The Historicity of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation

[gluadys]

TE is devoid of theological inferances, I cannot believe you would pretend the problem is due to the shallowness of the subject matter.

Evolution is an attempt to reduce everything in nature to naturalistic cause and effect relationships. Like the pagan mythos of the ancient Mesopotianian poets it is opposed to the belief in God acting in time and space to created the world complete in all it's vast array.

I second shernren's question. What about naturalistic cause and effect is opposed to God acting in time and space? Why would the Creator create nature without naturalistic causes and effects? Are naturalistic causes and effects even possible without a Creator and Sustainer who made and upholds them in their working?

The study of nature is inevitably the study of the causes and effects in nature. For a theist, the study of nature is also the study of what God created, and to some extent, of how he created using the causes and effects which he planted in nature.

I would say that a theological inference to be drawn from TE is that all of nature is a revelation of the work of God. God is not to be boxed into the supernatural but is revealed also in what is natural.

And this is consistent with the testimony of scripture. For it is not only the mighty and special works of God, such as the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, or the defeat of the Assyrians outside the walls of Jerusalem which the Psalmists and Prophets point to, but also and very importantly, the constant, daily care of God through ordinary natural events like the rain coming in due season, or the birds of the air being fed.

To me, your apparent insistence that these natural events are not of God is what is inconsistent with both scripture and traditional Christian theology.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's kind of hard for me to really get into this with all that is going on here. It's not that I'm not interested, I just get caught up in the daily routine and it's hard to find the time.

I second shernren's question. What about naturalistic cause and effect is opposed to God acting in time and space? Why would the Creator create nature without naturalistic causes and effects? Are naturalistic causes and effects even possible without a Creator and Sustainer who made and upholds them in their working?

There are two kinds of creation in Genesis, Bara and Asah:

The Hebrew words bara and asah are very different
because the first is reserved throughout Scripture exclusively for actions of God, and it usually conveys the concept of generating something from nothing. In the creation record, we find that God “created” (bara) only three times, once each on Days 1, 5, and 6 (Gen.1:1, 21, 27); all the rest was “making”. That fact indicates that God designed and generated ingredients on three occasions, and the rest of the time He organized, fabricated, or otherwise “cooked” them into
their final form. Indeed, Genesis 1:2, says that after the first act of creation, the “earth” had no form. Only the ingredients were there, all mixed together, and spread over deep space. It seems quite clear that the first creation was of the physical universe: time, space, and matter.​

http://elephantjournal.org/docs/causeeffectD.pdf

The question is not so much if God uses natural mechanisms, the whole concept of divine providence is based on this concept. The real question is when and how God creates in the since of Bara 'out of nothing' creation described in Genesis. God acting in the sense Bara is used in Genesis on Days 1, 5 and 6 are stickly unique to God alone.

This distinction must be understood or the book of Genesis remains closed.

The study of nature is inevitably the study of the causes and effects in nature. For a theist, the study of nature is also the study of what God created, and to some extent, of how he created using the causes and effects which he planted in nature.

Would you like to expand that to include the various kinds of cause and effect relationships? God being the ultimate cause is certainly not open to dispute in a Christians only section, at least I would hope not. You may want to consider what we can attribute to a naturalistic chain of events and what can only be rightfully attibuted to God. For me to reject Adam as the first man fully formed is to reject the testimony of Moses which saps Genesis of it's theological importance.

I would say that a theological inference to be drawn from TE is that all of nature is a revelation of the work of God. God is not to be boxed into the supernatural but is revealed also in what is natural.

God's glory is reflected in nature but he can and often does act in a way that transends normative naturalistic causation. Science has come to be defined as an exclusivly naturalistic chain of cause and effect events. This is absurd considering that Theology informs the intellect as well as calculas and chemistry and offers an experiencial knowledge. God acting supernaturally should not seem inexplicable or unthinkable because for God it is perfectly natural.

And this is consistent with the testimony of scripture. For it is not only the mighty and special works of God, such as the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, or the defeat of the Assyrians outside the walls of Jerusalem which the Psalmists and Prophets point to, but also and very importantly, the constant, daily care of God through ordinary natural events like the rain coming in due season, or the birds of the air being fed.

To me, your apparent insistence that these natural events are not of God is what is inconsistent with both scripture and traditional Christian theology.

First of all the events of the Exodus are anything but natural, you might want to go back and take another look at that. For another we are talking about the original creation here, not just the natural course of seasons, historical battles or naturalistic bird feeders. The traditional and Scriptural view of creation is that God created the universe out of nothing and created man from the dust of the earth, not evolved apes.

There are no theological inferances in TE that I can recognize as identified with canonical doctrine. It is actually God acting in time and space in supernatural events that define Christian theology as making unique claims regarding human history from the creation to the Great White Throne.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Xaero]

This distinction must be understood or the book of Genesis remains closed.

I thought Genesis 1 speaks open and is plainly clear?

God's glory is reflected in nature but he can and often does act in a way that transends normative naturalistic causation.

because, not but ...

God created the universe out of nothing and created man from the dust of the earth, not evolved apes.

But apes came from dust ,too. The genealogy from dust to man is like the genealogies of the patriarchs - some nodes are missed, only the important message is transported through this verse: man came out of the dust. period.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

God's glory is reflected in nature but he can and often does act in a way that transends normative naturalistic causation. Science has come to be defined as an exclusivly naturalistic chain of cause and effect events. This is absurd considering that Theology informs the intellect as well as calculas and chemistry and offers an experiencial knowledge. God acting supernaturally should not seem inexplicable or unthinkable because for God it is perfectly natural.


God acting supernaturally should not seem inexplicable or unthinkable because for God it is perfectly natural.
this is logically incoherent, we are not God and can not see from God's POV. besides what value is there in completely confusing and conflating the natural and the supernatural if your purpose is to talk about the differences God makes in explanatory principles?

but he can and often does act in a way that transends normative naturalistic causation.
i started a thread in OT today with the title "the great divide" on this issue.

Science has come to be defined as an exclusivly naturalistic chain of cause and effect events. This is absurd considering that Theology informs the intellect as well as calculas and chemistry and offers an experiencial knowledge.

but this sentence is not only interesting but important.

Science has decided that it's domain is methodologically naturalistic. It desires only chains of cause and effect and reasoning that do not talk about God or for that matter any supernatural causes.

The issue is two fold:
is this possible?
is this a good thing to do?
in saying it is absurd, i'll count that as neither possible not a good thing.

The question first is if it is possible.
afaik, God is not required in any science to form these chains of cause and effect reasoning. Why? For the same reason that you always find something in the last place you look, because when you find it, you stop looking. it is foolish to keep looking for a lost object if you have it in your hand.

The same thing happens in creating this theories of cause and effect. Goddidit ends the chain, once you say that, you can no longer say anything else about it. the chain is complete. essentially what science appears to be doing is counting down to zero with an arbitrary small number, there is no end to it.

so if, as a Christian, i wish to end every single scientific reasoning chain with Goddidit, i'm free to, but what i have is not science. but if i wish to get arbitrary close to goddidit i can, just as i can get arbitrary close to zero.

But the real question is this a good thing to do?
the quote above has an important point in it:
"Theology informs the intellect "
theology can inform my mind as i do science, without actually entering into the chains of reasoning. What is i can wake up in the morning, be gratiful to God and yet spend the day working on a paper in biology that never mentions Him. But that doesn't mean i don't use information gained from God or from the Scriptures in doing science, it only means i don't reference it as such.

Now some people think this a cop-out, that if i think about and use God i ought to footnote Him in my science papers. Furthermore that the reason i don't do so is fear of the reaction of the great community.

My answer is that somethings are appropriate in some places, not all things are appropriate in all places. God talk is a science stopper, it is this huge red flag to most scientific types. If i wish to get along with them and to actually do useful work i have to avoid these issues. so what? it is the same problem on c&e where people go there simply to preach, they explicitly say that they have no interest in science and are there simply to preach. look at what this does to the whole forum, it makes it look like GA, where nothing interesting appears to happen, just people yelling. Now to do the same thing in science is to destroy this extraordinary intersubjectivity that science has found.

well, anyhow, this sentence is worth thinking about.

 

[shernren]

It's kind of hard for me to really get into this with all that is going on here. It's not that I'm not interested, I just get caught up in the daily routine and it's hard to find the time.

There are two kinds of creation in Genesis, Bara and Asah:

The Hebrew words bara and asah are very different
because the first is reserved throughout Scripture exclusively for actions of God, and it usually conveys the concept of generating something from nothing. In the creation record, we find that God “created” (bara) only three times, once each on Days 1, 5, and 6 (Gen.1:1, 21, 27); all the rest was “making”. That fact indicates that God designed and generated ingredients on three occasions, and the rest of the time He organized, fabricated, or otherwise “cooked” them into their final form. Indeed, Genesis 1:2, says that after the first act of creation, the “earth” had no form. Only the ingredients were there, all mixed together, and spread over deep space. It seems quite clear that the first creation was of the physical universe: time, space, and matter.​

http://elephantjournal.org/docs/causeeffectD.pdf

The question is not so much if God uses natural mechanisms, the whole concept of divine providence is based on this concept. The real question is when and how God creates in the since of Bara 'out of nothing' creation described in Genesis. God acting in the sense Bara is used in Genesis on Days 1, 5 and 6 are stickly unique to God alone.

I don't get the point you are trying to make here. God bara man. And? Unless you can defend your "naturalistic chains of events cannot be attributed to God" dichotomy, I fail to see what you are trying to say. I agree that bara is strictly limited to God's creating; but bara is never really strictly applied to "creation ex nihilo", is it?

Firstly, we are told in Genesis 1 that mankind was created (bara), and furthermore that he was created (bara) male and female, a thought reiterated in Genesis 5:1,2 - and yet in Genesis 2 we see God doing the exact opposite of "creation ex nihilo" with man. Genesis 2 says that God "organized, fabricated, or otherwise 'cooked'" dust into Adam. And God created Eve from Adam, again not ex nihilo. God's bara-ing of man involved sculpting him from dust, not from nothing, even if one sticks to an entirely literal view of the text.

God's bara is not limited to the primordial couple, but often extends to include all humanity (Gen 6:7; Ps 89:47, 102:18; Isa 45:12). And yet even a supernaturalist would admit that people are born as a result of the naturalistic processes of fertilization and placental development - so if God's bara can include this, why can it not include evolution?

Furthermore, God's bara is used specifically of Israel as a nation (Isa 43). Are you going to argue that each and every process that brought Israel to pass was a supernatural miracle?

Would you like to expand that to include the various kinds of cause and effect relationships? God being the ultimate cause is certainly not open to dispute in a Christians only section, at least I would hope not. You may want to consider what we can attribute to a naturalistic chain of events and what can only be rightfully attibuted to God. For me to reject Adam as the first man fully formed is to reject the testimony of Moses which saps Genesis of it's theological importance.

Here that dichotomy is again:

What we can attribute to a naturalistic chain of events
vs
what can only be rightfully attributed to God.

Why are the two mutually exclusive? Daily I see in my life things that can be attributed to naturalistic chains of events and to God. I am an avid reader and thinker because my parents bought lots of books for me and because God blessed me with a good brain; my country is independent today because of the many freedom fighters and politicians who won her freedom and because God had a destiny for our land. When I conceive evolution as a natural cause with God as its ultimate cause I see no conflict with any orthodox theology or reasonable interpretation of Scripture.

God's glory is reflected in nature but he can and often does act in a way that transends normative naturalistic causation. Science has come to be defined as an exclusivly naturalistic chain of cause and effect events. This is absurd considering that Theology informs the intellect as well as calculas and chemistry and offers an experiencial knowledge. God acting supernaturally should not seem inexplicable or unthinkable because for God it is perfectly natural.

... I cannot deny that I feel some discomfort which I should like to have removed, when I hear them [some theologians] pretend to the power of constraining others by scriptural authority to follow in a physical dispute that opinion which they think best agrees with the Bible, and then believe themselves not bound to answer the opposing reasons and experiences. In explanation and support of this opinion they say that since theology is queen of all the sciences, she need not bend in any way to accommodate herself to the teachings of less worthy sciences which are subordinate to her; these others must rather be referred to her as their supreme empress, changing and altering their conclusions according to her statutes and decrees. They add further that if in the inferior sciences any conclusion should be taken as certain in virtue of demonstrations or experiences, while in the Bible another conclusion is found repugnant to this, then the professors of that science should themselves undertake to undo their proofs and discover the fallacies in their own experiences, without bothering the theologians and exegetes. For, they say, it does not become the dignity of theology to stoop to the investigation of fallacies in the subordinate sciences; it is sufficient for her merely to determine the truth of a given conclusion with absolute authority, secure in her inability to err.

... First I question whether there is not some equivocation in failing to specify the virtues which entitle sacred theology to the title of "queen." It might deserve that name by reason of including everything that is included from all the other sciences and establishing everything by better methods and with profounder learning. It is thus, for example, that the rules for measuring fields and keeping accounts are much more excellently contained in arithmetic and in the geometry of Euclid than in the practices of surveyors and accountants. Or theology might be queen because of being occupied with a subject which excels in dignity all the subjects which compose the other sciences, and because her teachings are divulged in more sublime ways.

That the title and authority of queen belongs to theology in the first sense, I think, will not be affirmed by theologians who have any skill in the other sciences. None of these, I think, will say that geometry, astronomy, music, and medicine are much more excellently contained in the Bible than they are in the books of Archimedes, Ptolemy, Boethius, and Galen. Hence it seems likely that regal preeminence is given to theology in the second sense; that is, by reason of its subject and the miraculous communication of divine revelation of conclusions which could not be conceived by men in any other way, concerning chiefly the attainment of eternal blessedness.

Let us grant then that theology is conversant with the loftiest divine contemplation, and occupies the regal throne among sciences by dignity But acquiring the highest authority in this way, lf she does not descend to the lower and humbler speculations of the subordinate sciences and has no regard for them because they are not concerned with blessedness, then her professors should not arrogate to them-selves the authority to decide on controversies in professions which they have neither studied nor practiced. Why, this would be as if an absolute despot, being neither a physician nor an architect but knowing himself free to command, should undertake to administer medicines and erect buildings according to his whim-at grave peril of his poor patients' lives, and the speedy collapse of his edifices.

- Galileo, speaking of the geocentrists (1615)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.html

 

[gluadys]

Would you like to expand that to include the various kinds of cause and effect relationships? God being the ultimate cause is certainly not open to dispute in a Christians only section, at least I would hope not. You may want to consider what we can attribute to a naturalistic chain of events and what can only be rightfully attibuted to God.

To me this is a false dichotomy. All chains of cause and effect are works of God. The very existence of cause and effect is a work of God. Attributing an effect to a cause is identical to attributing it to God, since without the concurrence of God cause and effect would not exist in any sort of order and science as a discipline could not exist.

For me to reject Adam as the first man fully formed is to reject the testimony of Moses which saps Genesis of it's theological importance.

I see "adam" as a generic term for the human species. I do not see how this saps Genesis of any theological importance. Perhaps you could clarify what theological principle you believe is vitiated by this approach.

Is it that God is creator of humankind? I believe that. Is it that humankind has fallen into sin? I believe that. Is it that God has provided redemption for humankind? I believe that. Is it that God created us male and female? I believe that. Is it that God ordained marriage? I believe that. Is it that God ordained families? I believe that. Is it that God ordained a Sabbath rest? I believe that.

So where is my theology lacking?

God's glory is reflected in nature but he can and often does act in a way that transends normative naturalistic causation.

I am not disputing that. In fact, I gave you two examples of God's miracles. It is your apparent perception that we cannot attribute the natural course of events to God that I question.

Science has come to be defined as an exclusivly naturalistic chain of cause and effect events.

Not exactly. Rather this defines the domain of science. It makes no claim to study anything other than the natural chains of cause and effect.

To define reality as limited to what science describes is a different proposition. It is a philosophical proposition of materialists, which many scientists themselves do not agree with.

It seems to me that you confound these two distinct ideas.

God acting supernaturally should not seem inexplicable or unthinkable because for God it is perfectly natural.

It is not God acting supernaturally that is at issue here. It is your exclusion of God from what is natural. There is no basis for that exclusion.

First of all the events of the Exodus are anything but natural,

Apparently, you misread what I said. This is one of the events I listed as supernatural.

The traditional and Scriptural view of creation is that God created the universe out of nothing and created man from the dust of the earth, not evolved apes.

So, in regard to humankind, the scriptural testimony is ambiguous, for it both uses 'bara' in Genesis 1, yet uses 'asah' when it describes creating humankind out of dust. Furthermore, it does not say that the creation our of dust was instantaneous, but the result of a process of formation. Who is to say what forms that dust took between the beginning of the work and the final formation into a human being? Why not an ape? (Biologically, humans are apes, just as we are primates, mammals, vertebrates and animals.)

There are no theological inferances in TE that I can recognize as identified with canonical doctrine.

I am not saying that the theology of the Nicene Creed can be inferred from evolution. Evolution is science not theology. You can't infer one from the other.

But perhaps you could elucidate:

a) what theological inferences you believe to be inherent in TE that contradict canonical doctrine

b) what non-canonical theological inferences you believe to be implied by TE.

It is actually God acting in time and space in supernatural events that define Christian theology

I would disagree profoundly with this statement. If it were proved to me beyond reasonable doubt that every miracle recorded in scripture, up to and including the resurrection, could be fully explained by natural causes, I would still believe in God and Creation, the power of Christ to atone for my sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the life everlasting.

It is not the nature of the events which is important, but whether they reveal the will of God and his love for us. God can reveal that supernaturally; he can also reveal that naturally. If you can only see God in the supernatural, you are setting a boundary on what you allow God to reveal to you.

 

[mark kennedy]

God's glory is reflected in nature but he can and often does act in a way that transcends normative naturalistic causation. Science has come to be defined as an exclusively naturalistic chain of cause and effect events. This is absurd considering that Theology informs the intellect as well as calculus and chemistry and offers an experiential knowledge. God acting supernaturally should not seem inexplicable or unthinkable because for God it is perfectly natural.


God acting supernaturally should not seem inexplicable or unthinkable because for God it is perfectly natural.
this is logically incoherent, we are not God and can not see from God's POV. besides what value is there in completely confusing and conflating the natural and the supernatural if your purpose is to talk about the differences God makes in explanatory principles?

Talk about arguments from incredulity, the logic is straightforward enough. God acting in time and space is that clear and consistent testimony from the books of Moses to the Revelation of Jesus Christ as witnessed by the Apostle John. The very preexistence of God before time and space distinguishes the I AM THAT I AM revealed to Moses from the pagan deities that preceded from primordial elemental in pagan mythology. This is hardly confusing, the blending of pagan myth with Biblical narratives is an impossibility.

but he can and often does act in a way that transcends normative naturalistic causation.
i started a thread in OT today with the title "the great divide" on this issue.

I'll see if I can find it.

Science has come to be defined as an exclusively naturalistic chain of cause and effect events. This is absurd considering that Theology informs the intellect as well as calculus and chemistry and offers an experiential knowledge.

but this sentence is not only interesting but important.

Science has decided that it's domain is methodologically naturalistic. It desires only chains of cause and effect and reasoning that do not talk about God or for that matter any supernatural causes.

No science has made no such claim to a chain of cause and effect. Science as it has come to be defined in modern philosophies of science is based on directly observed and demonstrated phenomenon. This whole business of rejecting the supernatural as a matter of course for scientific investigation is pure nonsense. Many of the academic disciplines surrounding history and philosophy make a presumption of purely naturalistic explanations just as Darwinians do. This leaves God out of human history completely which is clearly contrary to the testimony of Scripture. I do not accept that the Bible can be reduced to myth and poetry and still represent the views of Moses and the prophets or Christ and the Apostles. The Bible is redemptive history as opposed to it being poetic prose with no bearing on actual events.

The issue is two fold:
is this possible?
is this a good thing to do?
in saying it is absurd, i'll count that as neither possible not a good thing.

The question first is if it is possible.
afaik, God is not required in any science to form these chains of cause and effect reasoning. Why? For the same reason that you always find something in the last place you look, because when you find it, you stop looking. it is foolish to keep looking for a lost object if you have it in your hand.

First of all theology is a science that has a strictly logical causative chain. Your ambiguity resembles the ramblings of Liberal Theologians rather then the traditional Christian principles held by believers these many hundreds of years. The issue is not whether or not you will stop looking but what it is you are intent on finding, if it is God then you do not stop until you see Him as He is.

The same thing happens in creating this theories of cause and effect. Goddidit ends the chain, once you say that, you can no longer say anything else about it. the chain is complete. essentially what science appears to be doing is counting down to zero with an arbitrary small number, there is no end to it.

Oh wait, now I see, if you stop with the explanation that Goddidit then the search ends. Of course that never happens with the inverse logic where you define all things scientific as Goddidn'tdoit. It makes perfect sense, why didn't I see it sooner?

so if, as a Christian, i wish to end every single scientific reasoning chain with Goddidit, i'm free to, but what i have is not science. but if i wish to get arbitrary close to goddidit i can, just as i can get arbitrary close to zero.

Sure, if all you do is float around the surface with vague generalities and pithy remarks. If on the other hand you are interested in taking Biblical revelation the next step and challenge a priori assumptions of a genetic mechanism for human evolution from that of an ape we are talking something else. If anything the explanation for human origins in modern TOE is completely arbitrary in that it relies on unknown genetic mechanisms and random mutations.

But the real question is this a good thing to do?
the quote above has an important point in it:
"Theology informs the intellect "
theology can inform my mind as i do science, without actually entering into the chains of reasoning. What is i can wake up in the morning, be gratiful to God and yet spend the day working on a paper in biology that never mentions Him. But that doesn't mean i don't use information gained from God or from the Scriptures in doing science, it only means i don't reference it as such.

You don't have to work elaborate math formulas or look into a microscope every time you study biology either. That does not mean that these tools are meaningless because at on point they don't serve the immediate purpose. Theology is a systematic sequence of logical inferences focused on the nature and work of God. This can and does import itself into biology and geology not because Christian theology needs biology but because secularists attack Christian theism and Christian thinkers rise to it's defense.

Now some people think this a cop-out, that if i think about and use God i ought to footnote Him in my science papers. Furthermore that the reason i don't do so is fear of the reaction of the great community.

God is not a cop out and the categorical rejection of God is not a rational response to scientific research. Science deliberately limits itself to a precise and focused view, that is why attacks on Biblical doctrines is such an obscenity. I am appalled that Christians would attack fellow believers for hold Creationist views. Not because it is leading to poor scientific models like Darwinism (I actually find that amusing). It's because it guts sound doctrine at the New Testament heart of the emphasis, God acting in time and space to save us from death.

That is not a metaphor and anyone who thinks it is has distance themselves from anything remotely Christian.

My answer is that somethings are appropriate in some places, not all things are appropriate in all places. God talk is a science stopper, it is this huge red flag to most scientific types. If i wish to get along with them and to actually do useful work i have to avoid these issues. so what? it is the same problem on c&e where people go there simply to preach, they explicitly say that they have no interest in science and are there simply to preach. look at what this does to the whole forum, it makes it look like GA, where nothing interesting appears to happen, just people yelling. Now to do the same thing in science is to destroy this extraordinary intersubjectivity that science has found.

well, anyhow, this sentence is worth thinking about.

The real challenge is finding the context for science in Scripture and the historical narratives of the Bible in modern science. What is remarkable here is that you have completely abandoned the Scriptures in your discussions. I have not managed to get through two chapters and the topic as been completely derailed.

Bible study is becoming a lost art among professing believers fundamentalist and liberal alike. I suppose it makes more sense for me to abandon this line of discussion as well since there as been virtually no interest in it since I started coming here.

 

[Fortuna]

I second shernren's question. What about naturalistic cause and effect is opposed to God acting in time and space? Why would the Creator create nature without naturalistic causes and effects? Are naturalistic causes and effects even possible without a Creator and Sustainer who made and upholds them in their working?

The study of nature is inevitably the study of the causes and effects in nature. For a theist, the study of nature is also the study of what God created, and to some extent, of how he created using the causes and effects which he planted in nature.

I would say that a theological inference to be drawn from TE is that all of nature is a revelation of the work of God. God is not to be boxed into the supernatural but is revealed also in what is natural.

And this is consistent with the testimony of scripture. For it is not only the mighty and special works of God, such as the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, or the defeat of the Assyrians outside the walls of Jerusalem which the Psalmists and Prophets point to, but also and very importantly, the constant, daily care of God through ordinary natural events like the rain coming in due season, or the birds of the air being fed.

To me, your apparent insistence that these natural events are not of God is what is inconsistent with both scripture and traditional Christian theology.

This is very articulate and succinct. I believe that the creation happened as stated in Genesis. As God created all things, including natural events, this is very consistent with scripture. All of the natural and supernatural world is from God, IMHO.

Blessings, Fortuna

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't get the point you are trying to make here. God bara man. And? Unless you can defend your "naturalistic chains of events cannot be attributed to God" dichotomy, I fail to see what you are trying to say. I agree that bara is strictly limited to God's creating; but bara is never really strictly applied to "creation ex nihilo", is it?

God created man from the dust of the earth, this is predicated on God creating the entire universe from nothing. There is a clear chain of logic here based on God doing what God alone can do. You act as if you don't understand what I'm getting at when the conflict is as clear as day. Both Moses and Darwin cannot be right, if we evolved from apes then Moses was completely mistaken.

Firstly, we are told in Genesis 1 that mankind was created (bara), and furthermore that he was created (bara) male and female, a thought reiterated in Genesis 5:1,2 - and yet in Genesis 2 we see God doing the exact opposite of "creation ex nihilo" with man. Genesis 2 says that God "organized, fabricated, or otherwise 'cooked'" dust into Adam. And God created Eve from Adam, again not ex nihilo. God's bara-ing of man involved sculpting him from dust, not from nothing, even if one sticks to an entirely literal view of the text.

What is says is that God formed (yatsar) man from the dust of the earth. As a Biblical doctrine Adam being the first man is anything but ambiquise:

Adam - red, a Babylonian word, the generic name for man, having the same meaning in the Hebrew and the Assyrian languages. It was the name given to the first man, whose creation, fall, and subsequent history and that of his descendants are detailed in the first book of Moses (Gen. 1:27-ch. 5). "God created man [Heb., Adam] in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Adam was absolutely the first man whom God created. He was formed out of the dust of the earth (and hence his name), and God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and gave him dominion over all the lower creatures (Gen. 1:26; 2:7). He was placed after his creation in the Garden of Eden, to cultivate it, and to enjoy its fruits under this one prohibition: "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

The first recorded act of Adam was his giving names to the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, which God brought to him for this end. Thereafter the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon him, and while in an unconscious state took one of his ribs, and closed up his flesh again; and of this rib he made a woman, whom he presented to him when he awoke. Adam received her as his wife, and said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." He called her Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

Being induced by the tempter in the form of a serpent to eat the forbidden fruit, Eve persuaded Adam, and he also did eat. Thus man fell, and brought upon himself and his posterity all the sad consequences of his transgression. The narrative of the Fall comprehends in it the great promise of a Deliverer (Gen. 3:15), the "first gospel" message to man. They were expelled from Eden, and at the east of the garden God placed a flame, which turned every way, to prevent access to the tree of life (Gen. 3). How long they were in Paradise is matter of mere conjecture.

Shortly after their expulsion Eve brought forth her first-born, and called him Cain. Although we have the names of only three of Adam's sons, viz., Cain, Abel, and Seth, yet it is obvious that he had several sons and daughters (Gen. 5:4). He died aged 930 years.

Adam and Eve were the progenitors of the whole human race. Evidences of varied kinds are abundant in proving the unity of the human race. The investigations of science, altogether independent of historical evidence, lead to the conclusion that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26. Comp. Rom. 5:12-12; 1 Cor. 15:22-49). (Eastons Bible Dictionary, Adam)​

This has not escaped the attention of Christians over the last two thousand years:

ADAM ;

1. The first man. Creation of -"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed4 into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
(Ge 1:26-28; 2:7); "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." (1Co 15:45); But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1Ti 2:12-14) (Nave's Topical Index, Adam)​

God's bara is not limited to the primordial couple, but often extends to include all humanity (Gen 6:7; Ps 89:47, 102:18; Isa 45:12). And yet even a supernaturalist would admit that people are born as a result of the naturalistic processes of fertilization and placental development - so if God's bara can include this, why can it not include evolution?

"What man [is he that] liveth, and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave? Selah." Ps 89:47

Verse 47. Remember how short my time is. If so brief, do not make it altogether bitter. If thine anger burn on it will outlast this mortal life, and then there will be no time for thy mercy to restore me. Some expositors ascribe these words, and all the preceding verses, to the state of the Lord Jesus in the days of his humiliation, and this gives an instructive meaning; but we prefer to continue our reference all through to the church, which is the seed of the Lord Jesus, even as the succeeding kings were the seed of David. We, having transgressed, are made to feel the rod, but we pray the Lord not to continue his stripes lest our whole life be passed in misery. Wherefore hast thou made all men in vain? If the Lord do not shine upon his work we live for nothing—we count it no longer life if his cause does not prosper. We live if the King lives, but not else. Everything is vanity if religion be vanity. If the kingdom of heaven should fail, everything is a failure. Creation is a blot, providence an error, and our own existence a bell, if the faithfulness of God can fail and his covenant of grace can be dissolved. If the gospel system can be disproved, nothing remains for us or any other of the sons of men, which can render existence worth the having. (The Treasury of David, Charles Spurgen)​

"This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD" Ps 102:18

Verse 18. This shall be written for the generation to come. A note shall be made of it, for there will be destitute ones in future generations,—"the poor shall never cease out of the land, "—and it will make glad their eyes to read the story of the Lord's mercy to the needy in former times. Registers of divine kindness ought to be made and preserved; we write dcwn in history the calamities of nations,—wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes are recorded; how much rather then should we set up memorials of the Lord's lovingkindness! Those who have in their own souls endured spiritual destitution, and have been delivered out of it, cannot forget it; they are bound to tell others of it, and especially to instruct their children in the goodness of the Lord. And the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD. The Psalmist here intends to say that the rebuilding of Jerusalem would be a fact in history for which the Lord would be praised from age to age. Revivals of religion not only cause great joy to those who are immediately concerned in them, but they give encouragement and delight to the people of God long after, and are indeed perpetual incentives to adoration throughout the church of God. This verse teaches us that we ought to have an eye to posterity, and especially should we endeavour to perpetuate the memory of God's love to his church and to his poor people, so that young people as they grow up may know that the Lord God of their fathers is good and full of compassion. Sad as the Psalmist was when he wrote the dreary portions of this complaint, he was not so absorbed in his own sorrow, or so distracted by the national calamity, as to forget the claims of coming generations; this, indeed, is a clear proof that he was not without hope for his people, for he who is making arrangements for the good of a future generation has not yet despaired of his nation. The praise of God should be the great object of all that we do, and to secure him a revenue of glory both from the present and the future is the noblest aim of intelligent beings.(The Treasury of David, Charles Spurgen)​

Furthermore, God's bara is used specifically of Israel as a nation (Isa 43). Are you going to argue that each and every process that brought Israel to pass was a supernatural miracle?

Outside of the P. bara is used only relatively rarely of the creation of the cosmic powers. Usually, appropriate exampels of this are found in contexts that praise majesty of the Creator God (Isa. 40:26,28; AM. 4:13, Ps. 89:13; 148:5) while othes are related to the creation of man (Dt. 4:32; Isa. 45:12; and also Ps. 89:48). Between these two groups lie Isa. 42:5 and 45:18 where (as in P) the creation is represented as the most important work of creation. Accordingly, Isa. 45:12 states that Yahweh 'made' (asah) the earth, but 'created (bara) man." (Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament By G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Tinggren, John T. Willis)​

Here that dichotomy is again:

What we can attribute to a naturalistic chain of events
vs
what can only be rightfully attributed to God.

Why are the two mutually exclusive? Daily I see in my life things that can be attributed to naturalistic chains of events and to God. I am an avid reader and thinker because my parents bought lots of books for me and because God blessed me with a good brain; my country is independent today because of the many freedom fighters and politicians who won her freedom and because God had a destiny for our land. When I conceive evolution as a natural cause with God as its ultimate cause I see no conflict with any orthodox theology or reasonable interpretation of Scripture.

The rise of Democracy and the freedoms you cherish so highly have their roots in the Protestant Reformation. Thomas Jefferson plagurized a Puritan Whig in the Declaration of Independance. John Locke was close friends with another Puritan Whig by the name of Isaac Newton who was also identifying natural laws that were perfectly consistant with Christian theism. Rest assured that had their been no Protestant Reformation there would have been no Scientific Revolution nor would their have been a basis for the American Revolution.

That the title and authority of queen belongs to theology in the first sense, I think, will not be affirmed by theologians who have any skill in the other sciences. None of these, I think, will say that geometry, astronomy, music, and medicine are much more excellently contained in the Bible than they are in the books of Archimedes, Ptolemy, Boethius, and Galen. Hence it seems likely that regal preeminence is given to theology in the second sense; that is, by reason of its subject and the miraculous communication of divine revelation of conclusions which could not be conceived by men in any other way,

- Galileo, speaking of the geocentrists (1615)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.html

In his own defense Galileo said that the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work. Notice he never denied that theology merits the title of queen of the sciences, only that it is unrelated to things like math and astronomy. Any reasonably articulate Bible student could point out the differences without referance to a highly detailed theologicial or scientific discipline. There is a proper context where theology influences scientific thought and that place is the origin of man. Adam and Eve being fully formed as God's special creation is not an ambiquise metaphor for personal salvation. It is the detailed revelation of human origins that has been buried in a seige of attacks on the historicity of Scripture. We would do well to remember that the Scriptures are first of all redemptive history both personal and chronological.

There is a context where theology informs the intellect as well as the mental and physical tools of modern science. There is, in fact, a level at which the intellect is better informed from God's work in human history from Adam to the redemption of the purchase price.

Please accept this admonition in the spirit is was intended, learn the Scriptures as well as the sciences since they are both important tools in the hands of willing, skillfull workers.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

To me this is a false dichotomy. All chains of cause and effect are works of God. The very existence of cause and effect is a work of God. Attributing an effect to a cause is identical to attributing it to God, since without the concurrence of God cause and effect would not exist in any sort of order and science as a discipline could not exist.

There is a true dichotomy of divine providence and God's rule in the affairs of men. There is a discernible difference between God's deistic natural world acting in accordance with God's designed mechanisms and God intervening as He did in the Exodus and the Resurrection. The Scriptures are clear on this and the traditional view of Christians has been that miracles are an essential element of the Gospel as an historical narrative. This has not been lost on you I am sure.

I see "adam" as a generic term for the human species. I do not see how this saps Genesis of any theological importance. Perhaps you could clarify what theological principle you believe is vitiated by this approach.

Adam and Eve were the progenitors of the whole human race. Evidences of varied kinds are abundant in proving the unity of the human race. The investigations of science, altogether independent of historical evidence, lead to the conclusion that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26. Comp. Rom. 5:12-12; 1 Cor. 15:22-49). (Easton's Bible Dictionary, Adam)​

Is it that God is creator of humankind?

The question is whether God created Man fully formed as an act of special creation.

I believe that.

You act as if you can believe Moses and Darwin, I say you cannot.

Is it that humankind has fallen into sin? I believe that.

But do you believe as the Scriptures teach that in Adam all die? Genesis 1 is no metaphor, it's an historical narrative.

Is it that God has provided redemption for humankind? I believe that.

If you believe the promise of a new heavens and a new earth then why is believing God created the old one from nothing so difficult?

Is it that God created us male and female? I believe that.

But God creating Adam from dust and Eve from a rib is going too far right?

Is it that God ordained marriage? I believe that. Is it that God ordained families? I believe that. Is it that God ordained a Sabbath rest? I believe that.

So where is my theology lacking?

We can discuss that when the rhetorical questions have ran their course.

I am not disputing that. In fact, I gave you two examples of God's miracles. It is your apparent perception that we cannot attribute the natural course of events to God that I question.

So, in regard to humankind, the scriptural testimony is ambiguous, for it both uses 'bara' in Genesis 1, yet uses 'asah' when it describes creating humankind out of dust. Furthermore, it does not say that the creation our of dust was instantaneous, but the result of a process of formation. Who is to say what forms that dust took between the beginning of the work and the final formation into a human being? Why not an ape? (Biologically, humans are apes, just as we are primates, mammals, vertebrates and animals.)

Man is created in many senses; Bara (absolute), yastar (formed from dust) and Eve was made banah (built) from a rib. There are a number of different words used in their appropriate context to indicate different kinds of creation going on. There is no rational basis for Adam being formed from pre-existing creatures and still being consistant with what Moses is saying here. Either you believe Moses or Darwin because one of them is dead wrong.

I am not saying that the theology of the Nicene Creed can be inferred from evolution. Evolution is science not theology. You can't infer one from the other.

Then by the same token there is a distinction between evolution as science and evolution as natural history. You can discern between theology and science but have a hard time seeing a difference between empirical demonstrations as opposed to suppositional history?

But perhaps you could elucidate:

a) what theological inferences you believe to be inherent in TE that contradict canonical doctrine

Adam being the first man and sin/death coming as a result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

b) what non-canonical theological inferences you believe to be implied by TE.

That God is absent in the historical development of living systems from the simple to the complex.

I would disagree profoundly with this statement. If it were proved to me beyond reasonable doubt that every miracle recorded in scripture, up to and including the resurrection, could be fully explained by natural causes, I would still believe in God and Creation, the power of Christ to atone for my sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the life everlasting.

Well you can't have it both ways, either God is active or passive in human affairs. The New Testament is clear that God did not make Christ a metaphor for sin but a living sacrifice. God cannot atone for sin unless the price for providing righteousness is paid in full. That is the energetic cost of salvation, our salvation comes to us for free but it cost God plenty.

It is not the nature of the events which is important, but whether they reveal the will of God and his love for us. God can reveal that supernaturally; he can also reveal that naturally. If you can only see God in the supernatural, you are setting a boundary on what you allow God to reveal to you.

I do not limit God to a natural/supernatural revelation nor do I limit my theology to personal conviction. The only boundary I set is in how much of Holy Scripture I am willing to take figuratively and the resurrection is definitely a line of demarcation. You remove the historicity of Christ's miracles, especially the resurrection and you have meaningless poetry.

 

[gluadys]

There is a true dichotomy of divine providence and God's rule in the affairs of men. There is a discernible difference between God's deistic natural world acting in accordance with God's designed mechanisms and God intervening as He did in the Exodus and the Resurrection. The Scriptures are clear on this and the traditional view of Christians has been that miracles are an essential element of the Gospel as an historical narrative. This has not been lost on you I am sure.

No, I agree with that distinction.

The question is whether God created Man fully formed as an act of special creation.

I would contend that that is not a theologically important question. The process by which humanity was created is infinitely less important than the fact that humanity was created by God.

You act as if you can believe Moses and Darwin, I say you cannot.

Sorry, but you cannot choose what I can believe. You are projecting your own problems with this issue on to me.

But do you believe as the Scriptures teach that in Adam all die?

Yes, I do. But remember that I consider the 'ha-adam' of Genesis to be a way of referring to the whole human species. To be human is to be subject to death.

Genesis 1 is no metaphor, it's an historical narrative.

That cannot be established by simply declaring it to be so.

If you believe the promise of a new heavens and a new earth then why is believing God created the old one from nothing so difficult?

It's not. In fact, I do believe that God created the universe out of nothing.

But God creating Adam from dust and Eve from a rib is going too far right?

Literally, physically? Yes.

We can discuss that when the rhetorical questions have ran their course.

So begin discussing. Where is my theology lacking? Not in terms of your personal theology, but in terms of something established such as the Nicene creed which is the basis of being accepted as a Christian on this forum.

Man is created in many senses; Bara (absolute), yastar (formed from dust) and Eve was made banah (built) from a rib. There are a number of different words used in their appropriate context to indicate different kinds of creation going on. There is no rational basis for Adam being formed from pre-existing creatures and still being consistant with what Moses is saying here. Either you believe Moses or Darwin because one of them is dead wrong.

This only applies if you insist that Moses (or whoever really wrote Genesis) was writing a modern style of history. It is really circular reasoning on your part.

Then by the same token there is a distinction between evolution as science and evolution as natural history.

Evolution as natural history is a logical conclusion, both from the theory of evolution and the confirmatory evidence.

You can discern between theology and science but have a hard time seeing a difference between empirical demonstrations as opposed to suppositional history?

So far, the empirical demonstrations are confirmatory of the suppositional history.

Adam being the first man and sin/death coming as a result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

Yet many TEs --including several in this forum such as shernren and rmwilliamsll-- agree with these statements. So the contrary is not inherent in theistic evolution.

That God is absent in the historical development of living systems from the simple to the complex.

That is not inherent in TE either. I personally disagree with this perspective on evolution. This is you excluding God from natural processes, not TEs.

Well you can't have it both ways, either God is active or passive in human affairs. The New Testament is clear that God did not make Christ a metaphor for sin but a living sacrifice. God cannot atone for sin unless the price for providing righteousness is paid in full. That is the energetic cost of salvation, our salvation comes to us for free but it cost God plenty.

I agree with all of this. I would also add that God is active in natural processes.

I do not limit God to a natural/supernatural revelation nor do I limit my theology to personal conviction. The only boundary I set is in how much of Holy Scripture I am willing to take figuratively and the resurrection is definitely a line of demarcation. You remove the historicity of Christ's miracles, especially the resurrection and you have meaningless poetry.

]

It is meaningless only if you choose not to give meaning to it. That is your decision, not something inherent in the event. So this is circular reasoning again. (Note: I do believe the resurrection was a miracle. But, if, hypothetically, a natural explanation was found--other than that it was a hoax--that would not render it meaningless or ineffective in my opinion. Nor would it separate the event from the will and action of God. However, I think it very improbable that such an explanation will ever be found.)

PS: I appreciate the editing. btw, although not in a post to me, you have misspelled "ambiguous" as "ambiquise" several times. Too often and too consistently to be a typo. Not difficult to spell correctly if you pronounce it correctly: am-big-you-us

 

[shernren]

God created man from the dust of the earth, this is predicated on God creating the entire universe from nothing. There is a clear chain of logic here based on God doing what God alone can do. You act as if you don't understand what I'm getting at when the conflict is as clear as day. Both Moses and Darwin cannot be right, if we evolved from apes then Moses was completely mistaken.

followed by a lengthy verbal diarrhea of quoted commentaries. By the way, this is the actual text of Ps 89:47:

Remember how fleeting is my life.
For what futility you have created (bara) all men!
(Psalms 89:47 NIV)

You accidentally quoted the verse after it.

In any case, my argument is simple enough.

God is spoken of as creating (bara) Adam.
And yet He did so by forming him from the dust.
This shows that, at the very least, creating (bara) does not preclude the manipulation of pre-existing matter.

God is spoken of as creating (bara) all men.
And yet all men are formed by the naturalistic processes of reproduction.
This shows that, at the very least, creating (bara) does not preclude the use of naturalistic processes.

God is spoken of as creating (bara) Israel.
And yet Jacob/Israel, and all his descendants (barring Jesus), were formed also by the naturalistic processes of reproduction.
This shows again that creating (bara) does not preclude the use of naturalistic processes.

As far as I can see I have only quoted Bible verses; if you think their context modifies my conclusion you are free to show this in any manner you see fit. And yet, even using this minimum of evidence, it seems obvious that God's sovereignty in divine creation does not preclude His employing of natural processes.

In his own defense Galileo said that the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work. Notice he never denied that theology merits the title of queen of the sciences, only that it is unrelated to things like math and astronomy. Any reasonably articulate Bible student could point out the differences without referance to a highly detailed theologicial or scientific discipline. There is a proper context where theology influences scientific thought and that place is the origin of man. Adam and Eve being fully formed as God's special creation is not an ambiquise metaphor for personal salvation. It is the detailed revelation of human origins that has been buried in a seige of attacks on the historicity of Scripture. We would do well to remember that the Scriptures are first of all redemptive history both personal and chronological.

There is a context where theology informs the intellect as well as the mental and physical tools of modern science. There is, in fact, a level at which the intellect is better informed from God's work in human history from Adam to the redemption of the purchase price.

Please accept this admonition in the spirit is was intended, learn the Scriptures as well as the sciences since they are both important tools in the hands of willing, skillfull workers.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Indeed, the admonition to learn the Scriptures as well as the sciences is always a good one. But in the course of obeying this admonition I find myself questioning your arguments; it is from Scripture, in fact, that I perceive that God's divine sovereignty in creating man never precludes His employment of natural processes in that act of creation.

In any case, the things you say are the very things that geocentrists, medieval and modern alike, have said of heliocentrism. They would insist that "there is a proper context where theology influences scientific thought and that is in the question of the stars and skies which God has created". They would insist that the alternative interpretations of Scripture and the moral corruptions of society began when Copernicus cast down the authority of Scripture to declare that the earth orbits the sun instead of vice versa.

This is of course not a concrete proof that the creationists are similarly mistaken. But if the creationists are philosophizing in the same vein, then they can only be refuted with the same methods; and it must be noted that one chief reason heliocentrism was opposed was because it had no Scriptural support:

For Copernicus never discusses matters of religion or faith, nor does he use argument that depend in any way upon the authority of sacred writings which he might have interpreted erroneously. He stands always upon physical conclusions pertaining to the celestial motions, and deals with them by astronomical and geometrical demonstrations, founded primarily upon sense experiences and very exact observations. He did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if` his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scriptures when they were rightly understood ...
​

In the same way, we evolutionists have not used arguments that depend in any way upon the authority of sacred writings which might have been interpreted erroneously. Where we discuss matters of religion or faith, we do so only to defend the faith from those who would wrongly attack Christianity through evolution; and we have stood always upon biological conclusions pertaining to the origins of species, and dealt with them both in their historical and present interpretations, founded primarily upon sense experiences and exact observations. We do not ignore the Bible, but we maintain that should evolution be true, then it cannot contradict the Scriptures rightly understood.

This is the only way in which we have been un-Christian or ignorant of theology; and if we are to be indicted upon such grounds, then the rest of science as we know and practice it stands similarly guilty, even all the science that has served man faithfully for centuries.

 

[Xaero]

"Behold, I have created (bara) the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created (bara) the waster to destroy." (Isa 54:16)

This shows again that creating (bara) does not preclude the use of naturalistic processes.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, I agree with that distinction.

Sometimes you have to make a distinction with broad applications.

I would contend that that is not a theologically important question. The process by which humanity was created is infinitely less important than the fact that humanity was created by God.

The creation of man as a living soul in the image of God opens a host of questions with regards to God's communicative attributes. If you look a little deeper you might be surprised at how many theological issues are rooted in origins theology.

Sorry, but you cannot choose what I can believe. You are projecting your own problems with this issue on to me.

The text is anything but ambiguous but I suppose you can read anything into it you like. It is nevertheless a claim to an historical Adam related by a prophet who received the details from God himself. Believe whatever you like, you just won't get the figurative perspective from Moses no matter how much you try.

Yes, I do. But remember that I consider the 'ha-adam' of Genesis to be a way of referring to the whole human species. To be human is to be subject to death.

It is referring to the origin of the whole human race. That is the clear meaning of the text and not subject to private interpretation. Death came because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve. If it were not so then there would be those who could choose to be obedient and live.

That cannot be established by simply declaring it to be so.

It's amazing how little reliance there is on the actual text when making statements like that.

It's not. In fact, I do believe that God created the universe out of nothing.

How about Adam from the dust or Eve from a rib?

Literally, physically? Yes.

Again you can't have Adam being descended from an ape and created from the dust.

So begin discussing. Where is my theology lacking? Not in terms of your personal theology, but in terms of something established such as the Nicene creed which is the basis of being accepted as a Christian on this forum.

When Polycarp (John's disciple) was burned one of the charges was that he was an atheist. He refused to worship the gods of Rome and the crowd chanted 'away with the atheist'. He was told to repeat the statement and waving his hand at the crowd he said,' away with the atheists'. He then refused to worship any but Christ and the crowd in a frenzy lit a fire with whatever was handy.

Who cares what I think about whether or not you are a Christian? Being a Christian is about a relationship, it's not a fraternal organization you join by taking an oath. It's believing the promise of the Gospel and the writings of Moses are the beginning of the revelation of this promise. Faith is in Christ and the Nicene Creed is really a very general list of essential doctrines. The creation being a central point and the deity of Christ being of far deeper significance then God's mode of creation (bara, yastar or asaph)

This only applies if you insist that Moses (or whoever really wrote Genesis) was writing a modern style of history. It is really circular reasoning on your part.

Moses wrote Genesis for the most part but it was later edited by the sons of Aaron, the Levites. Moses was a Levite and they were charged with teaching the law and obedience to the covenant. Genesis was and is attributed to Moses and all the revisionist history in the world won't change that.

Evolution as natural history is a logical conclusion, both from the theory of evolution and the confirmatory evidence.

Evolution as science involves adaptation and improved fitness which is almost never the result of random mutations. Evolution as history has never been a conclusion, it has always been an a priori assumption. There is a big difference between directly observed and demonstrated science and a metaphysical a priori assumption.

So far, the empirical demonstrations are confirmatory of the sup positional history.

No it's not, first of all there are no human subspecies as Darwin predicted and claimed to observe. Human DNA is vastly different then the chimpanzees with virtually all genes showing divergence at a nucleotide sequence level. I have seen the empirical demonstrations and they make false predictions and representations as a matter of course.

Yet many TEs --including several in this forum such as shernren and rmwilliamsll-- agree with these statements. So the contrary is not inherent in theistic evolution.

Opinions vary.

That is not inherent in TE either. I personally disagree with this perspective on evolution. This is you excluding God from natural processes, not TEs.

I see very little that distinguishes TE as anything other then a Darwinian philosophy dressed up in vague theistic verbage. That is not to say that TEs are, or are not Christian just that theology is absent in TE thinking as far as I can tell. The Bible as history being essential the Christian theology and of only passing interest to most TEs and certainly not of any great significance.

I agree with all of this. I would also add that God is active in natural processes.

Divine Providence is a concept that the world is a giant watch God designed, built, wind up and let run. Many of the natural right in the US Constitution was based on very similar concepts. When God interjects into human affairs whether we are talking the birth of a nation or a sinner being born again, miracles are what distinguishes God's work. God's revelation to Moses was based in large part on dramatic judgements made on Egypt and the Hebrews in the Sinai dessert.

You might want to give some thought about how you make that distinction.

It is meaningless only if you choose not to give meaning to it. That is your decision, not something inherent in the event. So this is circular reasoning again. (Note: I do believe the resurrection was a miracle. But, if, hypothetically, a natural explanation was found--other than that it was a hoax--that would not render it meaningless or ineffective in my opinion. Nor would it separate the event from the will and action of God. However, I think it very improbable that such an explanation will ever be found.)

Without the historical element the Gospel is an empty promise. I am tempted to move on with the discussion but it is vital to get the principles down first.

PS: I appreciate the editing. btw, although not in a post to me, you have misspelled "ambiguous" as "ambiquise" several times. Too often and too consistently to be a typo. Not difficult to spell correctly if you pronounce it correctly: am-big-you-us

I am a terrible speller and I could have a spell checker and a dictionary and still misspell 'bout everythin. It could have something to do with the fact that I like to use 'man' and 'dude' in every other sentence. My Dad called me 'the Pepsi generation'. He said we can't talk right, don't dress right and we all need haircuts.

All I can tell you is thank God for spell checkers.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

followed by a lengthy verbal diarrhea of quoted commentaries. By the way, this is the actual text of Ps 89:47:

You call Charles Spurgen's commentary on the Psalms verbal diarrhea...I am appalled.

 

[mark kennedy]

I can see this was a mistake. I have made a strict effort to keep theology out of my debates and discussions related to the evolution/creation controversy. I can see now that, that was the proper thing to do. I won't make the same mistake twice.

 

[Mallon]

I can see this was a mistake. I have made a strict effort to keep theology out of my debates and discussions related to the evolution/creation controversy.

Why would you make this comment, then?:

It has been a source of considerable of fascination for me personally that genetics contradicts Darwinian philosophies at every turn.

 

[mark kennedy]

Why would you make this comment, then?:

Darwinian philosophy and Mendelian genetics are not theology. In most of my discussions I focused on the life sciences and I have been very impressed with genetics.

The metaphysics of Darwinian thinking are not the same thing a theology. Darwinian philosophy is anti-theistic rhetoric with humanism, pragmatism and liberal theology being very simular ways of reasoning. God was even dialectically removed from many Christian theologies through Spinoza, Hegel, Tillich and others.

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

 

[DailyBlessings]

Darwinian philosophy is anti-theistic rhetoric with humanism, pragmatism and liberal theology being very simular ways of reasoning.

What do those four have in common? I don't see the connection.

 

[shernren]

You call Charles Spurgen's commentary on the Psalms verbal diarrhea...I am appalled.

I did not recognize it; that is more an indictment of my lack of knowledge than Spurgeon's writing skill. And yet I stand by my initial judgment. Those writings are certainly enlightening and edifying under other circumstances, but thrown out in the middle of a discussion of the relationship between the naturalistic and supernaturalistic modes of God's action, they add absolutely nothing. Does that mean we can get back to the discussion?

I can see this was a mistake. I have made a strict effort to keep theology out of my debates and discussions related to the evolution/creation controversy. I can see now that, that was the proper thing to do. I won't make the same mistake twice.

And yet, you said here:

Darwinian philosophy and Mendelian genetics are not theology. In most of my discussions I focused on the life sciences and I have been very impressed with genetics.

The metaphysics of Darwinian thinking are not the same thing a theology. Darwinian philosophy is anti-theistic rhetoric with humanism, pragmatism and liberal theology being very simular ways of reasoning. God was even dialectically removed from many Christian theologies through Spinoza, Hegel, Tillich and others.

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

If Darwinian philosophy is an anti-theistic rhetoric, then you have every reason to further explore how Darwinian philosophy is opposed to theology - or, to change the frame of reference, how theology must be opposed to Darwinian philosophy. So, which is it? Are you opposing evolution for its supposed anti-theistic conclusions, or because it is bad science?

The complete irony is that it is you yourself who constantly accuse TE of having no substantive theology. And yet you're going to surrender the theological high ground in the discussion? ... whatever. Your prerogative.

If you will refuse to speak further of the theological implications of evolution, and wish to concentrate on its scientific implications, perhaps the C&E forums will be a better place for your future endeavors ...