| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
14th July 2006, 08:50 PM
|  | The Rapture can take a hike
35     
 | | Join Date: 30th October 2003 Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,669
Blessings: 133,470 My Mood 
Reps: 5,038,481,752,567,930 (power: 5,038,481,752,583) | | Originally Posted by vossler We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word.
The traditional protestant position has been that the Bible as we have it is a fallible collection of infallible works, it is is not the exhaustative truth. This is connected with RMWilliams point that scripture does not contain a list of what the canon should be. The canon was put together by fallible men, but the works they collated are in themselves infallible. There isn't a scriptural case to be made that truth exists anywhere outside of Scripture itself. Romans 1:20: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
So creation itself speaks of the truth of the existance of God and his invisible attributes. Scripture is not God's only revelation about himself, Creation itself also forms part of the way God has reveled himself. I'm afraid that until certain quarters of Christianity realise this duality of revelation they will always be suspicious of science.
__________________ simul justus et peccator |
14th July 2006, 11:51 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
51  
| | Join Date: 20th July 2004 Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,754
Blessings: 67,062
Reps: 17,483,847 (power: 17,493) | | Originally Posted by Willtor But I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is no authority but Scripture.
I understand that is what you believe, but what is that belief based on? Originally Posted by Willtor But God has given us many tools with which to search the world around us.
What tools has He specifically given us? Please back up the authority for each. Originally Posted by Willtor ...but the point is that not all views that are drawn from the texts, even if one believes he is unaffected by other notions, are necessarily Scriptural.
Where else should one draw our views from? On basis can you make that claim?
__________________
David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise." |
15th July 2006, 12:17 AM
| | Senior Veteran
51
| | Join Date: 20th July 2004 Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,754
Blessings: 67,062
Reps: 17,483,847 (power: 17,493) | | Originally Posted by theFijian The traditional protestant position has been that the Bible as we have it is a fallible collection of infallible works, it is is not the exhaustative truth.
I would agree that it isn't an exhaustive truth. Originally Posted by theFijian Romans 1:20: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
So creation itself speaks of the truth of the existance of God and his invisible attributes. Scripture is not God's only revelation about himself, Creation itself also forms part of the way God has reveled himself. I'm afraid that until certain quarters of Christianity realise this duality of revelation they will always be suspicious of science.
This Scripture is best understood when we can see it in its proper context.
Romans 1:18-25 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen
Paul is talking about God's wrath for those who suppress the truth because the truth is known within them. What truth is he speaking about but God's power and divinity. The remaining verses go on to tell of how that power and divinity is seen whereever one looks. Notice that this could be done without any evidence outside of man's direct and undoctored understanding. The very existence of His creation and its invisible attributes was sufficient. No explanation was required. Yet today, with evolution, an explanation is required.
It's interesting that verse 21 states that they knew God but did not honor Him as God and became futile in their speculations...professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of God for an image. (paraphrased)
So creation was a testimony of the glory of God, His power, divinity and His invisible attributes, it was not a license to speculation.
__________________
David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise." |
15th July 2006, 12:36 AM
|  | Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
30   
| | Join Date: 23rd April 2005 Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 7,683
Blessings: 527,448 My Mood 
Reps: 63,932,760,995,062,528 (power: 63,932,760,995,076) | | Originally Posted by vossler I understand that is what you believe, but what is that belief based on?
What tools has He specifically given us? Please back up the authority for each.
Where else should one draw our views from? On basis can you make that claim?
Well as for authorities besides Scripture, even Scripture commands us to heed a variety of sources for various things. But even if it weren't so, as RMWilliamsII pointed out, the Bible doesn't even contain a table of contents. Thus, we have evidence of reasoning behind the canon. Even the word, "canon," does not imply a source, but a measure. Besides that, what of the teachings in the New Testament? Did they not take effect until the individual books were written? Hardly. Acts even talks about various ecumenical councils in which teachings were being evaluated (eating of "unclean" foods, eating with Gentiles, etc.). Did those authorities disappear as soon as the NT was written? Again, hardly. We have late first century and early second century fathers, some of them installed by the Apostles, who taught otherwise. Ignatius, in every single Epistle, emphasizes submission to the doctrine of the bishop. If Scripture has authority that comes from God, then it is necessary to think that there are other authorities as well.
Besides that, there is the obvious example I used of Arius and Athanasius. If Scripture is all we have, then it may very well be impossible to decide between them. What else is there?
As for the particulars, there are a great many. Indeed, if we are to believe the Bible, it is pretty clear that the Apostles and their teachings (whether codified in Scripture or not) had authority. We are told that our reason has authority in what we think about things ("'Come now let us reason together' says the Lord..." Isaiah 1:18). We are given a great many authorities, in fact, even just through Scriptures. Not many of them are infallible, but they are still authorities.
On what basis can I say that two people can use the same text and come to different conclusions? How about the sheer number of heresies that have emerged within the orthodoxy within the last 2000 years (many of which were drawn straight from the Scriptural texts)?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
|
15th July 2006, 01:18 AM
| | Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
30
| | Join Date: 23rd April 2005 Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 7,683
Blessings: 527,448 My Mood
Reps: 63,932,760,995,062,528 (power: 63,932,760,995,076) | | | Actually, I'd like to add to this the usual "dominion over the Earth" spiel and the tools that come with it.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
|
15th July 2006, 01:33 AM
| | Senior Veteran
51
| | Join Date: 20th July 2004 Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,754
Blessings: 67,062
Reps: 17,483,847 (power: 17,493) | | Originally Posted by Willtor Well as for authorities besides Scripture, even Scripture commands us to heed a variety of sources for various things.
Please show me. Originally Posted by Willtor If Scripture has authority that comes from God, then it is necessary to think that there are other authorities as well.
Why is that necessary? What other authorities are you referring to? Originally Posted by Willtor Besides that, there is the obvious example I used of Arius and Athanasius.
Obvious in what way? Originally Posted by Willtor If Scripture is all we have, then it may very well be impossible to decide between them. What else is there?
What are we having to decide between?  Originally Posted by Willtor We are told that our reason has authority in what we think about things ("'Come now let us reason together' says the Lord..." Isaiah 1:18).
Just so we're clear here, our reason has no authority whatsoever, it is only when combined with God's perfect reason that any authority exists, hence the operative word 'together.' The idea behind this verse is that God is reasonable and His demands are reasonable, that He listens. Yet in the end He dictates and requires our obedience. Except for the invitation, which btw is an invitation for us to respond to His decrees, the following text is all about Him and His will.
Luke 5:21 gives a great example of reasoning without God where the Pharisees called Jesus a blasphemer. The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Originally Posted by Willtor We are given a great many authorities, in fact, even just through Scriptures. Not many of them are infallible, but they are still authorities.
Of course God gives us many authorities throughout Scripture. You said God has given us many tools with which to search the world around us; I just wanted to know what tools those were and where God gave them to us. Originally Posted by Willtor On what basis can I say that two people can use the same text and come to different conclusions? How about the sheer number of heresies that have emerged within the orthodoxy within the last 2000 years (many of which were drawn straight from the Scriptural texts)?
My question was; Where else should one draw our views from? In other words what source? And on basis can you make that claim? Originally Posted by Willtor Actually, I'd like to add to this the usual "dominion over the Earth" spiel and the tools that come with it.
If you don't mind I'd like you to be specific about what those tools are and how they relate to having dominion.
__________________
David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise." |
15th July 2006, 02:20 AM
| | Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
30
| | Join Date: 23rd April 2005 Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 7,683
Blessings: 527,448 My Mood
Reps: 63,932,760,995,062,528 (power: 63,932,760,995,076) | | | Vossler, you're going to have to approach my posts as cogent arguments. It won't help to dissect them and ask a question that is answered later on in the same post. Go with me half way, here. I'm not going to argue with you if you're going to be unreasonable.
---
Let me work from the Arian heresy. Arius believed that the Son was lesser than the Father; even that he was a created being and that he was not God until the Father made him so (Psalm 2:7, Acts 13:33). From 1 Cor. 8:5-6, he drew the doctrine that the Father and the Son were distinct beings. The Son was a ray of light from the Father, but dim in comparison. According to this doctrine, Jesus could legitimately be called God (as professed by a number of Scriptural authors), but that he was distinct in being from the Father. In some sense, he was fighting modalism which was rearing its head, here and there in the Church. For a while, Arius's doctrines (Scripturally-gleaned) were dominant. Missionaries were sent to Germania and for a while after that, many German Churches were Arian rather than Trinitarian.
But Arius based his doctrines strictly on the Scriptural texts. Much as I don't like to associate him with the Bible, he was a Biblically-minded man (even though the Bible had not yet been made into a codex, per se).
In the interests of making a constructive case, then, would you agree that the Bible is not the only authority, even in matters of faith?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
|
15th July 2006, 02:42 AM
| | Lie Detector
49  
| | Join Date: 13th June 2006 Location: South Dakota
Posts: 1,287
Blessings: 90,996
Reps: 4,026 (power: 11) | | Originally Posted by vossler I understand the intent of this thread and I admire the effort. However, I don't believe facts or evidence weigh as heavily to a YEC as they do to a TE, that is unless it's biblical in nature. YECs have always given far more credence to the Bible than to science. I have but one primary source of 'evidence' and from that one primary source all the evidence points to a young earth. For me, all other 'evidence' must be held up to the ultimate source of truth, if it can't be held accountable to that then it is dismissed.
Which raises the question of what you mean whan you talk about scientific evidence. If you don't believe in it to begin with, then calling on it would be hypocritical, right?
__________________
Geology: fossils in different ages
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
15th July 2006, 02:48 AM
| | Lie Detector
49
| | Join Date: 13th June 2006 Location: South Dakota
Posts: 1,287
Blessings: 90,996
Reps: 4,026 (power: 11) | | Originally Posted by Poke If Evolution were true, it would just be demonstrated and that would be the end of the debate..
And indeed it is, in most research studies in biology, and have been demonstrated so for more than a century. But the YEC seems very little affected by actual evidnece. Witness Vossler's post about how if there is any perceived conflict, he will ignore evidence for scripture.
So your argument about evidence being sufficient is clearly NOT true.
__________________
Geology: fossils in different ages
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
15th July 2006, 10:10 AM
| | Senior Veteran
51
| | Join Date: 20th July 2004 Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,754
Blessings: 67,062
Reps: 17,483,847 (power: 17,493) | | Originally Posted by Willtor Vossler, you're going to have to approach my posts as cogent arguments. It won't help to dissect them and ask a question that is answered later on in the same post. Go with me half way, here. I'm not going to argue with you if you're going to be unreasonable.
Forgive me Willtor, I'm certainly not trying to be unreasonable but you made three statements or claims that I asked you to support. You didn't answer any of those questions, at least as far as I could tell. Instead you gave me more stuff to understand and disect. I really don't know how else I'm to approach this.
Help me out here. 
--- Originally Posted by Willtor Let me work from the Arian heresy. Arius believed that the Son was lesser than the Father; even that he was a created being and that he was not God until the Father made him so (Psalm 2:7, Acts 13:33). From 1 Cor. 8:5-6, he drew the doctrine that the Father and the Son were distinct beings. The Son was a ray of light from the Father, but dim in comparison. According to this doctrine, Jesus could legitimately be called God (as professed by a number of Scriptural authors), but that he was distinct in being from the Father. In some sense, he was fighting modalism which was rearing its head, here and there in the Church. For a while, Arius's doctrines (Scripturally-gleaned) were dominant. Missionaries were sent to Germania and for a while after that, many German Churches were Arian rather than Trinitarian.
But Arius based his doctrines strictly on the Scriptural texts. Much as I don't like to associate him with the Bible, he was a Biblically-minded man (even though the Bible had not yet been made into a codex, per se).
I've never heard that story before...quite interesting, but how is that applicable? Originally Posted by Willtor In the interests of making a constructive case, then, would you agree that the Bible is not the only authority, even in matters of faith?
No I would not, especially in matters of faith. Excuse my simplemindedness, but I just don't see where you're going with this.
__________________
David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise." | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
