Fight for the faith!

[Willtor]

sorry, didn't look at the links. nm

 

[shernren]

Come on, Lion of God, if the Bible says "The sun stopped", then "The sun stopped" should be good enough for you. What's all this comet nonsense? Nothing more than human scientists talking. So much for the "plain and obvious" reading of Scripture ... looks like science is as much a part of it as of any other reading.

 

[Willtor]

Come on, Lion of God, if the Bible says "The sun stopped", then "The sun stopped" should be good enough for you. What's all this comet nonsense? Nothing more than human scientists talking. So much for the "plain and obvious" reading of Scripture ... looks like science is as much a part of it as of any other reading.

And if we can't take the Bible seriously on this issue, where can we take it seriously?

 

[shernren]

And if we can't take the Bible seriously on this issue, where can we take it seriously?

Amen, Willtor! After all, all atheists believe in heliocentrism and the existence of comets.

 

[Willtor]

Amen, Willtor! After all, all atheists believe in heliocentrism and the existence of comets.

Yeah, I don't find comets in Scripture. That should send up a warning flag, right there.

 

[mark kennedy]

Okay, I don't get this:



Define "objective". Are you using it in its normal sense, or are you using it as an euphemism for "right"? As in, "to be truely right requires a revelation ... " The way I see it, you can be right, without being objectively right, at this point in history, before the incontrovertible revelation of God with the second coming of Jesus.

I am using it as a reality that exists very much apart from what you think about it and does not have to be antecedently felt to be known for certain. God is one of the supertruths that exists completly out of our field of vision while being an escapable reality even for the most adamant atheist. I don't expect we will gain a great deal from this semantical shell game but I am thinking about objective as opposed to subjective. The larger concept of subjective/objective scientific duality being formost in my mind.

There is a difference. For example, we all know that gravity approximately obeys an inverse-square-distance attenuation rule: if two objects are double the distance apart, the gravitational force between them is one-fourth of the original force. This is an objectively testable fact. When a scientist does an experiment (if his procedure is correct and his apparatus sensitive enough) he will be able to verify this law. What else this scientist believes is almost irrelevant, whether a Buddhist or a Christian or an atheist he will find the law if he is intellectually honest.

What you are calling objective and testable is actually measurable and applicable to certain problems. Intellectual honesty is on the other hand highly subjective and could simply depend on your perspective. Something else that has bothered me for some time now. Experimental method is not the whole of science, in fact it is only a small part of it. Science is about tools, mental and physical that procede from direct observation and demostrative proofs. No one experiments with astronomy and yet it is the oldest and best developed science in the world. No one tests a Euclidian axiom, postulate...etc, they prove them through computations. The ancient Greeks who developed euclidian geometry frowned on experimentation and probably dismissed your characterization as faulty.

On the other hand, we as Christians know that Jesus Christ died and rose again to save us from our sins. You're right (if this is what you mean by "objective"), we need the revelation of the Holy Spirit to know this. But to me (by the normal definition of "objective") this kind of truth is precisely unobjective or subjective, because one has to assume a certain, revealed viewpoint in order to perceive and agree with it.

What we know about the power that rose Christ from the dead we learn from the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Out subjective response would include things like speculative ideas about eschatology (end time events), the time of the paraousia, the proper baptismal formula. What is not subject to our perceptions and private interprutations are the Scriptures fullfilled in Christ. What I think is happening here is subjective/objective duality is being introduced into Christian theism and it does not work. I know, I have tried and it is not very helpfull at all.

In its normal sense, the word "objective" means: [SIZE=-1]undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena. I don't think that's what you mean by it here, right? What you seem to mean is that something which is "objective" is inherently truer than something which is not "objective". I need to make sure I understand you on this before we continue. (Thank God His definitive revelation was a Person, not a book, or we'd spend all day asking for His definitions!)

[/SIZE]

First of all the Bible is no mere book, it is uniquely divine and without equal as history past, present and future. The Scriptures make it clear that God's divine nature is revealed in the things that are made and that is objective is any and every sense of the term.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given thanks: but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened." (Romans 1:21,22)​

Given the above text would you say that God's eternal power and divinity are objective realities? If so, do you agree that it is intellectually dishonest to deny God's existance and a knowledge of His divine nature and eternal power? Finally, when Paul says that they are revealed in the things that are created, what 'things' do you think Paul had in mind here?

Again, we seem to be missing each other on fundamental definitions. Let me try to put it this way (drawing on the concepts from my article) :

Man evolving from australopithecus is a purported history, meaning that if it is true it is true as a historical fact. When you call it a "myth" I don't think you mean the word the same way I do (as a statement with moral or ethical relevance for today), you mean to say that you reject it as a historically accurate fact. Right?

The only objective reality with regards to australopithecus is that the bones of large apes were uncovered in equatoral Africa. What is even more important you definition of 'myth' does not apply to actual myths like the ones for Artemise. There is no moral to the stories the Greeks circulated about their pantheon of deities, in fact they were down right capriciaous. By the standard you are using the statement that it is wrong to question my Christianity on this forum is a myth. The fact is that the term myth means an untrue story:

"The word mythology (Greek: μυθολογία, from μυθος mythos, a story or legend, and λογος logos, an account or speech) literally means the (oral) retelling of myths – stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use supernatural events or characters to explain the nature of the universe and humanity. In modern usage, mythology is either the body of myths from a particular culture or religion (as in Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology or Norse mythology) or the branch of knowledge dealing with the collection, study and interpretation of myths.

In common usage, myth means a falsehood — a story which many believe but which is not true."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology

In your worldview, the purported historical fact that man evolved from australopithecus, if it were true, would map to the "myth" or ethical statement that God was not involved in our creation. Right? According to your worldview, if man had evolved from australopithecus it would have happened naturalistically and therefore would not have involved God's intervention since God always acts supernaturally and only in a way which His revelation can reveal to people instead of something which can be explained naturalistically. According to your worldview, to affirm man's evolution would be to deny that God acted in space and time to cause the existence of man.

Actually, australopithecus is a just-so story like many of the impossible transmutations of the single common ancestor model. Modern intellectuals and scientists balk at the ancient mythologies as if we were untouched by their flights of fantasy and superstition. Evolution as natural history has become the mythos of the modern age and replaced the Griffin and the Cenetaur with austrolopithecus and Homo hablis.

I agree that this conclusion would be contrary to the revealed conclusions of the Christian faith.

Therefore there would be two ways to combat this conclusion. Your way, since you are reluctant to abandon your worldview, is to attempt to rebut the purportedly historical fact of evolution itself. My way is to replace your worldview with one where man's evolving from australopithecus, even if it were true, maps not to the absence of God but the presence of God and His pleasure in making creation "fully-gifted" to use Van Till's term.

History only yields theology when a worldview is applied to it. There is no other way to explain how you can look at evolution and see a vast God-lessness while I look at evolution and see the vast creativity of Darwin's God.

Evolution as science has absolutly nothing to do with any of this. Evolution as the change of alleles in populations over time is perfectly compatable with Creationism and allways has been. I have never read or heard of a Creationist that has a problem with Mendelian genetics and yet it is Mendelian genetics that defines evolution as science. It is Darwin's single common ancestor model that is a flawed assumption with no true basis other then a priori assumption. It is the desire to omit God from anything remotely scientific that is at the crux of the issue.

My issue is with both the historicity of the Bible and the historicity of universal anceostry as mutually exclusive a priori assumptions. I have stated this repeatedly over months and even years and have yet to see a single evolutionist acknowledge that simple fact. Instead they want to characterize me as an enemy of both science and TOE which is utter nonesense. I affirm, embrace and celebrate both, it is the arguements of science falsely so called that offend my religious convictions to the point were I beat my religious plowshear into a sword.

 

[LoG]

Yeah, I don't find comets in Scripture. That should send up a warning flag, right there.

Their evidence in the bible is there. It's in those sections that TE's consider allegorical, so perhaps a little more difficult to spot.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

My issue is with both the historicity of the Bible and the historicity of universal anceostry as mutually exclusive a priori assumptions. I have stated this repeatedly over months and even years and have yet to see a single evolutionist acknowledge that simple fact.

the theory of common descent is a conclusion, not an assumption.

i suspect that the historicity of the Bible is a conclusion as well. but that depends on exactly what you mean by the phrase "historicity of the Bible". I suspect you mean that the historical sections are real history and that the story in the Bible is an accurate description of what happened..
However choosing which sections are historical is a conclusion not an assumption..

why is it that YECists have such a hard time distinguishing assumptions from conclusions.
assumptions have no evidence and are required in order to create the theory. Conclusions are theories that are supported by evidence and explain the data.

That it is a good thing to investigate the universe, that there are not spirits in the world that will punish you for studying things is an assumption. You can not be a scientist and do science unless you think it is a good thing to do and are not afraid of evil spirits punishing you for doing experiments. But there is no evidence that this process of desacralization is true. I can claim that sprits live in trees and that there is no evidence for them because they are invisible and hide from you, i can't show evidence for it, but neither can you present evidence disproving it.

 

[shernren]

I am using it as a reality that exists very much apart from what you think about it and does not have to be antecedently felt to be known for certain. God is one of the supertruths that exists completly out of our field of vision while being an escapable reality even for the most adamant atheist. I don't expect we will gain a great deal from this semantical shell game but I am thinking about objective as opposed to subjective. The larger concept of subjective/objective scientific duality being formost in my mind.
What you are calling objective and testable is actually measurable and applicable to certain problems. Intellectual honesty is on the other hand highly subjective and could simply depend on your perspective. Something else that has bothered me for some time now. Experimental method is not the whole of science, in fact it is only a small part of it. Science is about tools, mental and physical that procede from direct observation and demostrative proofs. No one experiments with astronomy and yet it is the oldest and best developed science in the world. No one tests a Euclidian axiom, postulate...etc, they prove them through computations. The ancient Greeks who developed euclidian geometry frowned on experimentation and probably dismissed your characterization as faulty.

You sound suspiciously like Descartes. I think you'd like him. Quoting Herbert Butterfield's "The History Of Modern Science":

In the system of Descartes God was another of those clear ideas that are clearer and more precise in the mind than anything seen by the actual eye. Furthermore, everything hung on this existence of a perfect and righteous God. Without Him a man could not trust in anything, could not believe in a geometrical proposition, for He was the guarantee that everything was not an illusion, the senses a complete hoax, and life not a mere nightmare. Starting from this point, Descartes was prepared to deduce the whole universe from God, with each step of argument as clear and certain as a demonstration in geometry. He was determined to have a science as closely knit, as regularly ordered, as any piece of mathematics - one which, so far as the material universe is concerned (and excluding the soul and the spiritual side of things), would lay out a perfect piece of mechanism. His vision of a single science so unified, so ordered, so interlocked, was perhaps one of his most remarkable contributions to the scientific revolution. Indeed, he carried the unification so far that he said one single mind ought to work out the whole system - he indulged at one time in the hope that he might carry out the whole scientific revolution himself. When others offered to help him with experiments he was tempted to reply that it would be much better if they would give him money to carry out his own. The physics of Descartes, therefore, depends in a particular way upon his metaphysics; it provides merely the lower stages in an hierarchical system that definitely reaches back to God.

You're not the first one to disdain experimentation in favour of theology, Descartes was there before you - and he got nearly everything wrong and screwed science for the next generation. He perpetuated the ancient idea that the heart works as a source of heat by which blood is propelled by effervescent motion and thought of the orbit of the planets as being propelled by whirlpools in the plenum, the indivisible matter that filled all space ("Nature abhors a vacuum", remember?). Within a generation the model had become so convoluted that it took no less than Newton's mathematical genius to conclusively show that Descartes' idea wouldn't work.

The logical, metaphysical path is a road for mathematicians and geometers, not scientists.

And what you call a "semantical shell game" is no mere game, it's vital if we are to understand each other and dialogue coherently. The whole problem is that we seem to be using exactly opposite definitions of objectivity. I'm treating the idea phenomenologically; what you call "objective" I would probably call "absolute", but an absolute truth may not appear objective to this limited reality we live in. It is quite apparent that some people are able to reject the existence of God, so that in my definitions means that His existence for now can only be demonstrated subjectively; while the existence of something like gravity can be demonstrated objectively.

How do you define objectivity? And in your system of definition, what would be considered subjective? (I am seriously interested in understanding how you think; I hope you will respect my interest.)

My issue is with both the historicity of the Bible and the historicity of universal anceostry as mutually exclusive a priori assumptions. I have stated this repeatedly over months and even years and have yet to see a single evolutionist acknowledge that simple fact.

Prove it - that it is historically impossible for God to have performed the Incarnation if humans have evolutionary continuity with earlier australopithecines. Until then, you can shout it out all you want, but perhaps you might want to consider that no evolutionists acknowledge the "fact" because to them it isn't one.

 

[mark kennedy]

You sound suspiciously like Descartes. I think you'd like him. Quoting Herbert Butterfield's "The History Of Modern Science":

I have read Decarte's Meditations on the First Philosophy of Science and you are right, I do like Descarte, but you were saying...

In the system of Descartes God was another of those clear ideas that are clearer and more precise in the mind than anything seen by the actual eye. Furthermore, everything hung on this existence of a perfect and righteous God. Without Him a man could not trust in anything, could not believe in a geometrical proposition, for He was the guarantee that everything was not an illusion, the senses a complete hoax, and life not a mere nightmare. Starting from this point, Descartes was prepared to deduce the whole universe from God, with each step of argument as clear and certain as a demonstration in geometry. He was determined to have a science as closely knit, as regularly ordered, as any piece of mathematics - one which, so far as the material universe is concerned (and excluding the soul and the spiritual side of things), would lay out a perfect piece of mechanism. His vision of a single science so unified, so ordered, so interlocked, was perhaps one of his most remarkable contributions to the scientific revolution. Indeed, he carried the unification so far that he said one single mind ought to work out the whole system - he indulged at one time in the hope that he might carry out the whole scientific revolution himself. When others offered to help him with experiments he was tempted to reply that it would be much better if they would give him money to carry out his own. The physics of Descartes, therefore, depends in a particular way upon his metaphysics; it provides merely the lower stages in an hierarchical system that definitely reaches back to God.

He did delve into metaphysics somewhat but the goal of a unified theory of physics is still being pursued, with nominal success. Descarte summed up his meditations with one expression, 'Ego sum, Ego cognito', loosely translated 'I think therefore I am'. Descartes was a rationalist which means he put the mind first. The rationalists were opposed to the empiricalists who made experimentation apprehended through sense data primary. There is one thing you should understand about Ego Sum, the sum of 1 + 1 is 2. That is what he based his analytical geometry on and it was essential for the development of calculas.

You're not the first one to disdain experimentation in favour of theology, Descartes was there before you - and he got nearly everything wrong and screwed science for the next generation. He perpetuated the ancient idea that the heart works as a source of heat by which blood is propelled by effervescent motion and thought of the orbit of the planets as being propelled by whirlpools in the plenum, the indivisible matter that filled all space ("Nature abhors a vacuum", remember?). Within a generation the model had become so convoluted that it took no less than Newton's mathematical genius to conclusively show that Descartes' idea wouldn't work.

For one thing experimentation was used at that time but only in a limited way. More importantly Descartes founded the Cartesian coordinate system, when Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants Descartes would have been one of them. While it is true that Descartes did believe in ether it should be understood that Newton did as well. Newton abandoned ether out of frustration and developed his laws of motion based on gravity which he was able to demonstrate. Finally, Descartes was not a biologist and was influenced by Aristotlism so the purpose of the heart was of little consequence, he did describe the basic functions acurately.

The logical, metaphysical path is a road for mathematicians and geometers, not scientists.

The first philosophy for Descartes and Newton was mathematics and geometery. Scientists reduce obervations to quantifiable measurements and ratios. In order to divorce math/geometry from science you would have to toss Euclidian math and calculas, which is impossible.

And what you call a "semantical shell game" is no mere game, it's vital if we are to understand each other and dialogue coherently. The whole problem is that we seem to be using exactly opposite definitions of objectivity. I'm treating the idea phenomenologically; what you call "objective" I would probably call "absolute", but an absolute truth may not appear objective to this limited reality we live in. It is quite apparent that some people are able to reject the existence of God, so that in my definitions means that His existence for now can only be demonstrated subjectively; while the existence of something like gravity can be demonstrated objectively.

God is demonstrated in the things that are made and has made that known, even to atheists. God is the ultimate reality and reducing God's revelation to subjective demonstrations is nillistic at best. It is the a priori assumptions of both theistic reasoning and methodological naturalism that are in conflict. The objective phenomenological facts concerning mendelian genetics are clear enough, see my signiture. They have demonstrated random recombination, the dominant/recessive relationship of expressed genes, prions...etc account for diversity. These objective demonstrations and direct observations show diversity coming about without a need for mutations the vast majority of the time, transposable elements not withstanding.

How do you define objectivity? And in your system of definition, what would be considered subjective? (I am seriously interested in understanding how you think; I hope you will respect my interest.)

Objective means that which exist outside our thoughts, feelings and preconceptions. It's equivalance in Science would be the laws of science like the law of gravity or the laws of inheritance. This is the mirror image of the mind reflecting on sense data and organized into substantive reasoning. Reason itself is monolithic but the process by which one reaches conclusions can begin with subjective inferance or objective measurement and demonstration. That is why semantics is so tricky, subjective and objective are not two seperate reasoning processes, the are more like a reversal of the order of operations in our reasoning.

Prove it - that it is historically impossible for God to have performed the Incarnation if humans have evolutionary continuity with earlier australopithecines. Until then, you can shout it out all you want, but perhaps you might want to consider that no evolutionists acknowledge the "fact" because to them it isn't one.

I have proven it again and again, that is why evolutionists are so eager to present TOE as a take it or leave it proposition. The directly observed and demonstrated mechanisms of living systems are well characterized, evident and obvious to the well informed. However, evolution is a science of living things and can only project into the primordial past, it cannot demonstrate how humans evolved from apes. We can look at all the old bones and dirt we like but there is no directly observed are demonstrated mechanism for tripling the size of an ape brain.

It would require hundreds if not thousands of mutations in hundreds if not thousands of genes. Most of them would be neutral with the vast majority of the remainder being deleterious. That leaves very little room for the beneficial effect of mutations that effect the human brain. Natural science is mendelian genetics and it is based on the laws of inheritance. Natural history is an assumption of a single common ancestor at every node of the tree of life which is an a priori assumption. There are clearly two seperate issues here and it has nothing to do with subjective/objective duality. Evolution as natural history is pure metaphysics since it is a substantive element that transends all living systems past present and future.

There is a difference between natural science and natural history. That is why Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals reject Darwin's single common ancestor model but have never rejected Mendel's laws of science in any way, shape or form.

Point proven!

 

[shernren]

There is a difference between natural science and natural history. That is why Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals reject Darwin's single common ancestor model but have never rejected Mendel's laws of science in any way, shape or form.

Point proven!

I'm an evangelical too ... but you have completely missed my point. You said:

My issue is with both the historicity of the Bible and the historicity of universal anceostry as mutually exclusive a priori assumptions. I have stated this repeatedly over months and even years and have yet to see a single evolutionist acknowledge that simple fact.

So prove it. You have merely attempted to prove that evolution cannot account for a genetic continuity between humans and apes as currently observed - in other words, that an evolutionary origin of man is not compatible with the currently observed state of the human genome. My question (and your statement) is entirely different: you state (and I ask you to prove) that the evolutionary origin of man is not compatible with the account of the Bible, and in particular with the message of the Gospel. And you have not proven it.

Show that if Jesus came to die for our sins, therefore we did not evolve from apes. And show that if we evolved from apes, therefore Jesus did not come to die for our sins. It is as simple as that. Until you prove it I see no reason to believe that evolution conflicts with the gospel.

Objective means that which exist outside our thoughts, feelings and preconceptions. It's equivalance in Science would be the laws of science like the law of gravity or the laws of inheritance. This is the mirror image of the mind reflecting on sense data and organized into substantive reasoning. Reason itself is monolithic but the process by which one reaches conclusions can begin with subjective inferance or objective measurement and demonstration. That is why semantics is so tricky, subjective and objective are not two seperate reasoning processes, the are more like a reversal of the order of operations in our reasoning.

So what does subjective mean? How does something exist only inside our thoughts, feelings, and preconceptions? And am I right to assume that any idea which is only "subjective" in your terms would be "false" in whichever sense is relevant to the idea?

 

[charvel]

Well..here it is. I voted for both.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm an evangelical too ... but you have completely missed my point. You said:

My issue is with both the historicity of the Bible and the historicity of universal anceostry as mutually exclusive a priori assumptions. I have stated this repeatedly over months and even years and have yet to see a single evolutionist acknowledge that simple fact.

Apparently, we have a little different definition for what it means to be an evangelical. I know what it means to me, what is your definition? At any rate you have blown by my point about the difference between evolution as natural history and evolution as science. This is fairly typical ploy by evolutionists who don't want to admit you can take evolution in part without accepting the sweeping naturalistic assumptions of the single common ancestor model entirely.

So prove it.

I have, both scientifically and theologically and you pretend the challenge is sitting there unanswered. Did you read the Chimpanzee Genome paper? Did you ever stop to consider the matter of fact way Adam is presented in the New Testament? NO, you just pretend that these points were never raised and that is as I said before, typical.

You have merely attempted to prove that evolution cannot account for a genetic continuity between humans and apes as currently observed - in other words, that an evolutionary origin of man is not compatible with the currently observed state of the human genome. My question (and your statement) is entirely different: you state (and I ask you to prove) that the evolutionary origin of man is not compatible with the account of the Bible, and in particular with the message of the Gospel. And you have not proven it.

Sure I did but for an evangelical you shy away from the proof texts awfully quick. You might try reading Romans 5 again for clarity and try on Paul's perspective on the historical Adam for size. You obviously are not interested in the actual science involved because you missed the point of Mendel being the father of modern genetics while Darwin was an essayest who contributed nothing substantive to modern science.

Show that if Jesus came to die for our sins, therefore we did not evolve from apes. And show that if we evolved from apes, therefore Jesus did not come to die for our sins. It is as simple as that. Until you prove it I see no reason to believe that evolution conflicts with the gospel.

The question arises how sin entered the world in the first place. If Adam and Eve were not the common ancestor of all mankind then you run into a very serious problem. Sin is not an inherited curse and a natural tendancy it becomes completly possible for an individule to chose not to sin. The New Testament makes this clear that this is not an option since if it were then Christ died for nothing. Now if you want to take this to the level of a working theology then define your basis for sin apart from an historical Adam and Eve.

So what does subjective mean? How does something exist only inside our thoughts, feelings, and preconceptions? And am I right to assume that any idea which is only "subjective" in your terms would be "false" in whichever sense is relevant to the idea?

You want to grapple over some semantical point as if it were the whole issue, which is absurd. I elaborated on this at length and I haven't the slightest indication that you so much as read it. Just as there is no real dichotomy between justification/sanctification there is none between subjective/objective reasoning. The precise meaning of subjective is meaningless unless it is contrasted with objective. Nothing is 'subjective' in the absolute sense, subjective indicates that the reasoning begins with substantive reasoning and procedes to objects of observation. Empiricalism would have you believe that the whole of science is experimental method which is absurd.

Here's a little brain teaser for you, thrown in just for fun. If a person is born without an sense data being perceived thrown sight, sound, touch, taste or smell, does this person have a single thought in their head? Believe it or not this is the crux of the issue but I doubt seriously we can take this discussion to that level. You totally mischaracterized Descartes and it's hard to imagine anything more signifigant to modern science then the philosophy of Descarte and Newton.

I have lost count of how many of these semantical shell games you have started but you can chase your tail with it endlessly as far as I'm concerned. If on the other hand you want to look at the theological or scientific reasons why we have never been apes I'll be right here waiting. Until then you can play these little semantical games rather then looking at the clear testimony of Scripture and it won't make the single common ancestor model true, except as a myth with no moral to the story.

 

[Willtor]

Apparently, we have a little different definition for what it means to be an evangelical. I know what it means to me, what is your definition? At any rate you have blown by my point about the difference between evolution as natural history and evolution as science. This is fairly typical ploy by evolutionists who don't want to admit you can take evolution in part without accepting the sweeping naturalistic assumptions of the single common ancestor model entirely.

AFAIK, and certainly in the context in which I use it, evangelicalism is a movement that acknowledges and heeds Christ's call to evangelize the world. We bring the news of reconciliation with God to all people in all nations. How do you use the word?

 

[chaoschristian]

Are not all Christians by definition evangelical? The practice thereof has different forms and different degrees, but as soon as one commits one's life to Christ that life becomes a witness to the world. Or so I thought.

 

[shernren]

If Adam and Eve were not the common ancestor of all mankind then you run into a very serious problem.

Who said Adam and Eve were not the common ancestor of all mankind? I think you've been shooting in the wrong direction. Here's what I believe about original sin:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=24295711&postcount=3

I don't think I was explicit about this there: that I believe that Adam was definitely a historical figure, as well as Eve, and that they really did commit the first sin, though I can't commit myself to saying just what that sin was.

I don't really subscribe to the other main TE idea, that Adam is a symbol of humanity, but playing with it: if Adam really is a symbol of humanity at large, is it possible for any human to not be in Adam before having been saved by Christ?

You want to grapple over some semantical point as if it were the whole issue, which is absurd. Just as there is no real dichotomy between justification/sanctification there is none between subjective/objective reasoning. The precise meaning of subjective is meaningless unless it is contrasted with objective. Nothing is 'subjective' in the absolute sense, subjective indicates that the reasoning begins with substantive reasoning and procedes to objects of observation. Empiricalism would have you believe that the whole of science is experimental method which is absurd.

It's not a semantical shell game and I'm not treating it as the whole issue, but I think even you know how extremely important it is to agree on definitions. And I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm just trying to understand how you think and how you are defining the terms involved. There's no point in our communication through language if we do not agree on common definitions, such as your calling "objective" what I call "subjective" while meaning the exact same thing from different angles.

I'm interested in communication. Perhaps it's a foreign motive to you who seem interested only in beating me flat, but bear with me. I'll go check out some Descartes from my college library within the next few weeks to see if I can figure out where you're coming from (it certainly isn't the usual "truth only in empirical, scientific, and historical, terms" approach I described in the Scientific Myth thread).

Oh, and it's bad to quote-mine people:

Mendel's paper is exemplary [in how an objective perspective in scientific papers obscures the writer's personal intentions, biases, and thought processes]. His remarks concerning his experiments and the non-evolutionary views of the hybridist Gaertner illustrate the point. Conflicting interpretations of the following passage (in both the original German and in English translations) have been offered:

Gaertner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed within limits beyond which they cannot change. Although this opinion cannot be unconditionally accepted, we find on the other hand in Gartner's experiments a noteworthy confirmation of that supposition regarding variability of cultivated plants which has already been expressed. (translated by W. Bateson in Sinnot, Dunn, and Dobzhansky 1958, pp.442-443)​

Does this statement mean that Mendel was an evolutionist or a non-evolutionist? R.A. Fisher (1936:118) stated: "It will be seen that Mendel expressly dissociates himself from Gaertner's opposition to evolution, pointing out on the one hand that Gaertner's own results are easily explained by the Mendelian theory of factors." Similarly Gavin de Beer (1964:208) commented: "This passage comes as near to the acceptance of the mutability of species as anyone could wish." Yet, Callender (1988:54) offers exactly the opposite interpretation: "If this statement is to be taken literally, as Mendel most assuredly intended it to be taken, then it says quite simply that he gave conditional acceptance to the view, expressed by Gaertner, that species are fixed within limits beyond which they cannot change. Nothing could be clearer." But surely anything could be clearer. We do not have to decide here which interpretation is the correct one. It is enough to recognize at this point that Mendel's literary style, his attempts to sound objective in his evaluation of Gaertner's views, his use of double negatives, obscures his own intentions. It is not surprising that there is no consensus about the meaning Mendel gave to his own experimental work.

http://www.mendelweb.org/MWsapp.html

 

[Numenor]

The question arises how sin entered the world in the first place. If Adam and Eve were not the common ancestor of all mankind then you run into a very serious problem.

Since many TEs believe in a historical Adam and Eve I guess there's no problem, the single common ancestor model is compatible with the Gospel as redemptive history. So I guess the poll shouild really be more specific and ask about the compatibility of the single common ancestor model and Original Sin. Glad we got that all sorted out.

Actually I want to hear from the folk who think that the Bible is history from Genesis to Revelation is history. Is the wisdom literature history? Is the book of Revelation history?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Are not all Christians by definition evangelical? The practice thereof has different forms and different degrees, but as soon as one commits one's life to Christ that life becomes a witness to the world. Or so I thought.

We're supposed to be, but some of us hide it awfully well

 

[gluadys]

We're supposed to be, but some of us hide it awfully well

Words tend to change their meanings in time and place. Some words originally applied to the whole church are now generally used for specific groups within the church: e.g. "catholic", "orthodox", "apostolic".

"evangelical" is a similar term. It should be descriptive of the church as a whole. But in most of the world it is a synonym for "Protestant". In North America, it is defined even more narrowly as "more conservative Protestant churches" and/or "more conservative Protestant Christians".

And within the "more conservative Protestant churches" it may sometimes be defined still more narrowly. Some would distinguish, for example, between "evangelical" and "fundamentalist".

 

[mark kennedy]

Are not all Christians by definition evangelical? The practice thereof has different forms and different degrees, but as soon as one commits one's life to Christ that life becomes a witness to the world. Or so I thought.

Evangelicals are sometimes refered to as Word churches since there is a tendancy to emphasis the testimony of Scripture. The fundamentalist churches have a tendancy to emphasis the fundamentals of the faith; repentance, confession, the Lordship of Christ, virgin birth and final judgment. Many of the perspectives overlap one another but there are some differences between evangelicals and fundamentalists. There are also a number of Liberal, modernist and even humanist philosophies out there that may or may not be based on Christian theism. It generally comes down to core convictions and some specific doctrinal issues.