TE has nonexistent theology (?)

[chaoschristian]

The God who identified himself as I AM WHAT I AM, is clearly not looking for us to come up with definitions.

Actually, I think that was Popeye.

I believe the quote you are looking for is "I am that I am" also translated as "I am who I am."

Exodus 3:14

 

[mark kennedy]

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

If the word has no definition then there is no definite meaning. God has revealed certain things about his divine attributes and eternal nature and it is wrong to refer to them as 'it'.

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.

Don't worry, I am not holding my breath here. I know you don't want to offer a definition and that is because you never gave it a second thought. Guess what, it's time to give it some thought and come up with a real definition.

We are not called to give the world definitions of God. We are called to introduce them to Him.

We are not called to give definitions but we must introduce the world to God? What? First of all, we are not required to introduce the divine attributes of God to the world, they are allready aware of them. What we are called to do is to share the Gospel which is the promise of God. Christians tell the story of redemptive history and proclaim the wonderfull works of God. If it's all just a big myth then there is nothing to say.

 

[mark kennedy]

Personally I like the classical mystic definition of God:

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

It fits with the classical biblical definition:

For my part I like to define God with regards to His attributes and dividing them into incommunicable and communitcible. I'll get into this more as the thread progresses.

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 ?

"What may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."​

(Romans 1:19,20)

 

[muaxiong]

go to IIdb to see what the world really thinks of Christians taking science seriously....

I would like to question what you would conclude to be "science" (i.e. operational science, origins science, etc.).

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

His logic follows a certain pattern that you have ignored. The question is not whether or not heaven exists and certainly not whether or not Jesus is a liar. What the question consists of is whether or not God has indeed revealed to us his divine nature and eternal attributes to the point where we can form a definition.

Buho has said in no uncertain terms that God has revealed enough to us to at least come up with a working definition. If indeed, God has revealed these things to us then there is no excuse for not offering a defintion for the term we use to refer to Him.

He understands perfectly, define your central term and let's move on.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

go to IIdb to see what the world really thinks of Christians taking science seriously....

I would like to question what you would conclude to be "science" (i.e. operational science, origins science, etc.).

operational science, origins science
these are YECists terms, only applicable within that community or to people wishing to communicate to those folks. they are not mainstream modern scientific terms.

btw
have you ever been to iidb?

 

[Willtor]

If the word has no definition then there is no definite meaning. God has revealed certain things about his divine attributes and eternal nature and it is wrong to refer to them as 'it'.

Sure there is meaning. God is Who He is. But I'm not going to capture that in a definition. I learn it through my ever-increasing apprehension of His Word.

Don't worry, I am not holding my breath here. I know you don't want to offer a definition and that is because you never gave it a second thought. Guess what, it's time to give it some thought and come up with a real definition.

Oh, Mark. Don't be like that. You know I've thought about these things, intensively and extensively. There's no need for this sort of comment. You don't realize that it hurts when you say it, not because it's true but because you say it.

We are not called to give definitions but we must introduce the world to God. First of all, we are not required to introduce the divine attributes of God to the world, they are allready aware of them. What we are called to do is to share the Gospel which is the promise of God. Christians tell the story of redemptive history and proclaim the wonderfull works of God. If it's all just a big myth then there is nothing to say.

Okay. I'm not going to argue with you. I think you're really tired and/or really stressed. If it has anything to do with your deployment, I'm not offended. Read over my previous posts, later. If you still don't understand what I'm saying, then maybe I'm just a bad communicator, and I'll try another way. Until then, God bless.

 

[Willtor]

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.

I don't think there is a single TE theology, but as for me, I tend towards orthodox theology (not "Eastern Orthodox," or whatever, but you get the idea; the Church Universal theology; the theology of the Church throughout the Earth and throughout history). I know that many of the TE's, here, do the same.

 

[mark kennedy]

Sure there is meaning. God is Who He is. But I'm not going to capture that in a definition. I learn it through my ever-increasing apprehension of His Word.

I am going to assume that God is revealed in the Scriptures for you and move on. At this point, I would say that is enough.

Oh, Mark. Don't be like that. You know I've thought about these things, intensively and extensively. There's no need for this sort of comment. You don't realize that it hurts when you say it, not because it's true but because you say it.

I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, I'm not a great dancer so sorry about your toes. I am asking you to think about something very important, you wont be the first and certainly not the last.

Okay. I'm not going to argue with you. I think you're really tired and/or really stressed. If it has anything to do with your deployment, I'm not offended. Read over my previous posts, later. If you still don't understand what I'm saying, then maybe I'm just a bad communicator, and I'll try another way. Until then, God bless.

I appreciate that but it has nothing to do with my deployment and I am hardly stressed at all. I was calling for a definition of God, pure and simple and it is odd that not one has been offered. Just relax, we are all friends here and this will follow its course and possibly help us all to understand one another better.

I don't think defining God is easy, I do think it is possible and important.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

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.

Yes, you are making big logical, or rather illogical jumps. Your second paragraph contradicts much of what you said in the first paragraph, and goes on to make many statements that are just not true.

God has not told us quite literally that he created the world in six days. God did not write, nor did he dictate the scripture, and even if he had, there is still no reason to take it literally. We know that God is a superb story-teller because Jesus was a superb story-teller, and Jesus imitated his Father in all things.

Whether Gen. 1-11 is historical narrative or not ought to make no difference to whether one is Christian, for it makes no difference to our need for salvation. Our need for salvation is grounded in the sin that separates us from God. That has nothing to do with the age of the earth or our biological relationship to other species on this planet.

You are drawing theological conclusions from modern science that are not valid either as science or as theology.

On the other hand, to go back to your first paragraph, it is precisely because God is creator, because God is Truth and cannot lie, because God is the source of all Logic, reason, and order, that we can trust his works to speak truth about themselves, and we can trust the logic, reason and order of nature to reveal itself to our finite minds.

If what is revealed to us about God's works, by God's works appears to contradict what we assume is meant in scripture, we must consider that there is some defect in how we read scripture.

We need to re-evaluate assumptions that a story is intended to be a historical narrative. Or that there is greater truth value in a historical narrative than in a poetic vision of creation.

 

[gluadys]

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!

Of course, we understand this. We also understand that it is not an affront to science. It may be an affront to those atheists who try to claim a scientific basis for their hostility to God. But not to science as such, only to a particular misuse of science.

Why then do TEs excercise disbelief when it comes to Genesis 1-11?

We don't. This is another example of a YECist who has so identified their own personal interpretation of scripture with the text that they cannot distinguish them, don't understand that what they are presenting is an interpretation, and so treat other interpretations as disbelief instead of as theological disagreement.

I do disagree with how you are interpreting Gen. 1-11. But I do not exercise disbelief in the scripture.

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?

Since it is a matter of interpretation, it is not a question of inconsistent belief. Yes, God can suspend natural laws if and when God chooses. God will do so when it is important to do so and when God accepts the consequences.

But to know in general that God can suspend natural law does not tell us that God actually did so on any particular occasion. And it does not tell us that a miracle will not have consequences in nature such that we may be able to confirm or falsify a claim that one happened. Because God does not lie, the works of God do not lie. If nature falsifies an alleged miracle, then the miracle did not happen. The falsification of a miracle in nature would mean that God does lie.

 

[Buho]

Hi all. Thank you for your replies. I am seriously interested in how TE theology works, because I am absolutely baffled at how you have come to your conclusions. Your posts are helping. (I was a TE for about 3 months after I committed my life to Christ, and combing my own memory is helping me, too.)

Yes, you are making big logical, or rather illogical jumps. Your second paragraph contradicts much of what you said in the first paragraph, and goes on to make many statements that are just not true.

Can you point out the contradiction and the statements that are plainly false? I'm having trouble finding them. (You might be right.)

God has not told us quite literally that he created the world in six days. God did not write, nor did he dictate the scripture...

Hold on. There are two things you are talking about here.

1. I didn't say "write." I said "told," and by that I meant the God-breathed nature of scripture, how it was divinely inspired by God, but written in the style and personality of its physical author. The end result, though, is God's Truth, the scripture's inerrancy, and the scripture's sufficiency. Or do you deny these?

2. Given that you are not talking about God physically writing scripture, can you substantiate your belief that it is fact that God did not communicate his Creation story as literal? For instance, can you provide three reasons why you believe this to be fact?

God did not write, nor did he dictate the scripture, and even if he had, there is still no reason to take it literally.

If I gave you three reasons I believe why Genesis should be taken literally, would that refute your claim that "there is no reason"?

There are reasons. The primary reason is: sola scriptura.

Whether Gen. 1-11 is historical narrative or not ought to make no difference to whether one is Christian

I agree 100%, even if I may have appeared to not agree earlier, to which I sincerely appologize.

However, it is important to me that Christians grow to be strong disciples, to ween off milk and onto meat. If a Christian is on this path, eventually Genesis 1-11 will need to be addressed head-on.

Additionally, I've read horror stories of children of Christians becoming atheists because their parents don't believe in a literal Genesis and the children follow the logical outworking of that (namely, if Genesis can't be read the way it reads and believed as truth, then what other parts of the Bible can't be trusted?). I am deeply concerned that Christians are contributing to the decay of the Church. (Bear in mind, this is my perspective. Just hear me out.)

You are drawing theological conclusions from modern science that are not valid either as science or as theology.

I am actually quite surprised you said this. Can you support this sentence? Where have I mentioned scientific evidence?

I was just about to accuse TEs of the same after reading this:

If what is revealed to us about God's works, by God's works appears to contradict what we assume is meant in scripture, we must consider that there is some defect in how we read scripture.

We need to re-evaluate assumptions that a story is intended to be a historical narrative. Or that there is greater truth value in a historical narrative than in a poetic vision of creation.

1. Gluadys, do you realize that what you just said is, "we must fit God's Word with our observations of reality." This is borderline heresy. You are placing man's knowledge as higher authority than God's knowledge.

2. You are mistaking "a historical narrative" as an assumption when it is actually a conclusion substantiated by a slew of biblical evidence, Hebraic linguistics. The actual assumptions are: God communicated information to us clearly, God cannot lie, and God's Word is inerrant. (Even these can be substantiated biblically.)

3. You are admitting that there "appears" to be a contradiction between God's works (nature) and "what we assume is meant in scripture." By this, to me, it reads that your initial interpretation was a plain, literal reading of Genesis 1.

Again I ask, what reasons do you have for seeking an interpretation besides your initial, plain reading of Genesis 1? Does it include scientific evidence? Or are your reasons grounded in further scripture?

I'll note here that YECs have no reason whatsoever to use science as evidence to support their belief in a young earth. Therefore, YECs have nothing to rely on but scripture alone (sola scriptura). TEs are the ones that run the dangerous risk of placing man's word above God's.

Interpretation of scripture:
As already stated, scripture, although inerrant, needs to be interpreted for human comprehension to take place. The question at hand is Genesis 1 and whether this needs to be interpreted literally or figuratively. How do we come to a conclusion on this? Do we use more scripture or do we use scientific evidence? I'd like a TE to respond to this one.

+ + + + +

We also understand that it is not an affront to science.

As I clarified in my next sentence. If you already believe in supernatural miracles, how great of a leap of faith is it to believe that the Infinite God can create the Universe in 1 second?

We don't. This is another example of a YECist who has so identified their own personal interpretation of scripture with the text that they cannot distinguish them, don't understand that what they are presenting is an interpretation, and so treat other interpretations as disbelief instead of as theological disagreement.

Well-said, and I hear you. Thank you for calling me out on that. I'll try not to do that in the future. Here's where I'm coming from: I cannot fathom how a Christian can come to the belief that Genesis is figurative in light of a good understanding of the rest of scripture and a personal knowledge of God. In my cluelessness I interpret TE beliefs as denying/disbelieving God's plain Truth regarding our Origins (the interpretation I subscribe to, which I claim is "simpler" and aligns with the rest of scripture better).

Yes, God can suspend natural laws if and when God chooses. God will do so when it is important to do so and when God accepts the consequences.

So, did God suspend natural laws in Genesis 1-2 at all? Can we tell?

Also, what in the world do you mean by God accepting the consequences of suspending the natural laws?!

But to know in general that God can suspend natural law does not tell us that God actually did so on any particular occasion.

...Sure.... Do we know if Matthew 14:25 is God excercising his ability to suspend natural laws or is this where we apply "interpretation" and say Jesus was probably standing on a sandbar? Gluadys, I'm directly challenging you on this quote of yours. You are essentially saying you cannot accept any part of scripture unless it aligns with your presuppositions. And your pressupposition here is that "we cannot know," which is the battle-cry of postmodernist America and New Agers. No, Gluadys, we do know. Scripture is there so that we may know things God revealed to us (2 Tim 3:16-17, John 3:10).

Bear with me, Gluadys. I'm not attacking you personally. I'm attacking the anti-biblical notions you seem to have learned from scripture (or from without scripture). I mean no offense to you personally. I wish to build stronger Christians who are stronger in their faith.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

God communicated information to us clearly,
obviously, given the number of denominations of Christians claiming the same think yet differing on virtually everything, it is not clear enough.

God cannot lie,
but your interpretation of Scripture can be wrong. identifying interpretation with the absolute must-be-the-meaning is a problem, especially if you are wrong.


and God's Word is inerrant. (Even these can be substantiated biblically.)
inerrant is club talk, a specific word to mean that the Bible is true on historical and scientific propositions. try to substantiate it Biblically for us.

 

[relspace]

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...

This really is a rather odd post. A bit youthful and immature I suspect. I guess the distinction of clarity refers to uniformity. And I think it is true that TE as a group is hardly uniform at all. But for someone with the narrow minded attitude obvious in this post it is simplicity itself to name a group with absolute uniformity by simply denying, that anyone who does not agree on the issues that the poster feels is important, is a part of the group (instant uniformity!).

God is the creator of heaven and earth (all that exists). That is sufficient to define the word "God", but I can go on. God is the infinite, perfect, all powerful, all knowing being who was incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth (who died for our sins), and who is spoken of and who takes part in all the words of the Bible. So I am a TEist and I have defined the word "God". Does this lack clarity?

However, surely there is a distinction between defining the word and defining God Himself. To define something is to limit it and, I think, to take intellectual posession of it as a tool for ones own use, and I find this not only a foolish thing to try to do to God, but also contemptible.

By the way, what is "the concept of the totality of Scripture"? I do not know if I have abandoned this or not since I have not the slightest idea what it means. If it refers to "Sola Scripura" then I must object that I never, ever abandoned this, because I never once accepted it for a single moment in my entire life.

 

[gluadys]

Can you point out the contradiction and the statements that are plainly false?

Sure. In the first paragraph that I quoted, you made the following points:

1. God has told us he's the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth.
2. God cannot lie. God is Truth. God is righteous. God is perfect. God loves us.
3. God is the source of all Logic, reason, and order.

You even went so far as to say:

We can ground our faith on these absolutes.

btw, I agree fully with all of this.

From this we should be able to conclude that the Creator created a heaven and earth that is orderly and open to being understood by reason and logic, and when so studied does not lie to us.

Yet in your next paragraph you say (or imply) that what observation and reason have deduced about the antiquity of the universe, its mode of origin, and about evolution are not to be believed, although this is what God's creation provides evidence for. That is the contradiction.

The errors are:
"if Genesis 1-11 isn't historical narrative and Darwinian evolution (plus billions of years) is fact,
1. there is no reason to be a Christian,
2. none of us need saving,
3.Jesus was a liar and a charletan,
4.the cosmos is all that ever was, is, and will be, and the Big Black
5.Nothing is there to greet me when I die."

None of these conclusions can be derived from either the theory of evolution or big bang theory or any other scientific theory. And theologically treating Gen. 1-11 as historical narrative is not fundamental to understanding our need for salvation and therefore having a reason to be Christian.

1. I didn't say "write." I said "told," ... The end result, though, is God's Truth, the scripture's inerrancy, and the scripture's sufficiency. Or do you deny these?

My apologies. Your use of the term "literally" misled me as to your position.

I have never adopted the doctrine of inerrancy. I was taught the Reformers' doctrine of infallibility on matters of faith and morals. I agree with sufficiency.

2. Given that you are not talking about God physically writing scripture, can you substantiate your belief that it is fact that God did not communicate his Creation story as literal? For instance, can you provide three reasons why you believe this to be fact?

I am not sure what would constitute substantiation. I can give you my opinion and the reasons for my opinion. I can also cite those more knowledgeable than myself as corroborating authorities.

The basic reasons I believe that the creation stories (and I do mean stories) are not literal are:

-they do not agree with the creation story told by creation itself,
-they do not agree with each other, notably in the order of creation,
-each is a carefully crafted piece of literature (esp. Gen.1) that is inconsistent with a simple reportage of actual historical events
-each has theological reasons not to be a simple report of events; each is crafted to teach about God, about humanity, about creation, about the interrelationships of God, humanity and creation on theological rather than historical terms.

If I gave you three reasons I believe why Genesis should be taken literally, would that refute your claim that "there is no reason"?

There are reasons. The primary reason is: sola scriptura.

It would depend on the reasons. Sola scriptura is not a reason. Sola scriptura concerns the authority of scripture. It does not imply that the creation stories be interpreted as historical narrative.

Additionally, I've read horror stories of children of Christians becoming atheists because their parents don't believe in a literal Genesis and the children follow the logical outworking of that (namely, if Genesis can't be read the way it reads and believed as truth, then what other parts of the Bible can't be trusted?). I am deeply concerned that Christians are contributing to the decay of the Church. (Bear in mind, this is my perspective. Just hear me out.)

Most TEs can also cite horror stories of children of YECists who left the Church when they discovered to what extent they had been misled about science. Since they had been taught that the bible and modern science were incompatible, their acceptance of the truth of science led them to reject their faith. TEs consider this a needless tragedy. It is also a needless tragedy that many scientifically aware people will not give Christianity the time of day because they have been convinced that one must shut off one's mind and deny reality in order to be Christian.

St. Augustine's 5th century warning about Christians who speak what they do not know in reference to science is very much a propos here.

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."

-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)​

I am actually quite surprised you said this. Can you support this sentence? Where have I mentioned scientific evidence?

See above. You mentioned Darwinian evolution, billions of years and Big Black [sic] (I think you meant Big Bang). From these scientific theories you drew the theological conclusions that we do not need to be saved, that the physical cosmos is the only reality and that there is no afterlife.

But science does not lend itself to theological conclusions of any kind.

1. Gluadys, do you realize that what you just said is, "we must fit God's Word with our observations of reality." This is borderline heresy.

Actually it is quite orthodox and derives clearly from what you yourself have stated. Of course we must fit God's Word with our observations of reality, since it is God's Word that created and upholds that reality, and God's Word cannot lie. Since the Word that made reality is truth, the works of the Word must be true.

Furthermore, since the Word (Logos) is rational and orderly, created a universe that is accessible to reason and logic, and gave us the capacity to apprehend his work via observation and logical reason, any correct apprehension of natural reality is an apprehension of God's truth.

You are placing man's knowledge as higher authority than God's knowledge.

Not at all. It seems so to you because you are conflating four realities into two. You are assuming that "man's knowledge" applies only to scientific knowledge of creation and not also to human understanding of scripture. Likewise, you are assuming that God's knowledge is accessible only through scripture and not also through creation.

We have two realities, two revelations, which come from God and are always true---created nature (general revelation) and scripture (special revelation).

We have two realities which come from fallible human understanding and can always be infected by human error----our limited understanding of creation (science) and our limited understanding of scripture (theology).

I recognize that science is a limited understanding of creation. I do not set it above God's knowledge of either creation or scripture. But I do set it alongside of our theology, that is, our limited and sometimes fallible understanding of scripture.

These are the correct comparisons:

scripture<---->creation
both words of truth from God

human interpretations of scripture<--->human interpretations of creation
both subject to the fallibility of human reason.

You are assuming that we have a perfect access to God's knowledge of scripture while we do not have perfect access to God's revelation in creation. I see no reason to make this assumption. I believe that in both cases we only have access to human interpretations of what God has revealed.

Of course, just because our interpretations are fallible, does not mean they cannot be right a large part of the time. But if we can be right about what scripture teaches, we can also be right about what we learn of creation.

Need another post to complete reply.

 

[gluadys]

2. You are mistaking "a historical narrative" as an assumption when it is actually a conclusion substantiated by a slew of biblical evidence, Hebraic linguistics. The actual assumptions are: God communicated information to us clearly, God cannot lie, and God's Word is inerrant. (Even these can be substantiated biblically.)

I haven't seen that evidence presented convincingly. Most presenters make assumptions I find unacceptable e.g. that scripture is factually inerrant in all that it says. Scripture says a bat is a bird and it is not. Scripture says that vegetation existed before the sun, and it did not.

I don't hold that these errors diminish the teaching of scripture it was written to teach, about God, about Jesus, about sin and redemption and life everlasting. I accept that the biblical writers were fallible humans like myself, even under inspiration. As long as the principle theological message gets through a few incidental errors on matters of natural or historical fact don't bother me.

I would also disagree that all information in scripture is a clear communication. Even Peter agrees that Paul is often obscure.

So, I am suspicious of the "conclusion" that Genesis is intended to be a "historical narrative" especially if one is using a post-Enlightenment concept of history.

3. You are admitting that there "appears" to be a contradiction between God's works (nature) and "what we assume is meant in scripture." By this, to me, it reads that your initial interpretation was a plain, literal reading of Genesis 1.

Actually no, I don't think I ever thought of many biblical stories as being anything other than stories. But when people make a point of understanding some of these stories as records of literal, historical events, they will run up against the fact that nature contradicts them on that basis.

Again I ask, what reasons do you have for seeking an interpretation besides your initial, plain reading of Genesis 1? Does it include scientific evidence? Or are your reasons grounded in further scripture?

Both.

I'll note here that YECs have no reason whatsoever to use science as evidence to support their belief in a young earth. Therefore, YECs have nothing to rely on but scripture alone (sola scriptura). TEs are the ones that run the dangerous risk of placing man's word above God's.

I agree with you. They have no reason to use science as evidence. But many attempt to. That attempt leads to inanities such as super-speed tectonic plate movement, impossible genetics and much other nonsense.

As for the risk of placing man's word above God's, see note above on the conflation of four realities into two.

Interpretation of scripture:
As already stated, scripture, although inerrant, needs to be interpreted for human comprehension to take place. The question at hand is Genesis 1 and whether this needs to be interpreted literally or figuratively. How do we come to a conclusion on this? Do we use more scripture or do we use scientific evidence? I'd like a TE to respond to this one.

We use both, because both are revelations from God, insofar as our understanding of them is correct.

+ + + + +

As I clarified in my next sentence. If you already believe in supernatural miracles, how great of a leap of faith is it to believe that the Infinite God can create the Universe in 1 second?

None at all. However, believing God can create in a second doesn't mean God did. The real point is to determine what God actually did.

Well-said, and I hear you. Thank you for calling me out on that. I'll try not to do that in the future.

Thank you. Very much. I really appreciate that.

So, did God suspend natural laws in Genesis 1-2 at all? Can we tell?

From my perspective (that these are stories not reports of creation) the question is meaningless. It would only apply in a historical situation and for me Gen. 1-2 is not describing history in any literal way.

As to the actual creation, it would include the creation of natural laws. One would hardly suspend what one is creating.

Also, what in the world do you mean by God accepting the consequences of suspending the natural laws?!

Everything that touches the natural world will have some sort of physical impact on it. The miracle itself may lie outside of natural law, but its consequences in reality will not. For example, when God miraculously withholds rain from Israel for three years, a natural consequence is dying crops and famine. And when, at Elijah's request, he miraculously brings rain again a natural consequence is the renewal of vegetative growth. The rain is miraculous, the vegetation is not.


Some of the miraculous doings that YECists would ascribe to God (e.g. speeded up rates of radio-active decay) would have natural consequences that would at a minimum super-heat the earth to the point it could no longer sustain any life at all. At worst, such suspension of natural process would uncreate creation.

God would understand what the consequences of any miracle would be, and if those consequences were not in accordance with his will, the miracle would not take place, for God cannot act against his own will.

I hold that God does not will to uncreate creation and therefore will not suspend any natural force or process that would have that effect.

...Sure.... Do we know if Matthew 14:25 is God excercising his ability to suspend natural laws or is this where we apply "interpretation" and say Jesus was probably standing on a sandbar?

We have no basis for a scientific conclusion. We only know that the disciples reported Jesus walking on water. We can believe he actually did, or we can believe it was a misperception of the disciples which had some sort of natural explanation. But we cannot know one way or the other. Any "scientific" explanation tendered would be ad hoc; a "could have been" that can be neither verified nor falsified. That is not good science. So,whatever we choose to believe in this case is a matter of faith. Personally, I don't need a scientific basis for this miracle.

Gluadys, I'm directly challenging you on this quote of yours. You are essentially saying you cannot accept any part of scripture unless it aligns with your presuppositions. And your pressupposition here is that "we cannot know," which is the battle-cry of postmodernist America and New Agers.

You are putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort. I only said that a general principle (God can suspend natural law) does not guarantee a specific claimed instance of God doing so. This is simply making a necessary distinction between "can" and "did".

I wish to build stronger Christians who are stronger in their faith.

As do I.

 

[muaxiong]

operational science, origins science these are YECists terms, only applicable within that community or to people wishing to communicate to those folks. they are not mainstream modern scientific terms.

Just like salvation, sin, and redemption are terms that only Christians use to communicate to other Christians and are not mainstream world views. The point being that "words" are not the problem, it is the concept behind the word that we are at odds with. The most important thing being does one's science reflect reality that is is it testable, repeatable and empirical and therefore useful - regardless you have not answered the question of what is useful science as oppose to what is junk science.

btw have you ever been to iidb?

Would this be the internet infidels discussion board? If yes then my answer would be - should I? 2 Corithians 6:14. The point is any discussion which exclude the Creator who made everything possible is a fruitless endeavor no matter what intentions are (obvioulsy one cannot let one's light shine to its fullest behind a computer screen).

 

[shernren]

If the word has no definition then there is no definite meaning. God has revealed certain things about his divine attributes and eternal nature and it is wrong to refer to them as 'it'.

Aren't you in the least bit apprehensive of the hubris inherent in your statement?

My first point in "defining" God is that God is a given. In other words, God communicates to us who He is, instead of allowing us to elucidate who He is on our own. It is extremely important to realize this because if God is "given" through His definitive acts of revelation then any human conception of Him is an approximation unless it can encompass the totality of all the implications of His definitive revelations. All this talk of communicable and incommunicable attributes is just a box which quite a bit of God can fit into ... not God Himself.

Secondly, we know from Scripture that God's definitive revelation is in the form of a person, Jesus Christ. We are told that Jesus is the Word of God to humanity. To define God is to define Jesus, and vice versa - "He who has seen Me has seen the Father."

Within the context of that definitive revelation, God's definitive revelation of His relationship with us is found in the historical events of Jesus' death and resurrection. From Jesus' perfect life and death and resurrection we are to obtain the orientation for our ideas of sin, life, death, and salvation. Anything before was just a shadow of this revelation, designed to guide humanity into maturing towards being able to grasp the significance of Jesus' death and resurrection.

Note how YECism turns things around by making God's definitive revelation special creation - "the God of OECism / TEism / progressive creationism is not the God of Christianity" - and then staking the validity of the resurrection's definitive revelation contingent not just on the act and motivation of creation, but a specific mechanism of creation.

So if you ask me to define God, I will tell you to see who Jesus is and see what His death and resurrection was.
Can your words do any better than that?

I'll note here that YECs have no reason whatsoever to use science as evidence to support their belief in a young earth. Therefore, YECs have nothing to rely on but scripture alone (sola scriptura). TEs are the ones that run the dangerous risk of placing man's word above God's.

You have got to be kidding. If you refute the global flood by saying that waters cannot stay several feet above the mountains for several months in a local flood, then you are using science to prove your interpretation. Because it is Newton, not the Bible, which tells us that this is scientifically impossible, and there is nothing which prevents a divine miracle from performing this.

I have made some observations about what scientific creationism looks like here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2848141-the-scientific-myth-of-creationism.html
and about what the natural conclusion of scientific creationism must be if it "does not rely on science at all":
http://www.christianforums.com/t2936947-the-sky-is-falling-solid-atmosphere-theory.html

You are very confident in what you believe and I would be interested to receive your critiques for the ideas I have expressed there.

 

[jereth]

Ah, what a welcome relief to find that Theistic Evolutionists do in fact believe in Christian doctrine!

will you guys shut up now and stop bashing us up, please?

 

[Biliskner]

1Ch. 1:1 Adam, Seth, Enosh,
1Ch. 1:2 Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared,
1Ch. 1:3 Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah.
1Ch. 1:4 The sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth.
1Ch. 1:5 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras.
1Ch. 1:6 The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah.
1Ch. 1:7 The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittim and the Rodanim.
1Ch. 1:8 The sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan.
1Ch. 1:9 The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabta, Raamah and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan.
1Ch. 1:10 Cush was the father of Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty warrior on earth.
1Ch. 1:11 Mizraim was the father of the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites,
1Ch. 1:12 Pathrusites, Casluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites.

The Book, if not the above pasted chapter, should be enough to "convince" anyone that Adam (+Eve) were real people like you and me, and that Genesis 1-11 is literal history.