| 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 June 2009, 08:03 PM
| | Newbie
     
| | Join Date: 8th September 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 639
Blessings: 58,625
Reps: 458,358,390,381,383 (power: 458,358,390,387) | | Originally Posted by gluadys  That's basically what Martin Luther said:
Christ is the Lord and King of the scriptures. . . . All sound books agree in this, that they witness to Christ. That is the proper test by which to judge all books, whether they preach Christ. . . . That which does not preach Christ is not apostolic though it came from St.Peter or St.Paul. Contrariwise that which preaches Christ would be apostolic even though it came from Judas or Annas or Pilate or Herod.
as cited in The Word and the Way: Personal Christian Faith for Today, United Church Publishing House 1962 (Sorry I don't know the original source.)
True Martin Luther said this, but he is a long shot from God  (instead a fallible human representing his own beliefs) |
14th June 2009, 08:28 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
29  
 | | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,547
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by vossler What are you two trying to do, get me to believe you guys fully support the Word of God? 
Imagine that! Maybe it is possible to maintain a high view of Scripture without a concordist hermeneutic.
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
14th June 2009, 09:05 PM
|  | Legend
  
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,126
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by MattLangley True Martin Luther said this, but he is a long shot from God (instead a fallible human representing his own beliefs)
Sounds like you want to start a new topic.
The issue was whether the scriptures are any less inspired if some (most?)of them were not written by the people they were attributed to.
That has nothing to do with whether Martin Luther was infallible.
Luther is setting out a definition of what apostolic scripture is: "that which preaches Christ". That is a definition based on content, not authorship.
Is he right? Maybe not, but then someone has to come up with some better way to establish which writings are inspired scripture.
In fact, historically, content did define inspiration. To combat heresy, the Church Fathers had to determine which gospels (and there were hundreds, many attributed to apostles) were sound and which to reject. And the standard they used was basically fidelity to orthodox doctrine.
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |
14th June 2009, 11:12 PM
|  | Veteran
45   
| | Join Date: 21st February 2007 Location: Way out in left field
Posts: 1,725
Blessings: 543,312 My Mood 
Reps: 10,818,175,665,014,668 (power: 10,818,175,665,020) | | Originally Posted by vossler I'm a bit uneasy with this statement. Doctrine growing could imply that it changes and I don't concur with that.
You'd probably be surrpised, then, to find that most of we EC's would likely agree and be encouraged with the OP. We love and respect scripture with the same devotion that you do; we simply see things a bit differently.
On change: it's not doctrine that changes, but over time we can filter out what scripture does NOT mean. For instance, Martin Luther criticized Copernicus on scriptural grounds; the fact that Luther was wrong does not affect our faith, we just know that in that case scripture was not referring to some aspect of the physical world (but instead the human author's perspective).
While doctrine does not change, application does. That is part of the absolute brilliance of the scriptures - it anticipates and handles this flawlessly. |
16th June 2009, 12:41 AM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 8th September 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 639
Blessings: 58,625
Reps: 458,358,390,381,383 (power: 458,358,390,387) | | Originally Posted by gluadys And the standard they used was basically fidelity to orthodox doctrine.
Therein lies the boundaries of the little box that was built around Christianity. What if there orthodox doctrine was in fact incorrect? (I mean like all doctrine it was established by man which makes errors) If you ever limit yourself to a little box you will never know if the truth actually lies outside of that little box. Just like YEC who denies evolution since it's outside of his box. |
16th June 2009, 07:05 AM
|  | Newbie
 
| | Join Date: 7th May 2009
Posts: 114
Blessings: 66,781
Reps: 83,980,069 (power: 83,983) | | Originally Posted by vossler I recently read this devotional and thought it would apply here. I realize that most people will probably dismiss this and not give it a second thought. But I think there are one or two for whom this is exactly what you needed to hear.
This is a Greg Laurie devotional: Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you. In America today, we have something that could be described as a new spirituality. It's a revival of sorts—not in the biblical sense of people turning to God, but a revival of all kinds of ancient and weird spiritual concepts and beliefs. People are spiritually hungry. They are searching for truth. And the problem is, some of this strange theology is finding its way into the church. We must be very careful to keep our guard up. Don't forget that when the devil misled Eve in the Garden, he did it with partial truth. He did not question God's Word altogether. Rather, he questioned if Eve properly understood it. We must be careful of the deviant teachings that are out there today. So often, when a new teaching comes along, we will get excited: a new revelation! I hope this won't disappoint you, but there aren't any new revelations. Everything you need to know about God is already written in His Book. As it has been said, if it's true, it isn't new. And if it's new, it isn't true. So don't go looking for new revelations. Spend your time instead in learning God's Word, and He will bring fresh understanding of it. Years ago, the great thinker C. S. Lewis warned us, "If you do not listen to theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones." I think this is especially important today. We need to know what Jesus said. We need to know what the truth is. We need to pay attention to doctrine. Religious doctrine is of man. The issue really is when does a man (or group) control the doctrine and when does the doctrine control the man (group). George Washington is a good example of this paradox. He led the group by being the group. He created the Doctrine by being the Doctrine. The problems associated ‘doctrines are one reason why I chose to be Roman Catholic. They are a tad slow at times but at least they grow. Jesus is my spiritual example of this paradox. He dismissed Jewish doctrine for the salvation of the group (Humanity). |
17th June 2009, 05:38 AM
|  | 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 An Arch Angel Religious doctrine is of man.
The issue really is when does a man (or group) control the doctrine and when does the doctrine control the man (group). George Washington is a good example of this paradox.
No I'd say the issue is really understanding that doctrine is not the same as Truth. The rest of what you said was kind of weird.
__________________ simul justus et peccator |
17th June 2009, 10:10 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 crawfish We love and respect scripture with the same devotion that you do; we simply see things a bit differently.
That's akin to saying that if something appears to be grey and you see it as white and I see it as black. However the difference is much more dramatic and important. I see it more like something that in reality is black and white yet TEs see or focus on the grey, almost ignoring the black or the white unless it furthers their argument in support of their sacred belief system of evolution. However, most YECs can see both the black and white, and are able to focus on the harmony of both without losing the significance of either. On change: it's not doctrine that changes, but over time we can filter out what scripture does NOT mean.
Emphasis mine. Ouch, that one hurts; filtering out what Scripture does NOT mean using the "truth" of the ever changing "science" of evolution. A theory which is itself based mostly on conjecture and 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." |
17th June 2009, 11:29 PM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 8th September 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 639
Blessings: 58,625
Reps: 458,358,390,381,383 (power: 458,358,390,387) | | Originally Posted by vossler That's akin to saying that if something appears to be grey and you see it as white and I see it as black. However the difference is much more dramatic and important. I see it more like something that in reality is black and white yet TEs see or focus on the grey, almost ignoring the black or the white unless it furthers their argument in support of their sacred belief system of evolution. However, most YECs can see both the black and white, and are able to focus on the harmony of both without losing the significance of either.
Emphasis mine. Ouch, that one hurts; filtering out what Scripture does NOT mean using the "truth" of the ever changing "science" of evolution. A theory which is itself based mostly on conjecture and speculation.
Think of it this way, science to the natural world is interpretation to scripture. Interpretation to scripture is evolving, otherwise you would still believe the earth is flat and that the sun went around the Earth. In fact most people of ancient times read and even wrote the scriptures with very different world views than you have now even as a YEC. So your interpretation has been updated based on knowing the sun doesn't in fact rotate around the earth and that the earth is in fact not flat (things they didn't know). Science is the same, it's an interpretation of the natural world, it progresses and changes as new things are learned. Science is simply the search for truth, nothing every found in science can go against God since science is the study of God's creation. So for you to blatantly rally against science is to blatantly rally against God. If anything the natural world is more provably his creation than some words in a book written by man, so why rally against it?
Scientists are not divided on whether evolution is a roughly accurate representation. Just like they are not divided on gravity. The detials, the how, and all of the little processes are what's still to be discovered and learned. YECs are divided against evolution, not scienctists. Trust the experts on their matter.
If your faith is shaken by a scientific study that suggests Genesis is not literal then your faith was not in God in the first place. |
18th June 2009, 12:25 AM
| | Veteran
45
| | Join Date: 21st February 2007 Location: Way out in left field
Posts: 1,725
Blessings: 543,312 My Mood
Reps: 10,818,175,665,014,668 (power: 10,818,175,665,020) | | Originally Posted by vossler That's akin to saying that if something appears to be grey and you see it as white and I see it as black. However the difference is much more dramatic and important. I see it more like something that in reality is black and white yet TEs see or focus on the grey, almost ignoring the black or the white unless it furthers their argument in support of their sacred belief system of evolution. However, most YECs can see both the black and white, and are able to focus on the harmony of both without losing the significance of either.
I believe God fully INTENDED to add gray areas to the bible - paradox, lack of detail, etc. He did this to try and keep us from focusing too much on the wrong things. Of course, we humans are only too happy to try and fill in what God has left out - thus, YEC science. Emphasis mine. Ouch, that one hurts; filtering out what Scripture does NOT mean using the "truth" of the ever changing "science" of evolution. A theory which is itself based mostly on conjecture and speculation.
We only need to "filter out" because we "added in" in the first place. I don't really care about evolution; what I care about is Truth. The Truth of God's word does not change and never will; the "truth" which we perceive will change quite often. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
