Theological perspective for the impossiblity for evolution

[The Lady Kate]

'Theology' without scripture is sheer blasphemy.

Theo=God, Logos=word. Theology is the word of God. If you base your views on anything other than Christ then beware what happened to the man who built his house on sand.

Theology is the word of God? I thought that was Christ?

 

[Dannager]

Haha, alright, I think lismore has been corrected enough. I'm sure the mistake won't be made again.

 

[lismore]

Haha, alright, I think lismore has been corrected enough. I'm sure the mistake won't be made again.

Im now corrected and 'Theologos' means a seal.

 

[lismore]

Theology is the word of God? I thought that was Christ?

The word made flesh. Peter also says the word of God is the message of the bible which will stand forever.

 

[The Lady Kate]

The word made flesh. Peter also says the word of God is the message of the bible which will stand forever.

And Theology covers a lot more than the Bible. Theology is the study of religion... any religion.

 

[Dannager]

The word made flesh. Peter also says the word of God is the message of the bible which will stand forever.

That doesn't make you any less wrong about what the word "theology" means.

 

[shernren]

The word made flesh. Peter also says the word of God is the message of the bible which will stand forever.

You will find people here who can point to that statement and call you an idolater. While I won't go so far, I must warn you that in Christianity the word of God and the Word of God are two very different things/concepts.

The Word of God is Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, Emmanuel, Second Person of the Trinity. He is spoken of in John 1 as the Light that shone among us and was not received. He is the I Am and is uncreated. He is called "The Word" because a word is something spoken from a speaker to a listener in order that the listener will understand the speaker - in this case, Jesus is the perfectly representative Word of God, and to the extent that any person knows Jesus the Word of God he also knows God who spoke this Word.

The word of God is the Scriptures, written by men of God over the ages, canonically compiled and agreed on by Spirit-filled consensus in the official councils of the church. They are written and read to point to the Word and through the Word to God Himself. The key difference is that they are created. The word records God's historical dealings with man and since God is perfect and true, anything God does must also reflect something of who He is. As such, the word does indeed bring us knowledge of God. However this knowledge is a limited knowledge, in the sense that only the Word Jesus can say that "whoever knows Me knows the Father". This does not take away from its infallibility or its inerrancy; however, it must be noted that by necessity the word must be interpreted before it is understood, and such interpretations do not inherit the infallibility and inerrancy of the word itself. The word is not the co-eternal Word of God of John 1. The word is eternal in the sense that it is something God has revealed about Himself, and since God is eternal and true He will eternally never contradict something He has revealed about Himself.

The idea of an eternal, uncreated, written word coming down from Heaven is the appropriate idea of Muslim revelation, not Christian.

 

[bullietdodger]

The burden of proof is on you, or anyone else, who claims that the ONLY PROPER AND ALLOWABLE interpretation of the verses provided is an indicative one. Simply saying that such and such verses supports a particular point of view and then providing references to verses outside of context begs the question. You need to show how these verses support your claim.

Frankly, I tire of the practice of providing out of context Bible quotes as support of a claim without the necessary accompanying analysis of the text.

You claim a theological truth has been established, yet you have failed utterly at actually establishing it as a theological truth. You take for granted that everyone holds exactly that same view and interpretation of scripture as you do without demonstrating why it is necessary.

Do the work. Put forth an argument to which one can actually respond in a reasonable manner.

Exactly how much training in Biblical interpretation do you have?

 

[bullietdodger]

Sorry having problems posting and accently post the last post a second time.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

I just don't understand it, all the heresy through out the origins theology board. The origional post on this thread is the truth of and from God's Word. How can you dispute God. To dispute God is shear arrogance; it is saings that "I know better than God." If you argue for the opposite of that post you are speaking heresy and blasphemy.

 

[chaoschristian]

Exactly how much training in Biblical interpretation do you have?

Why does it matter?

Perhaps I have a PhD in Theology. Perhaps I'm illiterate and everything that I post is being dictated to someone who can type.

What does it matter?

Not one bit.

My statement stands. Put forth a reasonable argument.

 

[chaoschristian]

I just don't understand it, all the heresy through out the origins theology board. The origional post on this thread is the truth of and from God's Word. How can you dispute God. To dispute God is shear arrogance; it is saings that "I know better than God." If you argue for the opposite of that post you are speaking heresy and blasphemy.

Please sustain your assertion of heresy with evidence and analysis. Or back down from your claim.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

Please sustain your assertion of heresy with evidence and analysis. Or back down from your claim.

All the postings which are contrary to Scripture is the evidence of heresy.

I find your choose of handle interesting. To put chaos and christian say quite alot about you. It tells me that you defy Christian tradition and that you work to cause division within Christianity. I warn you against such things. Chaos and Christianity does not mix.

 

[chaoschristian]

All the postings which are contrary to Scripture is the evidence of heresy.

Thank you for supporting my view that all of the YECs were committing heresy.

There, now that you have had your lesson in the dangers of ambiguity today let me ask you this:

Which postings where contrary to scripture, how and why?

Is there only one way to read scripture? Is there only one way to interpret it? Is there only one version of the Bible which is proper and 'correct' in your mind?

I find your choose of handle interesting. To put chaos and christian say quite alot about you. It tells me that you defy Christian tradition and that you work to cause division within Christianity. I warn you against such things. Chaos and Christianity does not mix.

Read my blog. You really, really need to read by blog. Click on the blog icon in my post and read the first entry. Please.

You are a Christian, and because of that we are bound by our koinonia. Because of that, I am extending you grace.

I beg of you to retract the sentiment of your last paragraph for the sake of our fellowship.

 

[bullietdodger]

Why does it matter?

Perhaps I have a PhD in Theology. Perhaps I'm illiterate and everything that I post is being dictated to someone who can type.

What does it matter?

Not one bit.

My statement stands. Put forth a reasonable argument.

It matters, because if you don't have proper training in interpreting the scriptures, then some of your interpretations may be ill founded.

My question stands. Answer the question.

 

[chaoschristian]

It matters, because if you don't have proper training in interpreting the scriptures, then some of your interpretations may be ill founded.

My question stands. Answer the question.

Proper?

Expound on that.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

Thank you for supporting my view that all of the YECs were committing heresy.

I have not supported your view, you are merely taking what I have said and twisted it you your viewpoint.

Read my blog. You really, really need to read by blog. Click on the blog icon in my post and read the first entry. Please.

You are a Christian, and because of that we are bound by our koinonia. Because of that, I am extending you grace.

I beg of you to retract the sentiment of your last paragraph for the sake of our fellowship.

I have read your blog. Thanks for trying to help me understand. However, I still stand by what I said: "Chaos and Christian does not mix.

 

[chaoschristian]

I have not supported your view, you are merely taking what I have said and twisted it you your viewpoint.

Then you didn't understand my intent.

Your original statements were ambiguous and open to interpretation. I chose to interpret them in a way that I suspected would be directly opposed to your intent in order to demonstrate the dangers of ambiguity.

I have read your blog. Thanks for trying to help me understand. However, I still stand by what I said: "Chaos and Christian does not mix.

I am sorry that you read the blog and came away with a lack of understanding.

However, let me state clearly that my user name is not up for public debate. Think what you will and kindly keep to yourself.

Now, weren't there more important issues we were discussing?

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

I am sorry that you read the blog and came away with a lack of understanding.

However, let me state clearly that my user name is not up for public debate. Think what you will and kindly keep to yourself.

Now, weren't there more important issues we were discussing?

Oh, contrary your handle brings up quite an important topic which needs to be put up to in the light of the Word. So it is up for debate, however, in a different thread and theology board.

As for keeping it to myself... to late!

 

[chaoschristian]

Oh, contrary your handle brings up quite an important topic which needs to be put up to in the light of the Word. So it is up for debate, however, in a different thread and theology board.

As for keeping it to myself... to late!

For God and Truth

Would this be God's Truth or yours?