other hot-potato issues aren’t also important. They just aren’t part of the Biologos mission. Many members who work for or participate around here probably have strong convictions surrounding all those things too (and not all in identical directions, to be sure), but that doesn’t mean that the organization itself is suddenly behind all those other things too - just by the association.
9 Likes
It doesn’t engender happy thoughts for me. To most adults, if they get science so wrong, they probably get religion as well. It poisons the well for all of us, is a detriment to faith and a stumbling block placed in front of Jesus.
Vinnie
2 Likes
Sure. Their opinions are toxic. But it’s also the name dropping of BioLogos by these groups that causes younger people especially to check it out , even if it’s so the can debate it, exposing them to a wider range of beliefs that can help them break free.
2 Likes
It’s me age. And how could I forget the good doctor too? Not to say a couple of the ladies.
1 Like
[referring to George MacDonald’s “David Elginbrod”]
Not sure I remember if @Klax has mentioned MacDonald - but yeah; ditto to that query.
And it isn’t like MacDonald spends much powder or shot attacking “damnationism”. In fact, maybe that wasn’t even a buzzword yet in his time as I don’t recall him ever using that word. And he doesn’t have to. He spends so much of his time focused on Christ and the attributes of God seen in Christ that the elevated gaze is just naturally drawn higher and higher above some of the baser views of God that some of our tradition still insists on. This describes pretty much all his novels.
2 Likes
Original Sin is a teaching of the Western Church, and came from St. Augustine
1 Like
And I believe he utilized a mistranslation in the Vulgate as well…
1 Like
I agree the name dropping could be beneficial to some who are struggling from within that fold. It is true that many of us were former conservatives or evangelicals (I recognize that the latter term is becoming more flexible and broad in today’s world) and are recovering from unsustainable views. We are legion.
Vinnie
2 Likes
Well said. And absolutely, we may disagree on many things, but I respect you immensely and consider you a brother-in-Christ. Thanks, Merv.
5 Likes
The article was from early 2014, not recently. Some things have been clarified since then. Also, the organization took a different direction and tone when Deb Haarsma took over in 2013.
From a more practical view, I’ve never understood the importance of Original Sin. If people were able to go through their whole lives without sinning even once then I can understand why OS might be a thing. However, everyone sins at some point in their lives, and people would need to be forgiven of those sins. Even the Bible says that everyone has actively sinned, not that everyone is tainted by sin because of Adam. Jesus never said, “Let those who are not descendants of Adam cast the first stone”.
6 Likes
@SkovandOfMitaze would be another. He will confirm that he is a conditionalist (aka annihilationist), and I am not entirely dissuaded of it. There is irony in someone being so damning of so-called damnationists.
2 Likes
The original sin trope gives us the PSA trope. The pudding is over-egged by the trope of our sin, caused by Adam’s (but not Eve’s; what would have have happened if he’d been a good boy, eh?), still needing PSA.
It’s understandable being trapped by tropes. I was. Am. We all are. Religious. Political.
Jesus was.
None of the tropes matter. None. And they don’t invalidate the biggest trope of all time. That God walked the Earth in faith.
[content removed by moderator] I more than suspect some are [universalist] but would never say. Whereas wi’ me there is no doubt at all. In my doubt. I mean I doubt God. Period. But I don’t doubt for a pixel on this screen that if He grounds being, eternal nature, and transcendence, that He does competently with no taint of meaningless pathological righteousness.