Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
A mathematician confided
That a Möbius band is one-sided,
And you'll get quite a laugh,
If you cut one in half,
For it stays in one piece when divided!
You know its quite fascinating how everyone agrees as to what the Bible says, but less and less people agree to what it means. It then becomes a convienient way out for people to avoid submitting to the Word of God, as it was written and as it was meant to be submitted to. In other words each person can become the judge of what Scripture means. So when it says something, then each person could easily come up with their own private interpretation of each biblical passage, which therefore leads to the same for each command and promise of the Bible. The net effect of that is a neat situation where everyone becomes their own God with their own private interpretations of right and wrong. The power of choice allows people to have Scripture conform to their lifestyles as opposed to their lifestyles conforming to Scripture. Not that this would be limited to lifestyle choices only.
Like I said and you fail to acknowledge, I have no problem with general revelation as long as it doesn't amend and/or correct Scripture. In the example you provided, it clearly doesn't.
it corrects Scriptural interpretation all the time:
racially based slavery in the American South.
or do you agree with R.Dabney?
geocentricism.
or do you agree with Luther?
flat earth.
or do you think the earth is a sphere?
interracial marriage/dating
or do you support Bob Jones university's stand?
subjection of women.
or do you think women are property to be sold or exchanged?
war captives as slaves
or do you support Roman slavery?
burning witches
or do you wish to burn witches at the stake?
pograms against the Jews
or do you support the destruction of the Jews as Christkillers?
serfs/slaves tied to landed estates
or do you support the Russian Orthodox church in it's stand in the 1880's?
divine right of kings
or do you agree with the French and English justification of the divine right of kings?
just a few...
all major culturally-based issues where the conservatives, those who fought not to change were based in the church and justified their beliefs in Scriptural terms. And where now the dominant Scriptural interpretation has flipped 180 degrees. And the change was almost fully from the outside forces which made the interpretation change, often at the point of a gun.
__________________ i got a warning for flaming.
i find myself unable to participate here as a result.
this being the first of it's kind since i signed into FidoNet 20 years ago.
and am no longer posting to CF.
thanks to everyone who i have encountered over the years i spent here.
Last edited by rmwilliamsll; 16th July 2006 at 05:53 AM.
TE: Does all the evidence point towards Evolution as a "fact?"
One doesn't need evidence to "point towards" evolution as a fact. Evolution is an observed fact.
The evidence also points toward the correctness of the Theory of Evolution which explains the fact of evolution through the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection leading to diversity. And yes, this is true of all the evidence I know of.
But no theory is a fact. It is a proposed explanation of observed facts.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
You sure are taking a lot of liberty here. Where did God ever instruct us that general revelation was to amend and/or correct our interpretations of Scripture. I could go with supplement like in helping us understand, but not amending or correcting, that's taking far too much liberty. God's word is not in need of an amendment and/or correction.
Do you see the problem here, Vossler. Once again, you have identified a particular intepretation of scripture as God's word.
So you slide from questioning whether general revelation can amend/correct an interpretation, to denying that God's word needs to be amended/corrected.
But rmwilliamsll did not suggest that God's word might need amending/correcting. Only that our interpretations may need amending/correcting.
It is not a long step to go from this equivocation to implying that rmwilliamsll is opposing God's word rather than questioning an interpretation of scripture. I grant you haven't taken that step. And I commend you for that. But be wary and try not to give occasion to others to step over that line.
One key thing, no where does this 'general revelation' supercede Scripture, it just supplements it.
Again, you imply someone has said that it supercedes scripture. No one has said this. The understanding of the two revelations is that they are both from God, both equally true, neither taking precedence over or superceding the other.
And that they both help interpret the other. Not change the other. For the other is also divine revelation and one does not change divine revelation. But interpret--help us understand what each revelation is saying.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
You know its quite fascinating how everyone agrees as to what the Bible says, but less and less people agree to what it means. It then becomes a convienient way out for people to avoid submitting to the Word of God, as it was written and as it was meant to be submitted to. In other words each person can become the judge of what Scripture means. So when it says something, then each person could easily come up with their own private interpretation of each biblical passage, which therefore leads to the same for each command and promise of the Bible. The net effect of that is a neat situation where everyone becomes their own God with their own private interpretations of right and wrong.
Do you really think this does not describe what you yourself are doing? You are establishing your beliefs and your lifestyle on what you personally think the bible means. You are judging what scripture means, just as much as those you disagree with. You are deciding what is right and wrong based on your private interpretation of the bible.
If you are not, then on what basis do you claim your interpretation of scripture is not personal and private?
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
That’s o.k., I’m just not as learned as you are so you’ll have to keep things simple for me.
No, I'm not very learned. I'm still working on the bare framework of what I think.
Originally Posted by vossler
I only believe in the Nicene Creed because it is based solely upon the Scriptures, therefore it isn’t an authority outside of Scripture.
The doctrine of the Trinity is based solely on the Bible and doesn’t require anything outside of it. I suppose you could make the argument that it requires reason, but that isn’t authority.
It's true that Trinitarianism can be supported with the Scriptural texts. But so can Arianism. The question is not what you think or were raised to think, but which is sound doctrine? It won't be decided by the Bible because, as the controversy showed (and there was a lot more to it), both sides argued from Scripture.
Originally Posted by vossler
I don’t fully understand where this is going, but I can accept everything you said here, at least as far as I understand it.
Still, how does this relate to an authority outside of Scripture and how is faith related? Is reason the authority you’re referring to?
Faith, I think, is not at all how it is treated in pop Christian culture. It is much more like a trust than an abstract belief. In this sense, we cannot assume that we have understood what is being said. Merely, whatever it is that is meant is true. Thus, we strive to understand what is meant. Growing in faith does not mean resolutely accepting what is understood (or, potentially misunderstood), but working towards better understanding of the One who is heard and the message that has been given.
The realization (in the case of homoousis) was that if the Word is not one being with the Father, then true knowledge of Christ is not equivalent to true knowledge of God. It may be argued that it is possible to know of the Father by a created Word, but we would not know the Father. The Trinitarians argued that this is how we ought to think of John 14:7, for example. But you can see that this is dealing with interpretations. As such, you can see that reason plays an integral role in deciding between sound and unsound doctrine.
__________________
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
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Yes, but whatever that truth may be, it never supercedes the ultimate source of truth, Scripture.
Originally Posted by theFijian
What exactly does this mean?
As you pointed out in Romans 1:20, "in the things that have been made. This means that in the first century God's creation could be seen and no sophisticated scientific theories were required or even mentioned to behold His Creation.
Originally Posted by theFijian
The verse is talking about God's invisible attributes, not Creation's.
Yes, but those attributes were manifested in His Creation.
Originally Posted by theFijian
Explanation for what? The How of Creation? Well the Bible doesn't tell us how. Or perhaps you mean an explanation for Who and Why. Again (and I don't know how often this needs to be repeated) evolution is a scientific theory, it is not an excuse for Atheism. Those who think it is, simply don't understand how science should interact with faith.
You may not see it as an excuse for atheism, especially since you're not one, yet still many atheists do.
How should science interact with faith?
Originally Posted by theFijian
I'm afraid you don't seem to understand how God is revealed in scripture and in nature. Both are the work of God, both are authoritative. Your theology is not on the same authortitative footing as scripture, it may be wrong. Just as science may be wrong about what it purports to reveal about creation.
God's revelation in nature is authoritative, interestingly I never read that in the Bible before. When did it become an authority? Is this one of those examples of creating our own authority?
Originally Posted by theFijian
God gave us inquiring minds, he commanded Adam to fill the earth and subdue it. How can you subdue something you do not understand?
Well for thousands of years we were able to subdue things without evolution, seems to me if it worked before it should work today.
Originally Posted by theFijian
The Creation Mandate is our licence to speculate.
The Creation Mandate? Is that one of the Gnostic Gospels Dan Brown was talking about?
__________________ 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."
Good and reliable hermaneutics use the Bible almost exclusively.
__________________ 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."
it corrects Scriptural interpretation all the time:
Of course there's plenty of Scriptural interpretation that is false because of the extra biblical sources being used.
None of the examples you provided are biblical. Slavery, geocentricism, flat earth, interracial marriage, etc., they all examples of man introducing his own corrupt ideas and trying to fit them into a biblical framework, not unlike evolution.
Originally Posted by rmwilliamsll
all major culturally issues where the conservatives, those who fought not to change were based in the church and justified their beliefs in Scriptural terms. And where now the dominant Scriptural interpretation has flipped 180 degrees. And the change was almost fully from the outside forces which made the interpretation change, often at the point of a gun.
I definitely see this point, but you have to remember that this was before the Bible was read in homes and the 'church' could no longer force its views upon the body.
__________________ 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."
Linear Mode
