TE has nonexistent theology (?)

TEs -- what do you believe/

  • I am a TE and I agree with the Apostles' creed

  • I am a TE and I believe in the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)

  • I am a TE and I believe Jesus Christ is my Saviour and Lord

  • I am a TE and I believe Jesus Christ was incarnate deity

  • I am a TE and I believe Jesus performed miracles on earth

  • I am a TE and I believe in Jesus' saving death

  • I am a TE and I believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead

  • I am a TE and I believe all Scripture is inspired by God

  • I am a TE and I believe in the Great Commission

  • I am a TE and I believe Jesus will come again to raise the dead


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

jereth

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
560
41
Melbourne, Australia
✟8,426.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
In a rather harsh recent post, a certain YEC said the following:

Secondly, there is a distinct difference between [YEC] and theistic evolution since the theology of the former is clear while the theology of the latter is nearly nonexistant. I have never met a theistic evolutionist yet who could define God as the YEC/OEC Christians do. You have completly abandonded the concept of the totality of Scripture...


Let's settled this once and for all! Come on and vote, TEs!
 

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That said, I am hesitant to "define" God. God is Who He is, and I don't think He can be defined. One comes to an ever-increasing understanding of Who God is, but this is never a comprehension; merely apprehension.
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I understand the spirit with which this poll was created, but if you read this thread LINK I hope you will understand why I hold that it is completely unnecessary for TEs to have to justify their faith.

We are here by the witness of our faith through the CF Statement of Faith, which includes the Nicene Creed. That in and of itself must by definition be sufficient.

That we will have disagreements over our POVs regarding scripture, etc is to be expected. That these disagreements continue to lead to challenges of faith is disconcerting.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
TE's get it from all sides.
YECists for thinking science is important and significant and naturalists for being supernaturalists. get used to it, it goes with the territory. actually the YECists here are pretty nice, i haven't heard the terms compromisers or "useful idiots" for several months now. On other Christian forums i seldom went a day without be called really nasty names. go to IIdb to see what the world really thinks of Christians taking science seriously....
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
rmwilliamsll said:
TE's get it from all sides.
YECists for thinking science is important and significant and naturalists for being supernaturalists. get used to it, it goes with the territory. actually the YECists here are pretty nice, i haven't heard the terms compromisers or "useful idiots" for several months now. On other Christian forums i seldom went a day without be called really nasty names. go to IIdb to see what the world really thinks of Christians taking science seriously....

No thanks, I had gotten beaten up pretty badly on another Christian board, and care not to repeat the experience.

Yes, CF has been a good port to call. Generally I do not see a lot of Bible Hammer bashing in OT.

But we've been down this particular road with Mark before, and I thought we had gotten through to him.

Apparently not.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
mark kennedy said:
As the YEC who actually said that I challenge any TE interested in steping up. Define God!

Here's a bit of theology from a TE:

Willtor said:
That said, I am hesitant to "define" God. God is Who He is, and I don't think He can be defined. One comes to an ever-increasing understanding of Who God is, but this is never a comprehension; merely apprehension.

Notice the Creed doesn't say, "God is 'x'." It identifies God as the object of faith, and calls Him, "Father." "I believe in God the Father..." I know that God is my Father, by the grace of Christ, but I don't define Him as "Father," because this is my relationship to Him. It is something that is true of Him, and it isn't refuted through further, deeper understanding, but it is not comprehensive.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Willtor said:
Here's a bit of theology from a TE:

It is classic TE to be sure.



Notice the Creed doesn't say, "God is 'x'." It identifies God as the object of faith, and calls Him, "Father." "I believe in God the Father..." I know that God is my Father, by the grace of Christ, but I don't define Him as "Father," because this is my relationship to Him. It is something that is true of Him, and it isn't refuted through further, deeper understanding, but it is not comprehensive.

God is X, incomprehensive and based on my relationship with him. I could apply that same definition to my goldfish and proclaim him the creator of the heavens and the earth.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
mark kennedy said:
It is classic TE to be sure.

It predates evolution by millennia. It is, for lack of a better word, Orthodox.

mark kennedy said:
God is X, incomprehensive and based on my relationship with him. I could apply that same definition to my goldfish and proclaim him the creator of the heavens and the earth.

You could do this. But you would be mistaken. I have a high degree of confidence that your goldfish is not, in fact, the creator.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Willtor said:
It predates evolution by millennia. It is, for lack of a better word, Orthodox.

It being what exactly because you are not making sense.

You could do this. But you would be mistaken. I have a high degree of confidence that your goldfish is not, in fact, the creator.

Based on your X defintion anything, including my fish, could be the creator. You have yet to define God and I am still waiting.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
mark kennedy said:
It being what exactly because you are not making sense.

"It" being my reasoning for not trying to define God.

mark kennedy said:
Based on your X defintion anything, including my fish could be the creator. You have yet to define God and I am still waiting.

No, I wasn't saying that "God is 'x'." I was pointing out that the Nicene Creed doesn't say this. I think it doesn't say it for a reason. Rather than defining God, it identifies God. It points out the object of our faith. If you're waiting for me to define God, don't hold your breath. It's not something I'm apt to do.

We are not called to give the world definitions of God. We are called to introduce them to Him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ebia
Upvote 0

jereth

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
560
41
Melbourne, Australia
✟8,426.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I have to agree with the others that for any finite human to think he/she can define God is the height of presumption.

Mark, with all due respect I sincerely believe that many of your recent posts on this forum have been very disrespectful, not to mention ignorant. You have demonstrated that you have made very little effort (if any) to understand any point of view other than your own. I am grateful that many YECs on this forum have displayed a far greater degree of Christian integrity, in not reviling TEs the way you do.

For my benefit at least, could you please give us your definition of God, Mark?
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Personally I like the classical mystic definition of God:

"not that, not that, not that, etc."

It fits with the classical biblical definition:



Isa 40:18
To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?

Isa 46:5
To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: fanatiquefou
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Buho

Regular Member
Jun 16, 2005
512
27
45
Maryland, USA
Visit site
✟8,307.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Willtor said:
"It" being my reasoning for not trying to define God.

Rather than defining God, [the Nicene Creed] identifies God. It points out the object of our faith. If you're waiting for me to define God, don't hold your breath. It's not something I'm apt to do.

We are not called to give the world definitions of God. We are called to introduce them to Him.
Perhaps there's a disjoin of communication here and a restatement of the question is in order:

Who do you know God to be?

If you cannot give a definate answer to this, you are decieving yourselves. Why? Because God told us aspects of who He is.

I think some of the prior confusion was in thinking the question was "what is the complete definition of God?" No no, God hasn't revealed that to us. Arguably, our finite minds can't grasp that, possibly not even when we're in Heaven!

God has told us he's the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. God cannot lie. God is Truth. God is righteous. God is perfect. God loves us. God is the source of all Logic, reason, and order. We can ground our faith on these absolutes.

With that said, how does TE theology work? God told us, quite literally (I just spent some time defending this on another thread), that he created the world in 6 days, with man being created -- from dust -- on the 6th day. As far as I can see, if Genesis 1-11 isn't historical narrative and Darwinian evolution (plus billions of years) is fact, there is no reason to be a Christian, none of us need saving, Jesus was a liar and a charletan, the cosmos is all that ever was, is, and will be, and the Big Black Nothing is there to greet me when I die. Yes, I'm making big logical jumps, but that is the end conclusion from a logical outworking of the fuller theory of Darwinian evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Buho

Regular Member
Jun 16, 2005
512
27
45
Maryland, USA
Visit site
✟8,307.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Yes, the poll results are interesting, particularly how (so far) 100% of the voters believe Jesus performed miracles, Jesus rose from the dead, Jesus will later raise more people from the dead, and how 11 out of 12 people believe all scripture is God's divine inspiration.

Do TEs understand that belief in the fact of Jesus's historical miracles and ressurection constitute examples where God has suspended His natural laws? This is an affront to materialistic Science!

This is also the belief that separates Christians from atheists and other non-Christians.

Why then do TEs excercise disbelief when it comes to Genesis 1-11? TEs already believe God can suspend natural laws. TEs also believe scripture is God-breathed. God is also incapable of lying! Why then the inconsistency of beliefs regarding Genesis?
 
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
Buho said:
With that said, how does TE theology work? God told us, quite literally (I just spent some time defending this on another thread), that he created the world in 6 days, with man being created -- from dust -- on the 6th day. As far as I can see, if Genesis 1-11 isn't historical narrative and Darwinian evolution (plus billions of years) is fact, there is no reason to be a Christian, none of us need saving, Jesus was a liar and a charletan, the cosmos is all that ever was, is, and will be, and the Big Black Nothing is there to greet me when I die. Yes, I'm making big logical jumps, but that is the end conclusion from a logical outworking of the fuller theory of Darwinian evolution.
And your logic is rubbish. We need saving, Jesus was not a liar and heaven exists. These do not conflict with an acceptance of an old earth and evolutionary theory, as millions of Christians can attest to. I imagine that your reluctance to accept that those who agree with evolutionary theory as Christian stems from your lack of understanding on the issue.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Do TEs understand that belief in the fact of Jesus's historical miracles and ressurection constitute examples where God has suspended His natural laws? This is an affront to materialistic Science!

so, i'm not a materialistic, nor a naturalist. i'm clearly a supernaturalist and substance dualist. so what? science is none of the above. it is provisionally naturalistic, methodologically and in technic. it has no metaphysics although those doing science have metaphysics and worldviews, all kinds of them.

you confuse and conflate the worldviews of materialistic scientists who use science to support their worldviews with the underlying science. what you need to do is show that methodological naturalism by necessity implies a philosophic naturalism.
until then.

evolution!=atheism
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.