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.
Let me ask you this, is it an argument that merits ridicule or mocking from others in this thread?
Let me ask you this, why is it ok for so-called evangelical teachers to misrepresent scientific theories in such a fashion?
__________________
Give me Scotland or I die - John Knox
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!
Well, I can hardly imagine that God will literally appear as a sort of monster riding down from the clouds with a sword sticking out if its mouth.
Johannes' vision is not an account of a real event. Maybe he had seen real things to come, but in such a far future that he had problems to understand them and describe them to his contemporaries. Mankind and technology are changing fast, and I don't believe the wars of the apocalypse will be fought with flying horses and swords sticking out of mouths. Who knows what mankind's problems will be at that time. Maybe the events will take place in Cyberspace or on a spiritual level, if at all.
I still believe in a merciful God.
I remember those countless times when the creationists would ask me "if you can't take Genesis literally, how can you take Revelations literally?" ... well there.
Even if the exact shape and form of the events of Revelations will not fit the primitive Biblical description - if Armageddon will be fought with nukes and bombers instead of horses and infantry - don't you agree that they will still happen? Won't Armageddon still happen? Won't the Whore Babylon still be forced to drink the cup of God's wrath? And how can those events happen in any fashion, literal, figurative or even historical-concordantly, if God is not still wrathful in some sense? What authority would your emasculated God, the one whose be-all and end-all is now "turn the other cheek" in a way that it never was before Christ, have to bring eschatological judgment on a wicked world?
Clearly creationism is no guarantee of sound theology!
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
There are much better ways to view the apparent change in behavior. (We can't say "change of mind," since the theologians who believe that they alone understand sovereignty can't really deal with the nature of idioms or literary devices.) However, "coming of age" would be a bit of a disaster, logically speaking. "Behavior " avoids that pitfall.
At least you're in the right ballpark bd. The impenitent sinner will receive God's wrath just as God's elect will receive his mercy. God behaves differently towards different people, this has always been the case! Hardly a startling revelation I would have thought.
Looking at Revelation, I see God wearing robes covered in the blood of his warfare. The same Jesus who would not quench a smoldering wick during his first coming.
This would be the same Jesus as in Luke 19:27 yes? The Jesus who came not to bring peace but a sword?
__________________
Give me Scotland or I die - John Knox
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!
Last edited by theFijian; 13th March 2008 at 09:54 PM.
I remember those countless times when the creationists would ask me "if you can't take Genesis literally, how can you take Revelations literally?"
I'd consider this a justified question - after all, Genesis is unanimously accepted by all Christianity, but Relevation isn't.
Originally Posted by shernren
Even if the exact shape and form of the events of Revelations will not fit the primitive Biblical description - if Armageddon will be fought with nukes and bombers instead of horses and infantry - don't you agree that they will still happen? Won't Armageddon still happen? Won't the Whore Babylon still be forced to drink the cup of God's wrath? And how can those events happen in any fashion, literal, figurative or even historical-concordantly, if God is not still wrathful in some sense?
If you agree that the shape and form of the events of Revelations will not fit the Biblical description, then why make assumptions about nukes and bombers? The described events are spiritual only, a war of opinions and world views. The Christan world view will prevail, but without swords, nukes, and God's physical wrath. The sword sticking out of God's mouth is, in fact, His word. This sword does not kill, but convinces. The final victory will be a spiritual victory.
Originally Posted by shernren
What authority would your emasculated God, the one whose be-all and end-all is now "turn the other cheek" in a way that it never was before Christ, have to bring eschatological judgment on a wicked world?
Scripture gives the answer to this question.
Romans 8: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
By His own sacrifice God took the responsibility for the wickedness of His creation and delivered us from His wrath. By symbolically eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood we accept His sacrifice. And after we've accepted Christ there won't be any wrathful God to fear.
Originally Posted by shernren
Clearly creationism is no guarantee of sound theology!
That's right; TE isn't either. But an open mind and sound reason might help.
Last edited by ClearSky; 14th March 2008 at 07:40 AM.
I'd consider this a justified question - after all, Genesis is unanimously accepted by all Christianity, but Relevation isn't.
Our readings of Genesis have little to no theological impact. Your reading of Revelation says nothing less than that God changes over time, a notion that even those who doubted the innerancy of Revelation would have treated with abhorrence.
Originally Posted by ClearSky
If you agree that the shape and form of the events of Revelations will not fit the Biblical description, then why make assumptions about nukes and bombers? The described events are spiritual only, a war of opinions and world views. The Christan world view will prevail, but without swords, nukes, and God's physical wrath. The sword sticking out of God's mouth is, in fact, His word. This sword does not kill, but convinces. The final victory will be a spiritual victory.
Even if the shape and form of the events of Revelations may not fit the Biblical description ("Whatever World War III will be fought with, World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones") the essence will still be nothing different from God's outpouring of wrath on His creations who have rejected Him for so long. People are going to die, the very physical order of this world is going to be overturned, and for all who have rejected God there can be nothing to look forward to besides the expectation of raging fire and eternal judgment. Why do you need a TE to tell you these things?
Originally Posted by ClearSky
Scripture gives the answer to this question.
Romans 8: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
By His own sacrifice God took the responsibility for the wickedness of His creation and delivered us from His wrath. By symbolically eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood we accept His sacrifice. And after we've accepted Christ there won't be any wrathful God to fear.
By His own sacrifice God took the responsibility for the wickedness of those which are in Christ Jesus. There will certainly be those who are not in this category, and for them God's full condemnation will be righteously justified. Will God not show wrath to those who reject the sacrifice of His Son? Is there any fate more fitting for them than to eternally understand and experience God's unyielding hatred against sin?
Or, do you think that God's redemptive grace is new? Is it something God just thought up? Did He get a bright idea in 12BC and suddenly tell His Son that He was going to get a human body? Remember that God promised Abraham that not only would he be blessed, but that all nations would be blessed through him: in other words, God's plan was inclusionist from the start, and even if God seemed for a while to be the exclusive protector of the Jews, He knew right from the start that He would turn so many Gentiles to Him that it would make the remnant of the Jews jealous. What do you think our ancestor Abraham found in this matter? Didn't he find the same salvation by grace through faith that we have received, by looking forward to the same Christ we look back at?
Why do you need my instruction in these matters? Have you not read the judgment and decisions of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, on how God's plan all along was to bring the Gentiles into His kingdom, to show both grace and wrath to Gentiles just as He did show and will show both grace and wrath to Jews? How can Paul use Abraham to illustrate our own faith in Romans 4 if God's character towards Abraham was any different from God's character towards the Romans of Paul's day and is different again from God's character towards us? Are we not predestined to be His from before the foundations of the world as Paul declares in Ephesians - and how can any such predestination still stand if God's character has changed between then and now?
Originally Posted by ClearSky
That's right; TE isn't either. But an open mind and sound reason might help.
And Scripture!
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Even if the shape and form of the events of Revelations may not fit the Biblical description ("Whatever World War III will be fought with, World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones") the essence will still be nothing different from God's outpouring of wrath on His creations who have rejected Him for so long. People are going to die, the very physical order of this world is going to be overturned, and for all who have rejected God there can be nothing to look forward to besides the expectation of raging fire and eternal judgment. Why do you need a TE to tell you these things?
The book of Revelation has so many totally different interpretations that the only thing certain about it is that it was written. No one knows by whom, in what purpose, what it means and if it belongs to the Bible or not. The preterist view holds that the contents of Revelation constitute a prophecy of events that were already fulfilled in the 1st century AC.
I don't agree to the view that God changed over time, but I certainly agree that we should read Revelation with a grain of salt (or maybe two). All religions are full of apocalypses of this kind. I don't know what its author smoked and what he saw, but his description has suspicious similarity to a Japanese Godzilla movie.
God did not change, he was merciful from the beginning. Scripture tells otherwise, but all the stories about how many God had killed on his various rampages have to be read in the context of that time. God did not kill the firstborn sons of Egypt or the guy who collected wood on Saturday. If God really did that he'd be certainly a despicable character, but he's not. Likewise, he certainly won't kill all Moslems, Hindus or Atheists or throw them in some fiery lake. Those are children's tales. Christ died for everyone and made no exception.
Last edited by Paul365; 14th March 2008 at 10:59 AM.
Likewise, he certainly won't kill all Moslems, Hindus or Atheists or throw them in some fiery lake. Those are children's tales. Christ died for everyone and made no exception.
Aahhh I see, a universalist we have here! One wonders why Christ bothered doing anything let alone submitting himself to death on a Cross.
__________________
Give me Scotland or I die - John Knox
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!
By His own sacrifice God took the responsibility for the wickedness of those which are in Christ Jesus. There will certainly be those who are not in this category, and for them God's full condemnation will be righteously justified. Will God not show wrath to those who reject the sacrifice of His Son? Is there any fate more fitting for them than to eternally understand and experience God's unyielding hatred against sin?
I see that you are confused. This is understandable because Scripture is full of God's hatred and vengefulness. We consider hate, murder and genocide as bad, yet a wrong understanding of Scripture lets you attribute those very atrocities to God Himself, and leads to a distorted image of God.
This misunderstanding of Scripture is right on the money with the title of this topic because you need some human reason to understand God's word. Let me explain.
The first thing to learn is that Scripture is about antiheroes. Adam was disobedient, Abraham tried to sabotage God's order to multiply, and King David was a rapist and murderer. The biggest anti hero of Scripture is God Himself.
The second thing to learn is that the main topic of Scripture is the change of God from an anti hero to a hero. This change is twofold. The hating, vengeful God becomes a forgiving, merciful God. And God's influence moves from the real world to the spiritual world. This was greatly misunderstood. People expected from Jesus to fulfill the covenant and deliver them from the Romans. Well He did, but in a spiritual way and not, as they expected, in the real world.
"My realm is not of this world." Judgment and apocalypse will not happen in this world because God's focus moved beyond.
Once you understand that, you'll see Scripture in a totally new way. All the apparent errors and contradictions of Scripture are suddenly resolved. There is no conflict anymore between Scripture and morality, history, and science. You can accept the literality of Genesis and, who knows, even become a Creationist.
Are we not predestined to be His from before the foundations of the world as Paul declares in Ephesians - and how can any such predestination still stand if God's character has changed between then and now?
Predestination to God is unrelated to His character. Otherwise it were choice and not predestination.
But I know that for some Christians the idea of a major change in God's character is against all their religious feelings and prejudices. They attribute omniscience to God, and an omniscient Being has no reason to change.
There are two logical flaws in this argument. First, God gave us a free will. That means no one can predict our actions, not even God. He could not foresee Adam's decision, otherwise the whole test with the tree in Eden would not have made any sense.
Second, knowledge is not experience. Children are often cruel. They mean not to be bad, but they lack experience how cruelty feels to the victim. Over time, they'll learn. It's the same with God. At the beginning He obviously had no experience with mortal, suffering, intelligent beings. Adam was the first human. God's cruel acts were not out of malice, they were just the lack of experience with suffering. Over time, He learned, and became the merciful God who turned the other cheek and sacrificed His son to us.
Hope this makes the matter more clear. I consider this essential for understanding God and His word.
There are two logical flaws in this argument. First, God gave us a free will. That means no one can predict our actions, not even God. He could not foresee Adam's decision, otherwise the whole test with the tree in Eden would not have made any sense.
So you're saying that God isn't omniscient and has limited control. Please back up that theory with some Scripture please.
Second, knowledge is not experience. Children are often cruel. They mean not to be bad, but they lack experience how cruelty feels to the victim. Over time, they'll learn. It's the same with God. At the beginning He obviously had no experience with mortal, suffering, intelligent beings. Adam was the first human. God's cruel acts were not out of malice, they were just the lack of experience with suffering. Over time, He learned, and became the merciful God who turned the other cheek and sacrificed His son to us.
So here you're saying that God needed to learn and gain experience being God. Again, please back this with Scripture.
Hope this makes the matter more clear. I consider this essential for understanding God and His word.
For me it's as clear as mud. If this is essential to understand God and His Word then the answers should easily be derived from Scripture itself, right? I have yet to see them.
__________________ 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."
- after all, Genesis is unanimously accepted by all Christianity, but Relevation isn't.
Linear Mode
