It would take a cleverer man than me to distinguish them… It would require an accuracy of Biblical theology that I do not believe exists.
Richard
wouldn’t it be proportionate and. relevant to clarify your contradictory statement instead of getting prickly?
I agree with you on so many posts on these forums and yet you decide to go down this pathway in your response to criticism of a poorly written statement of contradiction!
Again i will highlight the problem…
you said
If you bury your head in the Bible you will not see the creation God made, and Paul, in Romans seems to think that God can be seen in creation.
then you say, after citing the apostle Paul and his theology
So any theology based soley on the Bible will miss this vital element.
that is contradictory because unless you first bury your head in the bible, you cannot possibly even know what the Apostle Pauls theology on sin is! I am sorry to make a rather obvious criticism there, but it is important enough to raise an objection.
Also, given the bible specifically tells us that all creation has been corrupted and ruined if you like by sin. i very much doubt that supports any notion that the restoration of all creation illustrated in the latter stages of the bible (after the second coming of Christ) fits in with Theistic Evolutionary belief!
If I am not mistaken, Evolution does not see a steady decline as such but rather a cyclical model of rebirth if you like. Climate change will eventually result in the extinction of life on earth and potentially the whole thing being destroyed by a supernova when our sun runs its course…then life will begin again with the accepted scientific model you and most others here appear to follow. I do not think that is in alignment with the biblical model.
What i seriously question is how it is that individuals here who believe that God is bound by the science reconcile that He is prophesied in the New Testament as intending to perform the miracles illustrated in the Gospel and finally in Revelation 21? The biblical model says that God atoned for the sin of his own creation, will actively save those who believe, and destroy those who do not believe making the earth new again.
These rea typical problems when one doesn’t recognise the contradictions that arise in beliefs that are developed without first ensuring cross-referencing in scripture. We allow emotional and convenient responses to creep into our worldview that is deficient and even wrong.
I would argue that few, if any of my theology or doctrines are convenient. I would suggest quite strongly that is because by nature, fallen/sinful humanity tends to find convenience in the world rather than God!
that is a good point Meikhie and it has a simple answer.
REad the Old Testament Sanctuary service model and also, go back through the sacrifices offered in the bible before and after Moses time (up to the Cross). Note that the biblical model shows physical death of a lamb or goat in order to make atonement for sin.
There is nothing metaphorical about physical death in creation as a consequence of the sins of Adam and Eve and mankind since the fall. Regularly throughout the Old Testament (and even the new actually) physical death has been a consequence of transgression…the bible is absolutely full of examples of individuals who have paid the price of disobedience with their own lives (king Saul is one point and example, Ananias and Saphira another).
Now to address more specifically you statement about Christs physical death on the cross…
Do you not notice that after Christs sacrifice, the bible no longer requires a physical atonement after the confession of sin? There is a reason for this and it has nothing to do with defining that sin doesnt require physical death. It is directly a result of grace and belief in the sufficiency of Christs death paying the wages of sin for us. Note that the book of Hebrews specifically says…
Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may find grace to help us in time of need.
We can only walk in bodily before the throne of God and be receive that grace because Isaiah 61 tells us:
Isaiah 61:10 For he has clothed me with garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness
the interesting thing about the difference between the Old Testament sacrificial system and the new testament gospel is that:
- in the Old Testament, sinners were “CREDITED” with righteousness after confessing their sins and performing the sacrificial ritual
- In the New Testament, the debt has already been paid in full (the saved are not living on credit so to speak).
There is a huge difference between the above and its very significant. It also falsifies the notion that the Old Covenant and the New covenant are different things in that we are no longer required to keep the law…we are always expected to adhear to the law, just never that we may be saved by doing that. No human has ever kept the law such that they are not condemned to death by breaking it…except Christ! And that is why His sacrifice is sufficient for paying the wages of sin for all humanity!
We should not forget, the bible tells us that even Abraham was saved by faith not works…no one has ever been saved by the blood of sheep and goats!
hopefully that addresses your comment (which is a good one btw and I am glad you brought it up as its very inciteful and important)
DAvid, the bible is written by different authors of different cultural influence across hundreds of miles of distance and thousands of years and yet these writers remain harmonious in their common statements related to ancient history of the flood and creation as well as the doctrines taken from that history. They speak of specific individuals, ages, times, dates, places, family trees…its impossible to claim that Noah for example is metaphorical when one of his own children is included in the family tree structure of Christ. If you are going to make the claim that Christs ancestors didn’t really exist??? (the fact you apparently understand ancient things in your line of work and yet remain oblivious to family history is rather surprising to me)
This statement of yours is ignoring a rather glaring reality and the difference between you and i on this is that I have eyewitnesses to the vast majority of the lineage of Christ for example and you have not a single eyewitness record to any notion that the past may be defined by what we observe today. No one has ever recorded seeing dinosaurs 65 million years ago! Now i know you scoff at that, but honestly, i don’t think you really appreciate the insult in intelligence when you deny human recorded history. I would be happy to tell your offspring in a few thousand years time that you didn’t really exist and that none of your life’s achievements were real…they were just a metaphorical fairytale! Funny thing is, you are quite happy to write that about Moses and a number of other biblical men and women.
I can imagine you making the ridiculous claim that anything you have done in your life will always leave an evidence trail. However, given we live in an age now where it is proven ones entire life can be stolen at the stroke of a computer keyboard, clearly that notion is a delusion!
How does the phrase by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow go…
“the only lasting footprints we leave on the sands of time are our children.”
The ID movement is a self-proclaimed big tent and has all sorts of things in it. Some young-earthers tried using it as a substitute name for creation science to slip creation science into schools; this was disapproved by the court. Much of the popular following of ID comes from the young-earth public, but the ID movement is distinct and the majority of those actually in the ID movement itself are old-earth, though some young-earthers unhappy with the bad quality of standard YEC claims have found a home in ID. The popular ID promoted by the Discovery Institute, Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, etc. is attacking evolution but not focused on the age of the earth. Behe accepts most evolution from the first cell on up but claims that making the cell needed extra help. Denton sees evolution as an example of Intelligent Design (versus his older book) but asserts that much more attention needs to be placed on factors other than mutation and natural selection. Jonathan Wells claimed that Christianity was about attacking evolution, not about Christ, so it was OK for him to claim to be a Christian while affirming that Rev. Moon was the messiah. The Raelians claim that they learned from space aliens about how living things on earth were made with advanced cloning technology, and endorse “free love” to the extent that one of their parades generated complaints in Paris for indecency.
Irreducible complexity, specified complexity, and the anthropic principle are three favorite topics of the ID movement’s arguments. Irreducible complexity and specified complexity are commonly used as arguments to claim that evolution can’t account for a particular feature. But “irreducible complexity” is reducible, and specifying complexity after the fact is painting the target around the arrow after you hit the side of the barn. The basic problems are that there are step by step way to get all sorts of places with living things and that there are myriad possible options to have life.
Consider the question “What is the probability of inventing the automobile?” Well, it’s 100%. It has been invented. How about “Given a planet with similar resources to Earth and a population of intelligent life similar to early humans, what would be the probability of inventing the automobile?” If you are expecting a caveman to find a lump of iron ore and think “I could make a '58 DeSoto!”, the odds seem quite low. But if you think about the probability of developing some sort of self-propelled wheeled vehicles eventually, then the chances seem pretty high.
Proteins have biological activity. If one is slightly useful for something, that’s an advantage over no ability.
Evolution has growth and development and decay. But as long as reproduction happens with less than 100% perfection in DNA copying, evolution happens. There is no Lamarckian “progress” to a goal within biology, just increasing variations in DNA creating more variations in organisms. As long as it works, the organism survives.
3 Likes
Nor did the Egyptians 5,000 years ago.
2 Likes
I do not think it was contradictory, and I said so.
The point here is that I did not quote the specific verses of Romans 1, I assumed that you would know them. Kindly give me the same curtesy. if I need clarification I will ask for it.
I do not need schooling in basic theology, thank you.
(However, I still think that you should get out more)
Richard
Richard you may agree with the idea that I have, Two types of Sin (miss the mark of perfection)
- Ontological sin- Must be because Only God himself is perfect, not caused by people’s actions. God set the world up to show His perfection. Genesis 1 vs 1,2 world not perfect (chaos, dark , void)
- Moral sin - peoples’ bad actions can make world more like Gen 1 1,2 (chaos dark, void) or more like Gen 1:3 (order, Light, full)
Why does Theology have to be so complicated?
Because people ask complicated questions.
And people asking questions is the only reason for theology to exist.
Some people claim Christianity is incompatible with science. Others having started with science and becoming Christian, like me, know this is not so. It is only natural that we would object to such claims.
rhyme? no.
reason? Only if we want it to have anything to do with the rest of our life. That is purpose of reason – connecting our beliefs to other things like all the experiences of our lives.
Without consistency we have cognitive dissonance – this feeling that something is wrong and needs to be discarded because it doesn’t fit.
Only if we want a reasonable expectation that they should agree with us. But while science provides this, religion does not.
That would be in conflict with the rest of the Bible. What happens to others should be important to us if we love God. BUT when it comes to salvation that is in the hands of God and not our own.
Since science provides a reasonable expectation that others should agree, believing something which contradicts this would be unreasonable.
The Biblical canon is part of the definition of Christianity.
Indeed. And God Himself is the only one who can measure that with any accuracy. People are quite prone to self-deception and delusion.
1 Like
Eh???
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools, due to violation of the First Amendment.
The problem is not intelligent design, the problem is, atheists dont want to be indoctrinated with God. This case set that precedent 60 years ago.
Below is a more recent one…
Suit filed against Louisiana law requiring Ten Commandments in classrooms | ACLU of Louisiana
I think its about time this community focused on avoiding white lies…im getting a bit sick of it. These clurt cases are an example of a fundamental shift in society AWAY from God. Straw plucking YEC or I/D detracts from the real dilemma there.
David what is silly about your statement there…I/D proponents are not even remotely YEC…they are fundamentally entrenched in the TEist camp…not YEC. You should know this academically.
1 Like
Thank you Adam for your gracious reply. I agree with you that physical death has been seen as a consequence of sin by christians throughout the ages. However, I do want to view it from different angle, not a new angle, but perhaps a forgotten angle.
My argument is simple.
Jesus died for our sin on the cross.
Physical death is the consequence of sin.
We believe in Jesus and has been cleansed by His blood.
Therefore : … we died physically also. But why??
If our sin has been cleansed by Jesus, then why the consequence of sin is still there?
You have raised many good points and I want to respond to this one.
In the OT, the Jews were credited with righteousness not after confessing their sins and performing the sacrificial ritual, but by being a part of the chosen nation Israel, as a descendant of Abraham. Their righteousness was from the reckoning from Abraham as righteous before God. Their faith is the faith of Abraham. Therefore, the confession and sacrificial ritual was only to declare them clean or unclean before God whether fit to be in the fellowship or not. In that same token, in the OT, the debt had also already been paid in full by forthcoming Christ.
2 Likes
That will be news to all the old earth creationists.
No, not in that sense, in the sense that creation and ID were identically defined.
I included several reasons why ID is creationism, and you’ve both ignored all of them. Unless you actually address them, you’re going nowhere.
That’s not a problem.
The problem is that theists keep trying to indoctrinate people via laws, when they should be encouraging people by example and persuading people with evidence.
3 Likes
I did not endorse the court decisions. Edwards vs. Aguillard was the decision banning creation science from public schools on the grounds that it was religious teaching, not science. I do not believe that the court’s standards for excluding religious teaching are correct, nor consistently applied. The Dover decision against teaching ID in public schools reflected a school district and textbook that were substituting the words “Intelligent Design” for “Creation Science” as a way to evade the Edwards decision.
However, most ID advocates tried to distance themselves from the Dover school board.
Most popular ID is anti-evolution; claiming it is TE is ridiculous. But the movement doesn’t exclude TE or YEC. Most of its followers are YEC who don’t know the difference.
4 Likes
Right. There is a big difference between the big tent of intelligent design which covers pretty much all faiths and even some of no faith who believe we were designed by space aliens, and the smaller tent but still pretty large of Intelligent Design ala Discovery Institute which whose goals were defined by the Wedge Document and has ties to right wing Christian Nationalism.
2 Likes
I don’t know of anyone here who thinks God is bound by science. Do you think God is bound by science when you conclude, based on evidence, that the Earth moves about the Sun?
What people here are saying is that the correct interpretation of the Bible would be consistent with the observable facts of the universe. In other words, when the Bible talks about Creation our interpretations should be consistent with the Creation itself. This is why Christians moved from Geocentrism to Heliocentrism, because of observable facts.
2 Likes
I would argue that the vast majority of Americans, theists and atheists alike, don’t want the government involved in religious indoctrination, nor do they want their tax dollars to be spent on advancing a religion they don’t agree with.
More recently, there have been a few bills in various states that would open up public schooling or public school funding to religious teaching. Most of these attempts ran into a rather “difficult situation” when Satanists stepped forward to support the bill, adding that they would be taking advantage of the bills to teach Satanism in public schools. Since the government is not allowed to discriminate against religions, these laws, if passed, would allow for the teaching of Satanism in public schools or funded by public money. This has put a halt to many of these bills.
I also think that in a country where the government is supposed to keep its hands off of your religious beliefs that we not force children to recite commandments that tell them they should have no other God before the God of the Bible. Our constitution actually directly contradicts many of those commandments. You are free to worship any god you want, or not gods. You are free to blasphemy any god you want. You aren’t forced to obey the Sabbath. You are free to worship any idol or graven image you want.
1 Like
Ah now thats a great question. I will only deal specifically with this part of your comment as it immediately explains why the second part of your comment about credited righteousness is wrong.
Firstly,
Salvation is a free gift only to those who confess their sins and seek the offer of righteousness. It is not automatic. The apostle told us, “i die daily”. That means confession is a daily activity…its not a single isolated event. What you are alluding to is calvinism and believing that the saved are predetermined by God…“born into it” so to speak…which i dissagree with. Christ proved during his ministry that the Jewish notion of “we are saved because we are descendants of Abraham” was false…they had this completely wrong. They were given a talent and wasted it (see parable of the talents). The responsibility to spread the gospel was then given to the Gentiles…just like the 1 talent was given to the servant who had turned 5 into 10.
Secondly,
Because the wages of sin is death is an eternal consequence, it does not simply stop at the cross.
Remember that Ananias and Saphira were struck down and died years AFTER the cross.
If you study the Old Testament Sanctuary, what you will note is that the sevice doesnt stop immediately after the day of atonement sacrifice. It continues until the laying on of hands by the priest onto the scapegoat’s head who is then cast out into the wilderness.
That symbolizes the final judgement where satan recieves the blame and is then cast into the lake of fire. We know biblically that event is still in the future.
This is why it is so important to study Old Testament doctrine.
The Sanctuary is specifically to explain the timeline and procedure for the plan of salvation up to the final judgement described in the book of Revelation.
So many Christians think the Old Testament sanctuary is finished because of the cross. They dont recognise its true purpose. People think the ritual did something and the cross did away with that ritual. The cross did away with the need to sacrifice, but it never changed the underlying explanation/meaning and purpose.
Linking the Old Testament Sanctuary with the old covenant in a manner that it is then deemed to be done away with at the cross is false doctrine…the sanctuary has always been and remains a critical tool in explaining the process of salvation, from confession to forgivenes, and the final judgement. It is one of the most important theological concepts in all of the bible…everyone should know it intimately.
Because the Bible is a complicated book.
5 Likes
What you have just written is a contradiction.
Also, you say athiesm isnt the problem and theism IS the problem… because apparently theism is legalistic.
This is a Christian forum, complaining about theism because it speaks of God is absurd here as that it not the difference between TEism, I/D and YEC. It has nothing to do with it…you appear to be stating that evolution is non christian. I agree with that but almost no one else here would…they would be horrified at such a notion.
1 Like