The Idols and False Notions have Taken Deep Root

[gluadys]

t was from his side that Christ fashioned the Church, as he had fashioned Eve from the side of Adam Moses gives a hint of this when he tells the story of the first man and makes him exclaim: “Bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh!” Blood and Water From His Side - St. John Chrysostom (344–407)​

When, oh when, will literalists actually be able to identify literalism? How one can take an obviously allegorical use of scripture to make a theological point and use it as "proof" of literalism is mind-boggling to me.

This is about origins and there is no question that the early church believed in a literal Adam and Eve, that Paul believed in a literal Adam and Eve, specially created and the transgression of Adam brought sin and death to us all.

So? They believed a lot of other things too that you do not insist we believe. In fact, you flatly deny Paul taught a flat earth. Whether he believed in a flat earth or a Ptolomaic system is beside the point. He almost certainly did NOT believe in a heliocentric solar system, nor in galaxies and outer space. He probably agreed with Aristotle that nature abhors a vacuum and so space as we understand it was out of the question.

You can agree that the doctrine of original sin was not formally defined until it was needed against Pelagius. Why does it not make just as much sense to agree that there was no need to question that Adam was a literal individual until the 19th century? So the fact that the Church Fathers accepted his literal existence without question is no reason we need to.

To me, it is clear that St. John Chrysostom's allegorical use of Genesis is just as valid without a literal Eve as with. So we cannot assume that from our vantage point St. John would have insisted on a literal Eve.

Likewise, original sin is an obvious reality whether or not Adam was a literal individual. And atonement is necessary whether or not an individual named Adam sinned. Because we all sin, it can never be said that Christ died in vain.​

 

[busterdog]

When, oh when, will literalists actually be able to identify literalism? How one can take an obviously allegorical use of scripture to make a theological point and use it as "proof" of literalism is mind-boggling to me.

What is the metaphorical meaning then? I can't think of one. That being the case, the passage is shrouded in mystery. That's a poor basis on which to pound the literalists.

So? They believed a lot of other things too that you do not insist we believe. In fact, you flatly deny Paul taught a flat earth. Whether he believed in a flat earth or a Ptolomaic system is beside the point. He almost certainly did NOT believe in a heliocentric solar system, nor in galaxies and outer space. He probably agreed with Aristotle that nature abhors a vacuum and so space as we understand it was out of the question.

How do you come to this "belief"? If it were not a belief, it would be easier to discuss. To say that other writings of the time can tell you what Paul knew is just another form of reason that will never work with YECs and biblical literalists. It is some evidence, but the adamant insistence that this form of reason is impenetrable remains baffling. It is not logical.

Did Aristotle get caught up to the third heaven? Not as far as we know. So why compare the two conclusively?

2Cr 12:2
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.

Likewise, original sin is an obvious reality whether or not Adam was a literal individual.

How does this work? If sin has no "origin", but is rather common to all, how can it be "original"?

 

[gluadys]

What is the metaphorical meaning then? I can't think of one. That being the case, the passage is shrouded in mystery. That's a poor basis on which to pound the literalists.

Well, St. John obviously thought of several. Why not read the whole passage. It is chock 'o block full of allegorical interpretations.


http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com...ater_From_His_Side___St._John_Chrysostom.html

If you are confessing that literalists have a paucity of imagination, so be it.

How do you come to this "belief"? If it were not a belief, it would be easier to discuss. To say that other writings of the time can tell you what Paul knew is just another form of reason that will never work with YECs and biblical literalists.

They tell us what Paul could know and what he probably did not know. He was well schooled in Jewish philosophy having studied under Gamaliel. He was raised in the Diaspora and was literate in Greek, so he was probably not totally ignorant of current Greek philosophies, though, of course, we can't be sure how much he did or did not study them.

It is not logical.

It is based on the evidence we have, both about Paul personally and about the culture milieu of the time. What is not logical about taking those things into account?

Did Aristotle get caught up to the third heaven? Not as far as we know. So why compare the two conclusively?

And we don't know that Aristotle did not visit the third heaven either, do we? In fact, the very use of the term "third heaven" speaks to Paul's use of current cosmological understanding. What in the world does "third heaven" mean outside of that frame of reference?

Furthermore, whatever Paul experienced in the third heaven, it did not involve bringing into his correspondence any inkling of modern science. So it is totally ad hoc to suppose his ecstasy included exposure to such information. Even if we posit that he personally had such a revelation, clearly he judged it was of no importance to pass on the details to the churches.

How does this work? If sin has no "origin", but is rather common to all, how can it be "original"?

I don't understand your question. Who is suggesting that sin has no origin? In fact, because it is common to all, we must posit an origin that is common to all. Just as we posit a common biological ancestor of all human beings because of the common biologically inherited characteristics of all humans.

Isn't that the purpose of the myth of the Fall?

 

[mark kennedy]

When, oh when, will literalists actually be able to identify literalism? How one can take an obviously allegorical use of scripture to make a theological point and use it as "proof" of literalism is mind-boggling to me.

The fact that TEs are indifferent to the historical aspect of Scripture and the exegesis that goes into sound doctrine is mind boggling to me.

So? They believed a lot of other things too that you do not insist we believe. In fact, you flatly deny Paul taught a flat earth. Whether he believed in a flat earth or a Ptolomaic system is beside the point. He almost certainly did NOT believe in a heliocentric solar system, nor in galaxies and outer space. He probably agreed with Aristotle that nature abhors a vacuum and so space as we understand it was out of the question.

Where the Scriptures speak authoritatively and clearly they are to be preferred above the conclusions of the worldly wise. The Scriptures speak of astronomy in the vaguest of terms, human history is another matter.

You can agree that the doctrine of original sin was not formally defined until it was needed against Pelagius. Why does it not make just as much sense to agree that there was no need to question that Adam was a literal individual until the 19th century? So the fact that the Church Fathers accepted his literal existence without question is no reason we need to.

Page after page in this thread has argued that Romans 5 is not talking about a literal Adam, that's just not true. Then I'm told that original sin is based on Aquinas's argument against Pelagius, that's not true. I'm told that the early church fathers didn't believe that either and that was not true.

Finally someone says that Christians questioning whether or not Adam was our first parent was a 19 century phenomenon. That is absolutely true.

To me, it is clear that St. John Chrysostom's allegorical use of Genesis is just as valid without a literal Eve as with. So we cannot assume that from our vantage point St. John would have insisted on a literal Eve.

Of course we can, it can be inferred in the writings of the early church fathers that they did indeed believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

Likewise, original sin is an obvious reality whether or not Adam was a literal individual. And atonement is necessary whether or not an individual named Adam sinned. Because we all sin, it can never be said that Christ died in vain.

"I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." (Galatians 5:22 NKJV)​

The progression in Romans is obvious, Adam's transgression (sin) results in death and when the Mosaic law came sin was imputed. That directly ties Adam's sin to the law of Moses and if it were possible to be righteous by the law then Christ died for nothing.

Seriously, don't you think I thought about the doctrinal difficulties with TE. Honestly, I was nearly persuaded and started rethinking my theology. The fact is I did work it out even though I turned instead to YEC.

That's the thing, I already know how my proof texts could be resolved to a TE perspective. Dismissing Adam as figurative is not going to work when clearly Paul was a Creationist. If you ever thought to ask I would happily tell you how but your not going to do that. It's the TE strategy to stigmatize YEC and characterize it as extra biblical and psuedoscientific. I'll buy that it's not very scientific, but as a Biblical doctrine it is seamless.

Arguments to the contrary fail since they apply a worldly philosophy to a revelation that is opposed to worldly wisdom.

"For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:22-24)​

 

[crawfish]

That's the thing, I already know how my proof texts could be resolved to a TE perspective. Dismissing Adam as figurative is not going to work when clearly Paul was a Creationist. If you ever thought to ask I would happily tell you how but your not going to do that. It's the TE strategy to stigmatize YEC and characterize it as extra biblical and psuedoscientific. I'll buy that it's not very scientific, but as a Biblical doctrine it is seamless.

Here s a problem with what you infer from Romans 5. You've pulled out part of Romans 5 as doctrine and labeled it "creationism". The problem is, that is only one part of an overall diatribe. Why is the passage there? What is Paul trying to accomplish? Calling Paul a creationist because of this passage is a gross misrepresentation of what Paul was trying to accomplish.

Arguments to the contrary fail since they apply a worldly philosophy to a revelation that is opposed to worldly wisdom.

"For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:22-24)​

I don't think a single TE here is going to question the gospel of the cross, in any way, fashion or form. We're just not going to pollute its purity with adding extra requirements.

 

[mark kennedy]

Here s a problem with what you infer from Romans 5. You've pulled out part of Romans 5 as doctrine and labeled it "creationism". The problem is, that is only one part of an overall diatribe. Why is the passage there? What is Paul trying to accomplish? Calling Paul a creationist because of this passage is a gross misrepresentation of what Paul was trying to accomplish.

I'm not labeling anyone, you guys want to have your cake and eat it too. First Creationism is labeled psuedoscience because it is inherently religious and a Biblical doctrine. Then TEs want to reject it because it's not Biblical and their arguments afford no genuine Scriptural support.

I don't think a single TE here is going to question the gospel of the cross, in any way, fashion or form. We're just not going to pollute its purity with adding extra requirements.

I'm not adding anything, Romans 5 clearly indicates that death came because of Adam's transgression, it was imputed through the mosaic law and destroyed through Christs atonement. If you receive the gospel of Christ and him crucified then I am obligated to receive you as a fellow believer. If you deny a sound doctrine based on a worldly philosophy then I consider that an extrabiblical position.

I don't consider the Pentecostal/Charismatic experience to be New Testament tongues. That does not mean I don't consider them to be New Testament Christians. It's like I have been trying to tell you guys, I'm not the enemy.

 

[gluadys]

Where the Scriptures speak authoritatively and clearly they are to be preferred above the conclusions of the worldly wise. The Scriptures speak of astronomy in the vaguest of terms, human history is another matter.

So, I take it then, that you do not subscribe to inerrancy.

Page after page in this thread has argued that Romans 5 is not talking about a literal Adam, that's just not true.

It is true. What you overlook is that Jewish interpreters of the scripture have never had a problem speaking non-literally about Adam even if they did not doubt the historical existence of the individual. The dual nature of the Hebrew 'adam' (common noun and proper name) as well as the prevalence of mystical and symbolic interpretations means that many ways of speaking about Adam were available.

Then I'm told that original sin is based on Aquinas's argument against Pelagius, that's not true.

Augustine, not Aquinas.

I'm told that the early church fathers didn't believe that either and that was not true.

And you were given the appropriate references.

Of course we can, it can be inferred in the writings of the early church fathers that they did indeed believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

You misread me. Of course we can infer he believed in a literal Adam and Eve. And the link you posted earlier also shows he believed in a mystical Adam and Eve.

What we cannot infer is what he would believe given our current vantage-point. Would he have disbelieved altogether? Would he have continued to insist on a literal Adam and Eve? Or would he have agreed to a mystical Adam and Eve without literal counterparts? There is no way you can assume only one of these possibilities.

"I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." (Galatians 5:22 NKJV)​

I see no disagreement between myself and Paul on this point.

The progression in Romans is obvious, Adam's transgression (sin) results in death and when the Mosaic law came sin was imputed. That directly ties Adam's sin to the law of Moses and if it were possible to be righteous by the law then Christ died for nothing.

But anyone who sins has broken the law and so the law no longer serves to justify them. So for that person, Christ has not died in vain. If only one person was in that position, Christ has not died in vain. In fact, we know that all are in that position. So how can it ever be said that Christ died in vain? Paul is right, righteousness does not come by the law because all sin and are condemned by the law.

Seriously, don't you think I thought about the doctrinal difficulties with TE.

I am sure you did. But you err in thinking that original sin is a doctrinal difficulty for TE. It is not.

Dismissing Adam as figurative is not going to work when clearly Paul was a Creationist.

To the extent that Paul was a creationist, so am I . He was not and could not have been a 21st century YEC, because he did not have the basis to be. And he did clearly speak figuratively of Adam, especially in Romans 5.

 

[Calminian]

Where the Scriptures speak authoritatively and clearly they are to be preferred above the conclusions of the worldly wise. The Scriptures speak of astronomy in the vaguest of terms, human history is another matter.

So, I take it then, that you do not subscribe to inerrancy.

Sorry, can't help but to point out this fallacy. If scripture is specific about history, but vague about astronomy, and therefore, one believes the specifics about what it says about history, but allows more license where it is vague, how does it follow he's embracing errancy?

It's just weird, Glu. I know you're not going to believe me, but your thoughts just don't logically connect, and it really makes conversation with you difficult. So I'll just throw it out without much hope. Perhaps you'll be open to this constructive criticism at a future time.

 

[gluadys]

Sorry, can't help but to point out this fallacy. If scripture is specific about history, but vague about astronomy, and therefore, one believes the specifics about what it says about history, but allows more license where it is vague, how does it follow he's embracing errancy?

It's just weird, Glu. I know you're not going to believe me, but your thoughts just don't logically connect, and it really makes conversation with you difficult. So I'll just throw it out without much hope. Perhaps you'll be open to this constructive criticism at a future time.

Mark said specifically that he believed the scriptures where they spoke "authoritatively and clearly". My understanding of inerrancy is that scripture always speaks authoritatively, even on matters that are peripheral to the main point of the passage.

If that is a misrepresentation of inerrancy, I am open to a better understanding.

If it is not a misrepresentation, then the only grounds on which he has to make the suggested division is the "vagueness" of scriptural allusions to astronomy. But that requires showing that they are, in fact, vague. I do not find them so. I think they are quite clear.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Sorry, can't help but to point out this fallacy. If scripture is specific about history, but vague about astronomy, and therefore, one believes the specifics about what it says about history, but allows more license where it is vague, how does it follow he's embracing errancy?

It's just weird, Glu. I know you're not going to believe me, but your thoughts just don't logically connect, and it really makes conversation with you difficult. So I'll just throw it out without much hope. Perhaps you'll be open to this constructive criticism at a future time.

When it says things that you want to be true and inerrant, then its inerrant.

When it says stuff that is ludicrously flawed, or doesn't say what you want it to say, then its being metaphorical or mystical.

E.g. the sun going around the Earth, and giving all your possesions to the poor... mystical/metaphorical. Stoning homosexuals? inerrant word of God.

Hope this clears it up for you.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark said specifically that he believed the scriptures where they spoke "authoritatively and clearly". My understanding of inerrancy is that scripture always speaks authoritatively, even on matters that are peripheral to the main point of the passage.

The Scriptures do not speak to astronomy, they do speak to human origins.

If that is a misrepresentation of inerrancy, I am open to a better understanding.

I'm an advocate of the historicity and reliability of Scripture. Adam being specially created is not an error, period.

If it is not a misrepresentation, then the only grounds on which he has to make the suggested division is the "vagueness" of scriptural allusions to astronomy. But that requires showing that they are, in fact, vague. I do not find them so. I think they are quite clear.

The Scriptures have no real bearing on astronomy. They are vague and I noticed you didn't bother to list the Scriptures you think are related to astronomy. I cannot say that I am surprised.

 

[mark kennedy]

E.g. the sun going around the Earth, and giving all your possesions to the poor... mystical/metaphorical. Stoning homosexuals? inerrant word of God.

Hope this clears it up for you.

It doesn't say that the sun revolved around the earth, scientists did until the 15th century. Galileo said that the Scriptures tell us how to get to heaven not how the heaven work. I agree.

When it comes to Adam there is no question that Adam as the first human is a New Testament teaching. You might reject it based on worldly philosophy but you will never get it from the Scriptures.

By the way, rudeness is no substitute for reason.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

It doesn't say that the sun revolved around the earth, scientists did until the 15th century. Galileo said that the Scriptures tell us how to get to heaven not how the heaven work. I agree.

When it comes to Adam there is no question that Adam as the first human is a New Testament teaching. You might reject it based on worldly philosophy but you will never get it from the Scriptures.

By the way, rudeness is no substitute for reason.

The New Testament does not state that Adam is the first biological human. Your constant repetition of this refrain will not make it any more true.

 

[mark kennedy]

The New Testament does not state that Adam is the first biological human. Your constant repetition of this refrain will not make it any more true.

Yes it does, the New Testament affirms the literal meaning of Genesis in no uncertain terms. Where the New Testament speaks of the Genesis accounts it speaks of them as literal, factual history.

Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38)​

Notice the genealogy ends there? Were you unaware of this or do you have some semantical trick that gets you out of the clear meaning here?

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (I Cor 15:21)​

In Adam all die, why, because in Adam all sinned. Paul speaks directly to the first cause of sin's entrance into humanity and calls him by name. We are not talking about one isolated text taken out of context. Even if we were it would be one more then TEs have for their position.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (1 Tim 2:13)​

That is straight up and flat out coming right out and saying it and you are sitting there straight up, flat out denying it.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)​

By one man sin and death entered the world, not two, not ten but one. That is one sin, one man and he is named explicitly, his name was Adam.

How do you do that? Just deny the clear testimony of Scripture and pretend it doesn't say what it comes right out and says in no uncertain terms?

Is this some Eastern Orthodox tradition maybe?

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden, they introduced a new element into human nature (i.e. sin and corruption) Wikipedia Eastern Orthodox Church​

Should I take this figuratively?

According to the Orthodox, the sin of Adam and Eve affected only themselves. Their descendants inherited no sin or guilt because of the fall of the first parents. The fall resulted in their descendants becoming mortal and subject to physical death. This mortality resulted in an increased tendency to sin, but only because humanity was subject to physical needs. Humanity's mortality makes people prone to sin. The sin of Adam and Eve created a barrier of mortality between God and humanity. Only God could do away with this barrier. God removed this obstacle through the incarnation of Christ.Eastern Orthodox​

It specifically states, 'the first parents', so you not only deny the clear testimony of Scripture but this clear statement representing the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Here it is again:

Q. Who were the first human beings whom God created and what are they called?

A. The first human beings that God created were Adam and Eve, and they are
called our First Parents.

CATECHISM O F THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH​

So I just made it up, the Scriptures don't say that and the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't teach that but there it is in the Scriptures and in their doctrines and catechisms.

Don't tell me the Scriptures don't say that because I know better.

 

[Paul365]

Yes it does, the New Testament affirms the literal meaning of Genesis in no uncertain terms. Where the New Testament speaks of the Genesis accounts it speaks of them as literal, factual history.

Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38)​

Notice the genealogy ends there? Were you unaware of this or do you have some semantical trick that gets you out of the clear meaning here?

That means Adam was created by God. It does not mean that Adam is the first biological human.

You can derive from his genealogy that Adam was created 6000 years ago. Human skulls and tools were found from up to several 100,000 years ago, dated with several dating methods such as carbon dating and luminescence dating. This shows clearly that Adam was not the first biological human, or how would you explain that otherwise?

 

[mark kennedy]

That means Adam was created by God. It does not mean that Adam is the first biological human.

It says that Adam was specially created and the New Testament always speaks of Adam as or first parent. It does mean the same thing and this is not an isolated text.

You can derive from his genealogy that Adam was created 6000 years ago. Human skulls and tools were found from up to several 100,000 years ago, dated with several dating methods such as carbon dating and luminescence dating. This shows clearly that Adam was not the first biological human, or how would you explain that otherwise?

The dating methods are unreliable, I have never taken then seriously. These tools you are speaking of I can only assume are the Oldovian tools. There is not indication that apes made them or were remotely capable of using them.

I would explain them by simply dismissing these dates as based on false notions that have taken deep root.

 

[Paul365]

The dating methods are unreliable, I have never taken then seriously.

Do you mean they are unreliable because you don't want to take them seriously, or unreliable for other reasons?

These tools you are speaking of I can only assume are the Oldovian tools. There is not indication that apes made them or were remotely capable of using them.

You probably mean Oldowan tools. No, those were not made by humans, but by early predecessors such as homo habilis. I meant human artifacts like pottery, hand axes and so on.

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you mean they are unreliable because you don't want to take them seriously, or unreliable for other reasons?

I have yet to see a single reason I should take them seriously. Even if certain soils and rocks are very old it doesn't mean whats in them is the same age.

You probably mean Oldowan tools. No, those were not made by humans, but by early predecessors such as homo habilis. I meant human artifacts like pottery, hand axes and so on.

My interest in human evolution and the genetic basis. That's it, if all evolutionists had was geology I would just laugh and move on.

 

[Paul365]

I have yet to see a single reason I should take them seriously. Even if certain soils and rocks are very old it doesn't mean whats in them is the same age.

Really? When you find a fossil embedded in a certain strata, what makes you think that its age is different from the age of the strata?

 

[busterdog]

Really? When you find a fossil embedded in a certain strata, what makes you think that its age is different from the age of the strata?

Oh come now. We all know that the sand in sendimentary strata is older than fossil in the strata. Don't pretend Mark is ignorant. Make the obvious distinction and then move on.