You may stop responding if you wish, however, its appears to me that you have not well explained your theology at all. There is nothing you have provided that explains it step by step with biblical references (its not difficult to do this). That would resolve the confusion, however if you do not wish to do that then i suppose the confused theology that you have presented gets left as just that…confused.
Conversely, you may chose to start again…so i will repeat my question so its very clear…
You statement earlier…its copied and pasted from your own post (note the bold which you inserted)
“And God will continue helping us to overcome these self-destructive habits after our death provided we want Him to do so.”
Again i ask you, how are those individuals who are alive on this earth and are caught up together in the clouds in 1 Thess 4:17 freed from their acts of sin given they haven’t died yet?
Might i highlight why you appear to be unable to answer the above question…its because in TEist theology, physical death is not a consequence of sin. That leaves you in the seemingly untenable position of trying to explain two groups of people at the second coming…those who have died in Christ physically and those who have not but are saved nonetheless. I’m sure you have an explanation, so please post said explanation using biblical references (there is a solution btw)
Since radioactive decay is what generates the heat that keeps the earth’s core molten which allows the Earth to have a magnetic field which helps to shield us from harmful radiation, this would be a good reason to keep it. Most everything has to balance the good with the bad. Too little oxygen and you die. Too much oxygen and you die.
If you are not lactose intolerant and able to drink milk as an adult you can thank a mutation. Certainly that would be an improvement. Who would want to live if you can’t eat ice cream.
Dale, what references do you have to support the idea of two creations? And, in your world view, what is the purpose of two creations?
In my world view, the claim of two creations is one of ignorance of very obvious bible doctrine of type vs antitype. The comparison between Adam and Christ is exactly that…type and antitype, it is not support for two creations. Melchizedek and Jesus are also compared…again type and antitype. The earthly and heavenly sanctuaries…type and antitype.
A similar dissagreement exists when we talk about death…there is both physical and spiritual death. TEism must deny the physical death, however, that creates an insurmountable theological dilemma for TEists, how then can they explain Christs physical incarnation, life, death, resurrection and as the prophecy states, second coming? Those who are dead in Christ are physically raised into new bodies to meet those who are living in the air with Christ at the second coming!
The problem here is not that I have enormous theological, biblical and philosophical capabilities…i am very poor in all of those areas. I am simply presenting very basic theological concepts in response to things others on these forums claim, Christians apparently, who have not bothered to ensure that their scientific beliefs are actually supported by the big picture the bible presents to us.
For example, no Christian can pretend that Christ is an allegory. No Christian can pretend that the Jewish Temple is an allegory . History proves the temple was destroyed by Romans in A.D 70.
Because the Herodian temple was destroyed by Romans, we cannot ignore that it was a rebuilt version of Solomons Temple.
Because Solomon is said in the Bible to have built the temple at the request of his father King David, we cannot ignore that kind David wanted to make a permanent home for God who had been living in a tent (the Mosaic tabernacle).
We know that the reason the Mosaic tabernacle was built is to illustrate in a very real way exactly how it is that God was going to redeem all mankind back to himself after the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.
God was not saving just Adam and Eve…it is for all mankind, which throws the idea of multiple civilisations, one in the garden and one outside the garden into grave doubt! It is impossible to suggest that God created Adam and Eve for himself and when they sinned save those outside who have not sinned as well
When did those who were outside the garden, at the time Adam and Eve were inside, sin? The Bible makes zero reference to any such event…so why do they also need saving all of a sudden?
It is impossible to then claim, Moses and his writings are fiction or fairytale…an allegory. The sanctuary service is provable (because the buildings used are 100% proven to have been real) and the sanctuary service takes us back to the beginning of time for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and then moves forward through all history right to the end of time.
your apparent white knight above is nothing more than a red herring.
Anyway, offtopic to this thread. I will leave it at that.
Even assuming I accepted your literal understanding of this passage, why should I accept your made up idea that they have no sin? Frankly I have very little interest in the topic of eschatology and certainly no interest in your beliefs about it. Frankly, it seems to me this is the stuff that the worst cults are obsessed with, and best ignored.
Why should I have such a difficulty? Alive or dead, we need the help of God in overcoming sin. Alive or dead, sin doesn’t magically disappear. I don’t share your beliefs about magic people flying into clouds. I frankly have no interest in magical Christianity at all. I am Christian because I found that all the fantasy magical stuff read into the text is all unnecessary.
You seem to have a beef with TE… Theistic Evolution? Why? Does everyone have to believe the same as you? Is there no room in your world for people who will not uphold the fantasy?
Again I will suggest we end this because we just don’t have the same interests. I was interested in the science. But I am not interested in your theology.
I’ll only bother to answer your first question to demonstrate that you do not know the Bible as well as you claim to. (I’m pretty sure you’ve seen it before but failed in multiple ways to grasp its significance.)
Answering the rest of your questions would be a waste of time unless you get off of your proud soapbox with your own agenda and listen instead of preaching untruths.
Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom [in the new heaven and new earth] prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Matthew 25:34
See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. Isaiah 65:17
“As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me…" Isaiah 66:22
But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells. 2 Peter 3:13
Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Revelation 21:1
Mutations are new information. They may be useful, harmful, or (usually) irrelevant. They are of great use in producing variety, which based on a look at creation seems to be one of God’s goals.
Potassium has a noticeable level of radioactivity, as does carbon. Both are parts of living things. Yet you have encountered plenty of living things without dying yet - radiation does not kill everything it touches. High energy radiation can do harm - after all, it has high energy, but can be useful as well. Photosynthesis works because of quantum mechanics, which also allows radioactivity.
Although young-earth, ID, and atheistic sources tend to want to see some dramatic sign, God’s general pattern is working gradually and, in a sense, in the background. There are exceptions, but the norm is rather quiet. The gradual process of revelation from Abraham to the New Testament, for example, is somewhat parallel to the gradual process of biological evolution.
The problem with radiation decomposing water in the cell is not a water shortage (which is only a potential problem for land life) - that’s one water molecule out of trillions. Rather, the problem is oxygen - zapping water may produce hydrogen peroxide or various forms of free oxygen that are very reactive and cause damage. But the fact that oxygen is very reactive also lets it power a high metabolism like ours.
In thinking about the original question posted, I’ve been wondering if it is commonly thought that the point of creation is entirely focused on the human species as its chief endpoint.
Also I wonder if this thread’s originator conceived of every alternative in creation as being entirely independent from every other consideration. If, as was pointed out already, radioactivity has been essential to maintaining the earth’s core temperature which itself is essential for keeping it habitably stable, does the original poster imagine every desirable attribute to be something that could be divinely ordained independent of any logical consequence of other desirable attributes?
I think the Bible does imply that we are an important milestone in this corner of the universe. But, it doesn’t mean we are an endpoint or that we have no further to go in God’s hopes and expectations. Nor does it mean we are the center of the entire universe (and I think the essential inaccessibility of most of it implies we are not).
There is big difference between what it appears one is saying and what they actually are saying. It appeared that the claim of two creations in the first instance was being used in a manner to describe two groups of humanity in Genesis chapter 1.
Thanks to “Providential Dale” who is showing that in fact the “New Heavens and the New Earth” in Revelation 21 does not support the theory of two groups of humanity in 4500 B.C (or the TE timeperiod) …
The text in Revelation is referring to the destruction of all sin and evil and a new home being created for those who, after having lived on this corrupted sinful earth, have been redeemed back to their maker. This event (creation of a new heavens and new earth) happens AFTER the second coming of Christ…so it cannot be used as a reference supporting dual creation in Gen chapter 1!
That is completely different from the claims of TEism (which claims dual humanity at the time of Adam and Eve…those inside the garden and those outside it).
I have never disagreed with two creations, only the claim that it is used as an attempt to reconcile there being two simultaneous humanities…one inside the garden and one outside!
I can’t speak for T, but I agree about our importance. What I think of as giving rise to God belief is something that actually relates to everything and every creature, each according to its nature and potential. I have to think that what we offer is of particular value although I think everything else is also of value and integral to the whole.
No one here has made the claim that we are the centre of the universe…that is not the theological position of YEC (which is a modern movement by your own movements claims BTW…after 1920’s officially 60’s).
The theological position of YEC is that we are the centre of the universe in terms of the Great Controversy (despite your objections, this is not an SDA fabrication…it simply refers to the battle between good and evil)
The earth is the focal point of that battle, both theologically and physically. Whether or not you care to accept it, that is the bible position…we are the location where this is being played out. One reason why is because the bible very specifically states
Romans 6:10 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all ;
Mitchel, i am really sorry for your position. You continue to make errant the claim “adams” theology.
It appears to me that one of the main reasons why you struggle in answering any of my questions that cast significant doubt on your beliefs is because, your beliefs are not considered from theological study, they are considered from outside of that. This often leads one to take the views of a select group and applied those without first ensuring that those views are supported by the very scriptures that ALL Christians use for their world view.
If we do not study the Bible carefully, then in all honesty, we easily fall into the trap of making stuff up…and most of it is not supported by scripture. My complaint here (if you wish to use that term), is not YEC vs TE…its simply a complaint that you do not ensure that your views are supported by scripture.
An example of this was your statement about magic and clouds. You are simply refusing to understand what the Bible says about the events that these two words apply to…the Second coming of Christ.
Whether or not you accept it, the bible very specifically states that “the dead in Christ will rise and together with those who are alive in Him, will meet Christ in the clouds…”.
It is unrelated to my apparent wayward theology whether or not you accept the above fundamental claim of the Second Coming of Christ, it is biblical…there is no way to get around this claim. You can pretend all you like… it’s Biblical and as a Christian, you are bound by it (Period). If you do not accept it, you are not Christian…Im sorry, Mitchel but it’s simple, you either accept it or reject it and to reject it is to reject Christ’s own claims of His second coming. If you reject that, then what Messiah are you a follower of?
A caveat…pulling verses out of context and apparently applying them to ridiculous doctrines is not scripture supporting your world view btw and here’s why….
When scholars (i am not one) develop theological positions, they start from the big picture and work inwards. In biblical terms this means, starting from The Great Controversy (War between God and Lucifer, the fall of mankind, and redemption of mankind back to God, then the destruction of sin and evil) and work inwards from that point.
Every other doctrine individuals/groups develop must remain true to the big picture. As soon as any text we read in scripture disagrees with that big picture, we need to go back and carefully look at the context in which the text is being used. Almost always, the context resolves the apparent conflict (by pulling individual texts out of their context and stringing together wrongly with other texts or outside claims, we can never resolve such problems).
I am not trying to be an authority on this Mitchel, and i apologize that you find this upsetting, however, I was a high school teacher so i suppose old habits die hard. My only interest is that you stop, go back to the basics, begin with the big picture of the Bible and stay true to that doctrine. It becomes very easy from this point to navigate your way through the scientific issues where the bible and scientific interpretation seemingly disagree.
Anyway, I will move on from this as it gets to the point where the rational for that position becomes exceedingly questionable and things then descend into “cat fighting”. My aim is not to incite a cat fight, its to hopefully get you to study the bible…
I genuinely urge you forget YEC vs TE… just go and deeply study the Sanctuary. It is explained extensively in Exodus and Leviticus and from a perspective of the Gospel by Paul in the New testament. The entire book of Hebrews is dedicated to the Sanctuary and its relevance to the New Testament Christian and in particular Gentiles, who are spiritual Israel according to the Apostle Paul
Despite our differences, I believe that the Sanctuary is the most important area of study in the entire bible.
If you truly obtain a deep understanding of the Earthly Sanctuary the rest will sort itself out (whether YEC or TE).
God created radioactivity so that Paleontologists could date the layers in the rock in the Grand Canyon. The Geologists and Paleontologists had worked out the evolution of the various species as seen in the layers of rock in the Grand Canyon and elsewhere…but they could not be dated. THEN, along come Marie Curie and Ernest Rutherford and suddenly, using radioactive parent-daughter relationships, it was possible to date the material in the various layers. And determine the 4.7 billion year age of the solar system. One of the remarkable features of radioactive dating has been that nearly all meteoritic materials date to 4.7 billion years. QED.