Is There a Better Way to Persuade EC Skeptics?

Not to be rude @r_speir but I think it would be more gracious of all of us if we could discuss things in a calm and peaceful way. This thread was made with the intent to be polite with good will out of respect for the subject matter. While we may disagree on some critical aspects, we wish to show regard to each other when speaking of differing views.

I can understand your position, a lot of us can actuall having held similar views in the past. Yes we also possessed conviction but something changed our mind which we still view to be significant. I don’t think it’s fair to measure your beliefs on something on whether or not you would die for it. Our faith means a lot to us and we like it but evolution just makes sense to us (though it can be pretty cool). It’s a thought process that regards updates in new knowledge, which I believe to be consistent with the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom in Proverbs. I do not see why I would need to sacrifice a great deal regarding my judgement on some science, that depends on values. Although that could be a noble sacrifice.

8 Likes

Post deleted

@r_speir,

I guess for the same reason you said you would give your life over special creation… then followed it with another post where you said you wouldnt.

Why would the image of God look so much like an ape out of all the possible ways that humans could have been created? For that matter, why would the image of God share so many attributes with other mammals, such as the arrangement of our bones, mammary glands, brain structure, and so forth? How does your theological position approach these questions?

1 Like

The evidence collected from a variety of sciences overwhelmingly support that life is far older than 6000 years. Do you know of evidence to the contrary?[quote=“r_speir, post:82, topic:36811”]
On the contrary, man was created in the image of God, and so any claim that man is descended from lower life forms is a direct affront to God, even blasphemy of his image and character.
[/quote]

Do you recognize the possibility that Imago Dei could refer to the spiritual realm and not the physical? There is certainly Biblical reason to do so, and no reason to claim blasphemy regarding the physical makeup of mankind.

5 Likes

[quote=“cwhenderson, post:85, topic:36811”]

In fact, many would say, quite the opposite, that it is blasphemy to suggest that humanity’s imago Dei has anything to do with humanity’s physical form. That would imply that the ineffable God has physical attributes…

1 Like

Or worse, she could be female!

@r_speir,

Let me understand something here. You say that humanity is the image of God, but God made the lower life forms too?

So, are you saying that God made humans look too much like the lower life forms? Or are you saying that God made the lower life forms look too good… and so the comparison is odious?

What you are likely to do now, is to back-pedal like nobody’s business and tell me how much you love those lower life forms.

Then I’ll say, okay, so the lower life forms are not an odious comparison any more, right? And that evolving **from ** these life forms makes just as much sense as God intentionally making gorillas and monkeys so very similar ot humans.

But this iis where I’m stumped… what is your counter to this last statement? How can you eat your theological cake and still get to have it too?

1 Like

Post deleted

Fair enough. So help me understand your argument: What is it, then, that is “blasphemous” about humanity’s physical form being descended from apes, if we’re not dragging God into it by implying that our physical form is part of what it means that we’re made in His image?

2 Likes

Post deleted

I’m pretty sure this is well outside the bounds of 2,000 years of Church orthodoxy — across all branches of the Church. I find such an anthropomorphic concept of God the Father to be limiting and, frankly (no offense intended; this is just my personal reaction), repulsive.

If you can find a single major theologian who argues as you do, I will very gladly read up on it and try to understand his (or her) thinking.

2 Likes

I do believe there is a better way. But it is different than you propose.

Instead of trying to change there mind, we could remember that their most deeply held beliefs are entirely compatible with evolution. This simultaneously includes:

  1. De novo creation of Adam.
  2. Genealogical transmission of original sin to all theological humans.
  3. Literal, concordist, and traditional interpretation of Genesis.
  4. Textual-critical approach to Scripture, instead of ANE based historical-critical approach
  5. Recent origin of theological humans less than 10,000 years ago.
  6. And much more…

None of this is contradicted by evidence, evolution or science. Instead of trying to change then, an accurate account of science could welcome the full diversity of the Church. All they have to give up on is anti-evolution fixations.

We do not have convince them of anything, but just show them the fact that the science of evolution does not challenge their existing beliefs.

Why not try this approach?

1 Like

A little Googling brought me here…

Clement of Alexandria, for instance, allowed neither human form nor human passions in God, the Father, and argued that biblical anthropomorphisms were metaphors adapted to the limitations of human understanding. […]

when “the Hebrews mention hands and feet and mouth and eyes and entrance and exits and exhibitions of wrath and threatening, let no one suppose… that these terms express passions of God.” Clement continued, “Reverence rather requires… an allegorical meaning… you must not entertain the notion at all of figure and motion, or standing or seating, or place, or right or left, as appertaining to the Father of the universe, although these terms are in Scripture.”

Origen was no less emphatic on the issue. To him, “The most impious doctrines are implied by the belief that God is corporeal…” […]

St. Augustine and many others, especially the mystical theologians, also insisted upon ineffability and utter transcendence of God, the Father.

Then again, apparently I must concede that there is a contrary tendency…

On the other hand, the New Testament contains very few anthropomorphic expressions like the finger of God (Luke 11:20), mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), sight of God (Luke 16:15), earth being the footstool of God (Matt. 5:35) and almost all of them can be interpreted metaphorically. In spite of that, many church fathers’ held a corporeal and anthropomorphic concept of the Deity. Bigg observes that “In the view of the Homilies, the Valentinians, Melito…, Tertullian Adv. Praxeam 7, God is corporeal. Even Irenaeus finds the image of God in the body of man… Anthropomorphism lingered on long in the East.” Two centuries after Clement, St. Augustine still wrestled with strong anthropomorphic and corporeal tendency among Christians as well as the Church itself. Christians, he observed, “think of God in a human form and suppose that he is such.”

To that I would just say… I disagree strongly, and I agree with the ancient tradition that sees this notion as blasphemous, that God the Father might have, or “prefer,” some sort of human form.

Rather, He “alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen” (1 Tim 6:16).

That’s what Joseph Smith taught–that God had a physical body. That didn’t go over well.

1 Like

Post deleted

1 Like

I’m sorry, I don’t see your point.

So you’re saying that in Genesis 5:3, it could only mean that Seth looked like Adam? I don’t think that’s the only, or even the most likely, interpretation.

How about you expand your word study and include these NT verses, which use the same Greek word that the Septuagint used for your Genesis verses?

“For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.” Romans 8:29

and

“But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.” 2 Corinthians 3:8

Surely this doesn’t mean I’m going to start looking like a first century Jewish dude, right?

Seems far more likely a spiritual resemblance than a physical one.

2 Likes

Post deleted

It’s only impossible to miss when you bring your specific preconceptions to the text, my friend.

If you have other texts to discuss, I’d be happy to consider them! Otherwise, I remain unconvinced. But perhaps you have persuaded others. As far as I’m concerned, there are many challenges in the evolutionary creationist view, but “blaspheming God” by saying the human form is related to apes is not at all one of them!

No worries — I’m okay with not reaching a resolution here and not convincing you of my view of the text, even if it seems to me to be more reasonable and more representative of the whole witness of scripture. Many things are not resolved on discussion boards. :slight_smile: That’s okay; we can still be brothers in Christ.

Have a peaceful and blessed rest of your weekend!

4 Likes

Have you ever painted anything? Before you started, did you have an image of the finalized product in your mind? Did you poof it into existence? Or start one brush stroke at a time?

You can create something in your image (the finalized product) and still go through a process to get to that final product.

Or building a snow man, you can make it in the image of a snowman, and accurately say “you created it from the snow of the ground” and at one point, it can just look like a tiny snow ball.

How dare you accuse the snowman maker of making a snowman that was once a descendant of a snow ball?

I think it is more evolution-ism that says evolution has no end goal or purpose. I think most EC believes that God had the finalized product being a human, that began or has is a descendant of a “snowball”.

Or like a computer programmer. They spend much timing making this code, that means nothing until it is completed, but still means nothing till used. Microsoft Windows is just 0’s and 1’s, until you hit the power button on the PC, that is when it comes to life (using more and more complex codes and programs “building on each other” until it gets to a finalized product of a fully booted up operating system. How dare you accuse the booted up windows to have been a descendant from a 0 or a 1? It is a complex thing with great uses, surely it couldn’t have come from merely a simple number?

I think of creation as God had all that coding in his brain (pretty instantaneously, and didn’t have to spend time writing it down and making beta versions ect.) and when He spoke it into existence, is like the program booting up. And once complete, humans were then created in His image.

This

We were all animals, given life (not biological life, but life as image bearers) by God. I like @aleo writings of an original blessing, instead of an original curse. Homo Sapiens were all animals like all living creatures on earth bound by int’s biological instincts. It was the original blessing given by God, that made us into image bearers of Him (gave us life). The ability to do the will of the Father despite our instinct, to be kings and priests, and what we will one day be restored to be. (Rev 5:9) This is why sinning causes death, we are broken image bearers, going back to our animal roots, perverting the special image bearing status/purpose/vocation God gave us. Any time you sin, you are giving away that power God gave us to do His will (and glorify our Creator), to something else and deny our Creator, and worship the created. Every sin is idolatry.

There is very much intertwining of our spiritual and physical realms.

Everyone who sins gives away their image bearing status and becomes a slave to that sin. Jesus’ spirit never died, He never sinned. Our spiritual body died when we sinned as God told us would happen. Jesus’ physical body died like our spiritual bodies, but His physical body was resurrected and with that resurrection of His physical body, allows our spiritual bodies to become resurrected in Him. We are again restored to our image bearing status through Him who now lives inside us! Rom 6:8

The dark powers I don’t think completely understand the the differences in the spiritual or physical realm. If they did, they would have realized when they came to a head in the hour of darkness when they gave it their all, they would be signing their own death warrant. In attempting to conquer Jesus on the cross, it was instead defeated when the stone was rolled away. This is why Jesus came, to defeat sin, since we couldn’t. That we may have life, and have it more abundantly.

Fabrication, or explanation? Why do we have belly buttons, did Adam and Eve? Is our knowledge of this a fabrication or an explanation?

Sure. You could also argue that we reached this final form through evolution.

A more important questions would be, If it came down to dying for your YEC beliefs, or rejecting them to share the greater truth of God’s love, which would you do?

I would certainly not die over a evolution belief, it is a simple belief in a neat thing that may or may not displays God’s power and majesty. I would not die over the fact that a star is a burning ball of gas if someone told me it was something else. God has much more important things for my life than dying for a trivial possible explanation of how we got here.
How many passages to Paul or Jesus or David speak of how we got here? How many passages that speak of what we should do while we are here? Though they do talk of who brought us here, none of how, but no where near as much as what we should do while here.

Of course it is easier to talk the talk than to walk the walk. It is somewhat easy to say you would die for something, that is a momentary 1 chance, short lived decision. What I think is more difficult, is to live for something. I don’t think the death of Jesus was too difficult of a thing to do, people people die for Muhammad all the time. What is more difficult is to live for something. As Paul says in Rom 7:15. We want to live for God, but still fail, Jesus was the only one that was able to live His entire life for God, that is something that can’t be copied, but dying for a belief happens fairly often. It doesn’t make that thing true, it just means you had strong convictions in it. It would be sad to have such strong convictions in something so relatively unimportant (like the means of our human origins), as to bypass a long life that could be lived for God, doing the vocation He gave to us originally.

Amen!

1 Like