YEC - A coherent theological system?

[chaoschristian]

For another thing you completly abandoned all Scriptural authority

Until you recant this or at least provide a plausible explanation as to why it ought to mean other than what it says as written Mark, I have nothing further to say.

 

[mark kennedy]

Until you recant this or at least provide a plausible explanation as to why it ought to mean other than what it says as written Mark, I have nothing further to say.

Untill you cite and quote a New Testament passage as authority then I not only don't recant but I rest my case.

 

[shernren]

For starters God is not a warrior against evil, evil is the absense of God just as darkness is the absense of light.

If this is not a warrior, tell me what or who is:

Who is this who comes from Edom, in crimsoned garments from Bozrah, he who is splendid in his apparel, marching in the greatness of his strength? "It is I, speaking in righteousness, mighty to save." Why is your apparel red, and your garments like his who treads in the winepress? "I have trodden the winepress alone, and from the peoples no one was with me; I trod them in my anger and trampled them in my wrath; their lifeblood spattered on my garments, and stained all my apparel. For the day of vengeance was in my heart, and my year of redemption had come. I looked, but there was no one to help; I was appalled, but there was no one to uphold; so my own arm brought me salvation, and my wrath upheld me. I trampled down the peoples in my anger; I made them drunk in my wrath, and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth."
(Isaiah 63:1-6 ESV)

Understanding God as warrior is crucial to a lot of OT theology, in particular the motivation and justification for the Canaanite genocides in Joshua.

For another thing wisdom and knowledge do not come from experiments, flasks, beakers, radiometric dating, old bones or dirt.

Knowledge can come from all those, and more.
True wisdom only comes from the Bible.

And what does the Bible say wisdom is like?

Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom.
(James 3:13 ESV)

The beggining of wisdom is the fear of the Lord but fools hate wisdom and discipline" (Proverbs 1:7)

Now before you go getting indignant because you think I just called you a fool, who do you think the fool in the Proverbs is? If you are reading the Proverbs and thinks its anyone but you then you are not paying attention.

"For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror, for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was." (James 1:23,24)

Why should I not be indignant?

I keep having to remind myself that debates and discussions are not about people, they are about ideas. If I treat ideas like people, with basic rights to be heard even if they are disproved, then I will never have anything to believe in. But if I treat people like ideas, which can (and should!) be pounded and twisted this way and that to determine truth, then I have abused the image of God.

And so I endeavour to refute ideas and edify people. Now, I know that I am not perfect. I am very sure that you will find recent posts by me in which I have insulted people where I should have refuted ideas. And I wholeheartedly apologise for anyone whom I may have wronged in this way.

But Mark, we both know that the Bible has various criteria for folly and wisdom. A fool says in his heart "there is no God." A fool is lazy. A fool has earthly wisdom which is self-conceited and self-seeking. I will admit readily that I am indeed a self-seeker, that by God's grace I am learning to change. But you are a name on a screen to me, and I am a name on a screen to you, and if you do not know my life and my deeds and my friends how can you claim to know me enough to call me a fool?

In the same way, we are told that wisdom shows itself by reputable conduct, good works, and meekness. Am I truly lacking in these? Can you prove it? If you can show me from a few megabytes' worth of text where I have lacked these in my relationships with the people around me, then by all means reproach me. Surely I desire the rebuke of a wise man like you.

But until then, remember Jesus whom we both worship:

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.
(Matthew 5:22 ESV)

What to talk about my theology, lets talk theology brother.

I do not see any point in talking about theology if it will not edify either of us, which I strongly suspect is the case.

Prove me wrong about that.

 

[gluadys]

I think you are using the term 'orthodox' pretty losely since you want to include theistic evolution. Now take a good look at the Nicean Cread including the part where God creates the heavens and the earth and tell me how this includes purely naturalistic processes in the minds of the early church fathers.

Of course it does. Unlike YECists, the early church fathers never considered that naturalistic processes came from any source other than God.

 

[mark kennedy]

Of course it does. Unlike YECists, the early church fathers never considered that naturalistic processes came from any source other than God.

That is just plain silly, YECs never consider that naturalistic processes came from any other source then God. What we don't agree with is attributing to nature what is rightfully attributed to God.

The Scriptures are clear and consistant on the matter of fact. Adam was the first man and all humanity descended from him.

 

[gluadys]

That is just plain silly, YECs never consider that naturalistic processes came from any other source then God. What we don't agree with is attributing to nature what is rightfully attributed to God.

But everything rightfully attributed to nature is ipso facto rightfully attributed to God as well.

Just because materialists and atheists do not attribute to God what they ought to is no reason for Christians to commit the same error.

Why do so many creationists speak of nature as excluding God?

 

[mark kennedy]

But everything rightfully attributed to nature is ipso facto rightfully attributed to God as well.

So it does not matter if we attribute to naturalistic processes what is rightfully attributed to God? The whole premise of the thread is that YEC is incoherent as a theology. My point is that YEC is based on solid Christian theology and it is TE that has abandoned tradional theological principles.

Just because materialists and atheists do not attribute to God what they ought to is no reason for Christians to commit the same error.

I realize that God need not micromanage everything but human lineage as not been an issue until modern times. There is no way Adam can be specially created and descended from apes. The two concepts are mutually exclusive and there is nothing in Church history to indicate the concept a common ancestor for men and apes was ever entertained.

Why do so many creationists speak of nature as excluding God?

Study nature as nature and God as God and know where the line is drawn. Science has come to be defined in such a way as to naturally exclude any inferance of a supernatural act of God. If God does indeed act in time and space then we should consider a criteria for determining the historicity of an event.

The Bible explicitly describes miracles by the score and like it our not the Christian faith is a supernatural religion. How is it any harder to believe that God became flesh and blood then it is to believe that he created the world and all of life by divine fiat?

You can't have it both ways, either God's acts in redemptive history are evident or they are not.

 

[mark kennedy]

If this is not a warrior, tell me what or who is:

Who is this who comes from Edom, in crimsoned garments from Bozrah, he who is splendid in his apparel, marching in the greatness of his strength? "It is I, speaking in righteousness, mighty to save." Why is your apparel red, and your garments like his who treads in the winepress? "I have trodden the winepress alone, and from the peoples no one was with me; I trod them in my anger and trampled them in my wrath; their lifeblood spattered on my garments, and stained all my apparel. For the day of vengeance was in my heart, and my year of redemption had come. I looked, but there was no one to help; I was appalled, but there was no one to uphold; so my own arm brought me salvation, and my wrath upheld me. I trampled down the peoples in my anger; I made them drunk in my wrath, and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth."
(Isaiah 63:1-6 ESV)

Understanding God as warrior is crucial to a lot of OT theology, in particular the motivation and justification for the Canaanite genocides in Joshua.

It is important to consider the wrath of God coming as His righteous Judgment but in this life and the one to come:

"Therefore put to death your earthly nature: Sexual immorality, inpurity, evil desire and greed, which is idolatry. For these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of the disobediant" (Col. 3:5,6)

What is important here is not that the wrath of God is coming, that is a given. What is important is why the wrath of God came on the Caaninites. Their sin at come to complete fruitiion and they were ripe for wrath.

Knowledge can come from all those, and more.
True wisdom only comes from the Bible.

And what does the Bible say wisdom is like?

Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom.
(James 3:13 ESV)

The context this is stated in is important:

"But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual demonic."
(James 3:14,15)

I'm not the one that made this a theological issue but since it is I intend to deal with it as such. YEC is the traditional view of the Church and it was unthinkable in antiquity to attribute or origins to naturalistic processes.

Why should I not be indignant?

I have no problem with indignation if it is the proper response to mistreatment. However, I find it deeply offensive to start a diatribe that portrays my theology as incoherent and that is what I am responding to here.

I keep having to remind myself that debates and discussions are not about people, they are about ideas. If I treat ideas like people, with basic rights to be heard even if they are disproved, then I will never have anything to believe in. But if I treat people like ideas, which can (and should!) be pounded and twisted this way and that to determine truth, then I have abused the image of God.

I tend to agree that this should be nothing personal, the theology should speak for itself. I have a number of unfashionable convictions, I believe in a midtrib rapture, I don't care how you are baptized or even if you are not baptized at all, I don't push the Trinity dispite the fact it is essential doctrine, I don't believe the Pentecostal experience is New Testament tongues but Pentecostals are obviously New Testament believers. I could give you a much longer list but you get the idea. I don't happen to believe that evolution as natural history is compatable with New Testament theology, in fact I consider them virtually incompatable. You may fell differently about these things and I do not reject other Christians because I have a difference of opinion on some minor point of theology.

And so I endeavour to refute ideas and edify people. Now, I know that I am not perfect. I am very sure that you will find recent posts by me in which I have insulted people where I should have refuted ideas. And I wholeheartedly apologise for anyone whom I may have wronged in this way.

I realize this can get heated and if we are going over some scientific research I can take it with a grain of salt. When you get into theology and the historicity of events described explicitly in Scripture I have a tendancy to get on my soap box and get pretty exercised. Scientific research is an interesting challenge of me as an exercise in evidential apologetics, nothing more. It's when miracles are dismissed catagorically that I start to get indignant and I don't appreciate someone suggesting my theology is incoherent.

But Mark, we both know that the Bible has various criteria for folly and wisdom. A fool says in his heart "there is no God." A fool is lazy. A fool has earthly wisdom which is self-conceited and self-seeking. I will admit readily that I am indeed a self-seeker, that by God's grace I am learning to change. But you are a name on a screen to me, and I am a name on a screen to you, and if you do not know my life and my deeds and my friends how can you claim to know me enough to call me a fool?

What I was pointing out is that the fool in Proverbs is you (speaking of you as the reader). I also mentioned the the Bible is like looking in a mirror, don't get me wrong, I'm in the same boat, we are all fools when faced with the wisdom of God. An online friend of mine argued strenously with me for weeks once that agnosticism was the New Testament view of God. It was a compelling arguement but obviously it left me unpersuaded. God often does convict us of or folly and vainity and we do well to take it to heart. Still we have to take a stand on essential doctrine and the historicity of Genesis 1 is no longer negotiable for me.

In the same way, we are told that wisdom shows itself by reputable conduct, good works, and meekness. Am I truly lacking in these? Can you prove it? If you can show me from a few megabytes' worth of text where I have lacked these in my relationships with the people around me, then by all means reproach me. Surely I desire the rebuke of a wise man like you.

I don't do that because I have no clue what you do in your personal walk. The Holy Spirit reviews our works and the final analysis is the thoughts and inclinations of the heart. Obviously I have no way of doing that and I have no intention of trying.

But until then, remember Jesus whom we both worship:

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.
(Matthew 5:22 ESV)



I do not see any point in talking about theology if it will not edify either of us, which I strongly suspect is the case.

Prove me wrong about that.

First of all I don't really need a lot of theology most of the time. Secondly, theology is just a systematic way of organizing a belief system. If theology is not doing anything for you then don't worry about it, go in peace. Still it was my theology that was being cirtiqued in this thread and I am perfectly willing and able to defend my views as theologically coherent.

Why would we not be interested in discussion the authority of Scripture and the historicity of events described therein. Maybe you have another criteria for Genesis 1 then you have for John 1 or the ressurection, I don't know. I do know that the Bible as a window into history is vital to my theology and would match it against any secular source of describing historical events.

Opinions vary but the YEC perspective is about far more then the interprutation of a single chapter. This is about redemptive history past, present and future.

 

[shernren]

Opinions vary but the YEC perspective is about far more then the interprutation of a single chapter. This is about redemptive history past, present and future.

Whatever else can be said about YECs, they do fall nicely into the box I've been carving out in my "Scientific Myth of Creationism" series ... good specimen of how the YEC perspective projects itself as being fundamental to the faith.

Doesn't the fact that many people who don't agree with you on interpretation of the distant past still agree with you on the pattern of God's redemptive plan in the recent past, present, and future to eternity, ever give you pause when you make blanket statements about how foundational YECism is? If YECism is all that foundational how come a lot of other theological structures which supposedly lack that foundation still stand as solidly as yours?

What I was pointing out is that the fool in Proverbs is you (speaking of you as the reader). I also mentioned the the Bible is like looking in a mirror, don't get me wrong, I'm in the same boat, we are all fools when faced with the wisdom of God. An online friend of mine argued strenously with me for weeks once that agnosticism was the New Testament view of God. It was a compelling arguement but obviously it left me unpersuaded. God often does convict us of or folly and vainity and we do well to take it to heart. Still we have to take a stand on essential doctrine and the historicity of Genesis 1 is no longer negotiable for me.

Let me be frank: I am not at all convinced that you have a proper Biblical perspective on wisdom, seeing the abandon by which you have tossed the word "fool". I take no personal offence at all - indeed, it is a good opportunity for me to check myself - but I am more concerned that from the way you have treated Proverbs and James you simply do not seem to understand how the Bible treats wisdom, and this may affect your interpretation of the Bible for the worse.

We should not be surprised that a modernist interpretation of "wisdom" invariably treats wisdom as mainly propositional knowledge. "Wisdom" is, when given a set of statements, knowing which statement is true and which statement is false. This is obviously how you have interpreted the passage in James you quoted:

The context this is stated in is important:

"But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual demonic."
(James 3:14,15)

I'm not the one that made this a theological issue but since it is I intend to deal with it as such. YEC is the traditional view of the Church and it was unthinkable in antiquity to attribute or origins to naturalistic processes.

James seems to connect "earthly wisdom" with "bitter envy and self-seeking", which is not something mere facts produce. But you have connected "earthly wisdom" to what you consider an unthinkable theological position: so "earthly wisdom" which comes from hell is logically assenting a certain set of statements, in this particular case statements against YECism, while "heavenly wisdom" which comes from above is logically assenting another opposing set of statements, in this particular case statements supporting YECism. Even supposing this is true, even if YECism is really from heaven and TEism is really from hell (what about OECism? Was it thought up by bored souls in Purgatory? ) how is it related to the earthly wisdom of 3:14,15 and the heavenly wisdom of 3:13? I cannot see any connection unless you can prove that all YECs practice good works in meekness (and thus exercise heavenly wisdom by virtue of their YEC-ness) while all TEs harbour bitter envy and self-seeking-ness in their hearts (and thus exercise earthly wisdom by virtue of their TE-ness).

Again, looking at the full context of the Proverbs passage which apparently describes me:

The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel: To know wisdom and instruction, to understand words of insight, to receive instruction in wise dealing, in righteousness, justice, and equity; to give prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth-- Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance, to understand a proverb and a saying, the words of the wise and their riddles.
(Proverbs 1:1-6 ESV)

Unless you can show that TEs always lack wise dealing, righteousness, justice, and equity, prudence, discretion, and guidance, then I don't see how TEism or a rejection of YECism can be called "folly".
And further on, Wisdom says of fools:

Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD, would have none of my counsel and despised all my reproof, therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way, and have their fill of their own devices. For the simple are killed by their turning away, and the complacency of fools destroys them; but whoever listens to me will dwell secure and will be at ease, without dread of disaster."
(Proverbs 1:29-33 ESV)

I think the fear of the Lord must be something far more powerful than dry facts and rote agreement if rejecting it has such dire consequences. The fear of the Lord is more than logic, it is faith in action.

Let us build up a real picture of Biblical wisdom. I'm using these two sources heavily:
http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/wisdom.htm
[SIZE=-1]www.greentreechurch.com/PDF%20Files/Biblical%20Wisdom%20Reference%20Guide.pdf

[/SIZE]and I think they pretty much speak for themselves. But to summarize:

1. In various places in the Bible, certain people possessing technical skill are called "wise" in those particular areas.
2. To extend this, "wisdom" on its own simply means possessing skill in life - the skill to live a meaningful and good life.
3. Wisdom then is the skill to live a meaningful and good life by making godly decisions and understanding the consequences of various actions before choosing the best course.
4. For example, elsewhere in the Bible we are forbidden from doing certain things because they are morally wrong. However, in Proverbs the injunctions are presented as being practical ones, and the appeal is not to some higher moral code but to simple presentation of the consequences which can and should be avoided. Proverbs and Wisdom literature in general are descriptive first before being prescriptive.

Now, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory it is quite apparent that wisdom, although not being limited to mere head knowledge, certainly does require some knowledge. Certainly agreeing about some things (such as that God exists) will lead to godly behaviour while believing in some other things (such as that God does not exist) will lead to ungodly behaviour. Having said that, I think even you would not want to press the "point" that YECism is the foundation of wisdom and TEism is the foundation of folly.

Therefore, I think it is very unwise of you to describe as "a fool" a person who has merely disagreed (vehemently, admittedly ) with your theological position. I do not believe that you know enough about me to call me a fool. And the fact that you believe you do shows that you simply do not understand what a fool is in the Biblical sense of the word.

Let's agree on this before we go on.

 

[mark kennedy]

Whatever else can be said about YECs, they do fall nicely into the box I've been carving out in my "Scientific Myth of Creationism" series ... good specimen of how the YEC perspective projects itself as being fundamental to the faith.

Apparently, you have failed to even understand the theological basis for YEC which is pretty typical. Fundamentalists emphasis the 'fundamentals of the faith', virgin birth, second coming, repentance, confessions, authority of Scriptures...etc. It's a back to the basics approach and while I agree with them on the importance of the fundamentals, I'm an evangelical.

The point is they don't 'project' their views as being fundamental to the faith. They emphasis the fundamentals of the faith and the authority of secular clerics does not interest them in the slightest.

Doesn't the fact that many people who don't agree with you on interpretation of the distant past still agree with you on the pattern of God's redemptive plan in the recent past, present, and future to eternity, ever give you pause when you make blanket statements about how foundational YECism is? If YECism is all that foundational how come a lot of other theological structures which supposedly lack that foundation still stand as solidly as yours?

God's wonderfull works in the distant past is redemptive history. Not myth, not allegory, not legend, not hyperbole and not primitive superstition. God acting in time and space is central to Christian theology and a denial of historical narratives is a denial of the Gospel.

Let me be frank: I am not at all convinced that you have a proper Biblical perspective on wisdom, seeing the abandon by which you have tossed the word "fool". I take no personal offence at all - indeed, it is a good opportunity for me to check myself - but I am more concerned that from the way you have treated Proverbs and James you simply do not seem to understand how the Bible treats wisdom, and this may affect your interpretation of the Bible for the worse.

I don't know what your hang up with with the use of the word 'fool' in Proverbs and frankly I don't care. The fool in Proverbs is the reader, you me or whoever. The wicked/unrighteous in the first three chapters of Romans is the reader, you me or whoever. The foundation of godly wisdom is the fear of God, both in Proverbs and James. The fruit of godly fear is koine fellowship and a mutual submission to those like minded by faith.

You don't know the basics of James on Proverbs and you want to post that? Oh brother!

We should not be surprised that a modernist interpretation of "wisdom" invariably treats wisdom as mainly propositional knowledge. "Wisdom" is, when given a set of statements, knowing which statement is true and which statement is false. This is obviously how you have interpreted the passage in James you quoted:

You really need some help with James, I don't have time tonight but we will get into this, trust me. Wisdom in Proverbs, James and the Logos in John 1 is not propositional, it is transendant.

James seems to connect "earthly wisdom" with "bitter envy and self-seeking", which is not something mere facts produce. But you have connected "earthly wisdom" to what you consider an unthinkable theological position: so "earthly wisdom" which comes from hell is logically assenting a certain set of statements, in this particular case statements against YECism, while "heavenly wisdom" which comes from above is logically assenting another opposing set of statements, in this particular case statements supporting YECism. Even supposing this is true, even if YECism is really from heaven and TEism is really from hell (what about OECism? Was it thought up by bored souls in Purgatory? ) how is it related to the earthly wisdom of 3:14,15 and the heavenly wisdom of 3:13? I cannot see any connection unless you can prove that all YECs practice good works in meekness (and thus exercise heavenly wisdom by virtue of their YEC-ness) while all TEs harbour bitter envy and self-seeking-ness in their hearts (and thus exercise earthly wisdom by virtue of their TE-ness).

Wrong, the Jewish believers addressed in James and the Gentile believers in ICorinthians were doing the same thing. They were showing favortism toward the worldly and mistreating the poor at their love feasts. Now, you have not only distorted the clear message of James but you have grossly mischaracterized YEC. Young Earth Creationism has nothing to do with your (your mine or anyones) works, YEC is about the wonderfull works of God.

No wonder you have so much trouble understand YEC, you have no clue what it is based on.

Again, looking at the full context of the Proverbs passage which apparently describes me:

The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel: To know wisdom and instruction, to understand words of insight, to receive instruction in wise dealing, in righteousness, justice, and equity; to give prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth-- Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance, to understand a proverb and a saying, the words of the wise and their riddles.
(Proverbs 1:1-6 ESV)

"For attaining wisdom and insight,
and discerning the riddles and sayings of the wise.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom
but wisdom and discipline fools dispise"

You left out the heart of the emphasis and you are going to preach good biblical expostion to me. You really need to work on your Bible study skills, I means seriously.

Unless you can show that TEs always lack wise dealing, righteousness, justice, and equity, prudence, discretion, and guidance, then I don't see how TEism or a rejection of YECism can be called "folly".

I can prove that every human being on earth is born in that exact condition and apart from Christ continue from that condition to perdition. This is the clear teaching of the New Testament and the main purpose of the Law of Moses.

And further on, Wisdom says of fools:

Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD, would have none of my counsel and despised all my reproof, therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way, and have their fill of their own devices. For the simple are killed by their turning away, and the complacency of fools destroys them; but whoever listens to me will dwell secure and will be at ease, without dread of disaster."
(Proverbs 1:29-33 ESV)

That describes you, me and everyone. I don't know why this concept is so hard for you, perhaps you need to thumb through Romans some time.

I think the fear of the Lord must be something far more powerful than dry facts and rote agreement if rejecting it has such dire consequences. The fear of the Lord is more than logic, it is faith in action.

Faith in action is not showing favortism since the Christian faith is not a popularity contest and friendship with the world is emnity (hatred) with God. The wisdom of God is foolishness to the natural man because the things of God are spiritually discerned.

I'm out of time for tonight, I'll have to finish this up tommorow.

 

[shernren]

My hang-up is that from what I see it is you who don't understand what wisdom and folly mean.

You really need some help with James, I don't have time tonight but we will get into this, trust me. Wisdom in Proverbs, James and the Logos in John 1 is not propositional, it is transendant.

When I said this:

We should not be surprised that a modernist interpretation of "wisdom" invariably treats wisdom as mainly propositional knowledge. "Wisdom" is, when given a set of statements, knowing which statement is true and which statement is false. This is obviously how you have interpreted the passage in James you quoted:

I was referring to your position. Your position puts wisdom in general as being a propositional acceptance of truth and a propositional rejection of falsehood.

To accept the set of propositions that makes up YECism as true is wisdom
and to accept the set of propositions that makes up TEism as true is folly.

Is that not what you have tried to say to me?

Wrong, the Jewish believers addressed in James and the Gentile believers in ICorinthians were doing the same thing. They were showing favortism toward the worldly and mistreating the poor at their love feasts. Now, you have not only distorted the clear message of James but you have grossly mischaracterized YEC. Young Earth Creationism has nothing to do with your (your mine or anyones) works, YEC is about the wonderfull works of God.

I have no idea what you are saying I am wrong in:

James seems to connect "earthly wisdom" with "bitter envy and self-seeking", which is not something mere facts produce.

I have done little more than paraphrase the passage quoted and add my own thoughts about the relevance of mere facts.

But you have connected "earthly wisdom" to what you consider an unthinkable theological position: so "earthly wisdom" which comes from hell is logically assenting a certain set of statements, in this particular case statements against YECism, while "heavenly wisdom" which comes from above is logically assenting another opposing set of statements, in this particular case statements supporting YECism.

Aren't you precisely accusing me of being a fool by supporting certain statements which are derogatory to YECism? Despite not being able to see whether these statements do in fact lead to self-seeking and bitter envy in my life or not?

Even supposing this is true, even if YECism is really from heaven and TEism is really from hell (what about OECism? Was it thought up by bored souls in Purgatory? ) how is it related to the earthly wisdom of 3:14,15 and the heavenly wisdom of 3:13? I cannot see any connection unless you can prove that all YECs practice good works in meekness (and thus exercise heavenly wisdom by virtue of their YEC-ness) while all TEs harbour bitter envy and self-seeking-ness in their hearts (and thus exercise earthly wisdom by virtue of their TE-ness).

To be simple, I am saying that you cannot make a concrete connection between YECism and "heavenly" wisdom, and between TEism and "earthly" wisdom.

Which of my statements here are wrong?

No wonder you have so much trouble understand YEC, you have no clue what it is based on.

Prove me wrong.
http://www.christianforums.com/t2848141-the-scientific-myth-of-creationism.html

"For attaining wisdom and insight,
and discerning the riddles and sayings of the wise.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom
but wisdom and discipline fools dispise"

You left out the heart of the emphasis and you are going to preach good biblical expostion to me. You really need to work on your Bible study skills, I means seriously.

Are you content with sniping or are you going to correct me?

I can prove that every human being on earth is born in that exact condition and apart from Christ continue from that condition to perdition. This is the clear teaching of the New Testament and the main purpose of the Law of Moses.

That describes you, me and everyone. I don't know why this concept is so hard for you, perhaps you need to thumb through Romans some time.

Remember this? You posted it more than a week ago.

The beggining of wisdom is the fear of the Lord but fools hate wisdom and discipline" (Proverbs 1:7)

Now before you go getting indignant because you think I just called you a fool, who do you think the fool in the Proverbs is? If you are reading the Proverbs and thinks its anyone but you then you are not paying attention.

"For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror, for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was." (James 1:23,24)

What to talk about my theology, lets talk theology brother.

First you say the fool of Proverbs isn't anybody but me.
Now you say the fool of Proverbs is everybody and me.

I'm confused and I think I have every right to be.

Faith in action is not showing favortism since the Christian faith is not a popularity contest and friendship with the world is emnity (hatred) with God. The wisdom of God is foolishness to the natural man because the things of God are spiritually discerned.

How does "the wisdom of God is foolishness to the natural man because the things of God are spiritually discerned" apply to the origins debate? Unless of course the wisdom of God is "YECism", foolishness is "whatever propositions I logically disagree with", the things of God are true/false propositions about the historical particulars of creation, and spiritually discerned means "God told me to believe that these particular propositions are valid".

God's wonderfull works in the distant past is redemptive history. Not myth, not allegory, not legend, not hyperbole and not primitive superstition. God acting in time and space is central to Christian theology and a denial of historical narratives is a denial of the Gospel.

Nobody here denies the Gospel, so I have no idea who you are trying to talk about.

 

[gluadys]

So it does not matter if we attribute to naturalistic processes what is rightfully attributed to God?

What difference is there between attributing the conception of a child to the union of sperm and egg and to the action of God? Do we tell a child that God has nothing to do with his/her existence because we understand the natural process of conception?

Just apply the same principle to other natural processes.

The whole premise of the thread is that YEC is incoherent as a theology. My point is that YEC is based on solid Christian theology and it is TE that has abandoned tradional theological principles.

So show me where the church and scripture have denied that an understood natural process excludes the action of God in and through the same process.

I realize that God need not micromanage everything but human lineage as not been an issue until modern times. There is no way Adam can be specially created and descended from apes.

Right. But special creation depends on an interpretation of scripture, not on the text of scripture.

The two concepts are mutually exclusive and there is nothing in Church history to indicate the concept a common ancestor for men and apes was ever entertained.

Prior to 1859, of course it wasn’t. What does that have to do with anything? Prior to Copernicus there was nothing in Church history to indicate the heliocentric cosmos was ever entertained either. Nor did the Church entertain the germ theory of disease prior to the scientific discovery of pathogenic bacteria either.

Science has come to be defined in such a way as to naturally exclude any inferance of a supernatural act of God.

That is because modern science studies nature not metaphysics. Originally what we now call simply “science” was called “natural science” or “natural philosophy”. In those days “science” had a wider scope of meaning that applied to all knowledge. So economics, politics, theology, metaphysics, ethics and aesthetics, etc. were all considered “science”. But “natural science” has always been the study of nature, not of nature’s God. It has always been the study of God’s natural means (aka “secondary means”). But Christianity has never taken the position that natural means are not God’s means. Until YECs bought into the atheist lie that once you understand how nature works you have eliminated God from the picture.

If God does indeed act in time and space then we should consider a criteria for determining the historicity of an event.

We already have one: evidence.

The Bible explicitly describes miracles by the score and like it our not the Christian faith is a supernatural religion.

No one is denying supernatural events. We just have some differences of opinion on which supernatural events happened.

How is it any harder to believe that God became flesh and blood then it is to believe that he created the world and all of life by divine fiat?

“Divine fiat” does not restrict an event to supernatural means. “divine fiat” means that the created order came about because God commanded its existence. It says nothing about how it came into existence.

You can't have it both ways, either God's acts in redemptive history are evident or they are not.

What acts are you speaking of specifically? What makes them evident as God’s acts? To whom is this evident---to believers only or to all?

 

[mark kennedy]

My hang-up is that from what I see it is you who don't understand what wisdom and folly mean.

I have been clear enough but you want to make this personal and missed my point entirely.

I was referring to your position. Your position puts wisdom in general as being a propositional acceptance of truth and a propositional rejection of falsehood.

Propostional truth is the arena of presuppostional apologetics, particularly the Calvanist variety. What I have focused on in most of these discussions is evidential apologetics that starts with statements of fact not being disputed. I don't know what you are getting at but there is a lot of abiquity in your line of reasoning.

To accept the set of propositions that makes up YECism as true is wisdom
and to accept the set of propositions that makes up TEism as true is folly.

Wisdom is the application of knowlege, both moral and the skill system you alluded to earlier. You might be interested to know that Solomon with all his wisdom acted like the fool in his proverbs in a lot of ways. He did describe two people that did not, care to hazard a guess who they were?

Is that not what you have tried to say to me?

Again you just won't focus on the text. We really need to get this focused on something more tangible.

I have no idea what you are saying I am wrong in:

I'm still trying to find out what on earth is so incoherent about taking the Bible at its word.

Aren't you precisely accusing me of being a fool by supporting certain statements which are derogatory to YECism? Despite not being able to see whether these statements do in fact lead to self-seeking and bitter envy in my life or not?

What I am saying and have said from the beggining is that the fool in Proverbs is the reader, you, me or whoever. Now you want to turn this into a personal attack but you have really lost the heart of the emphasis in Proverbs when you do that.

I just don't have time for expostive responses these days. I'm starting a new thread at my first opportunity on specific texts and key theological principles. I would welcome your participation and look forward to getting this focused on Scripture as it should have been all along.

 

[shernren]

Alright, forget it.