Life

[Van]

Folks, the personal attacks continue and avoidance of the topic of the thread. Did God create life supernaturally? I think so. I hold to theistic evolution to a degree, but I cling to God's word more than most. Our yes should mean yes, and our no should mean no. Those that advocate being luke warm, well it may be this or it may be that, I just do not know so I will go with the flow, could be sincere, but they just do not know for certain.

Folks, TE hold to either "A" or "B". I hold to "B". The brand being advocated here is "I do not know for "certain" whether it is "A" or "B" because I do not want to "paint myself into a corner." That is a "I believe in whatever turns out to be right" non-position position. That is not theistic evolution.

 

[Van]

Theistic Evolution says one of two things. First, either there is a God, but He wasn’t directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it does, whatever that is, and life eventually emerged from non-living material. This view is similar to Atheistic Evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic origin of life.

The second alternative of theistic evolution is that God did not perform just one or two miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. His miracles were multitudinous. He led life step by step down a path that took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin’s Evolutionary Tree of Life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile's limb evolve into a bird's wing naturally?), God stepped in. This view is similar to Special Creation in that it presumes that God acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it.

If we label these views "A" and "B", how many posts have advocated either "A" or "B" and how many have said it might be "A or B" but I am not sure.

 

[Melethiel]

It's neither. Get out of the modernist mindset. God created everything, and he continually upholds everything. Your insistence on a choice between A and B is a bad one, because those are not the only two choices available.

"A" is deism. Most Christians will reject that. "B", however, is a position that most of us here don't hold to, because it posits God stepping in where his system fails. The answer most compatible with historic Christianity is something else entirely.

THAT is why we have no answered your question - not because we are "know-nothings" as you have continually tried to label us, but because we reject categorically the philosophical mindset you are attempting to force on us.

It is parallel to the Calvinist/Arminian debate - the people coming from the Sacramental traditions will reject BOTH of those positions categorically, simply because they are both from the same philosophical root, that we don't share.

 

[gluadys]

Folks, the personal attacks continue and avoidance of the topic of the thread. Did God create life supernaturally? I think so. I hold to theistic evolution to a degree, but I cling to God's word more than most. Our yes should mean yes, and our no should mean no. Those that advocate being luke warm, well it may be this or it may be that, I just do not know so I will go with the flow, could be sincere, but they just do not know for certain.

Folks, TE hold to either "A" or "B". I hold to "B". The brand being advocated here is "I do not know for "certain" whether it is "A" or "B" because I do not want to "paint myself into a corner." That is a "I believe in whatever turns out to be right" non-position position. That is not theistic evolution.

A few years back it was a running joke on this board that there was no point polling TEs because they would always choose the option "Other" --even when it was not offered.

No one made you the arbiter of what TE is. You are offering two choices and forgetting to offer "Other". Most of us choose "Other". And since that is a choice of many TEs that IS theistic evolution whether you like it or not.

btw, you haven't answered the question. What is wrong with believing that whatever turns out to be right is right? I see that as wisdom.

 

[Van]

I guess you missed the post where I addressed your lukewarm stance, neither hot nor cold.

Melethiel, I am reminded of the lawyer's comment to a witness, "you don't know what happened, but you know what did not happen."

"B" does not posit "God's system failed." It posits God takes action to bring about His purpose. You know, like the Bible says.

 

[Melethiel]

But that is not an accurate description of my stance. This is a fundamental difference in presuppositions, not a "lukewarm stance". I reject your base assumption. Doesn't mean I don't have a position.

 

[Van]

Fine, it is ok to have an unstated position. But such a position is lukewarm, neither hot nor cold because it is unstated. Note in the illustration, the temperature is not the one given by you, but the one apparent to your observers.

 

[Mallon]

Fine, it is ok to have an unstated position. But such a position is lukewarm, neither hot nor cold because it is unstated.

Who the heck cares?

 

[gluadys]

I guess you missed the post where I addressed your lukewarm stance, neither hot nor cold.

I don't think it is a lukewarm stance. I think it is a commitment to the truth--whatever it may turn out to be. It is not lukewarm to be committed to the truth no matter what.

 

[shernren]

Folks, the personal attacks continue and avoidance of the topic of the thread. ...

I cling to God's word more than most.

Man, there goes another ironymeter. I sure do hope you're going to buy me new ones when this is all over. Van-strength ones, okay?

Both of your choices are ridiculously non-biblical.

First, either there is a God, but He wasn’t directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it does, whatever that is, and life eventually emerged from non-living material. This view is similar to Atheistic Evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic origin of life.

In other words,

And God said, "Let the earth do whatever the earth feels like doing."
And the earth brought forth life.
And God saw that it was very good.

The second alternative of theistic evolution is that God did not perform just one or two miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. His miracles were multitudinous. He led life step by step down a path that took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin’s Evolutionary Tree of Life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile's limb evolve into a bird's wing naturally?), God stepped in. This view is similar to Special Creation in that it presumes that God acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it.

In other words,

And God said, "Let there be life."
And God promptly kicked the earth aside and made life all on His own.
And God saw that it was very good.

Van, if you hold to either of these views, you are being profoundly unbiblical in your doctrine of creation, and you need to get hold of Torrance's Divine Order and Contingence and go get it into your head. For what does the Bible truly say?

And God said, "Let there be life."
And the earth brought forth life.
And God saw that it was very good.
[Genesis 1b, paraphrase]

God decrees, creation obeys; God commissions, creation constructs. Nobody's going to rock up to your "A or B" concert if all you've got to choose is between Sartre and Laplace. If you don't even understand that, how can you possibly hope to understand anything else TEs believe?

 

[Assyrian]

Fine, it is ok to have an unstated position. But such a position is lukewarm, neither hot nor cold because it is unstated. Note in the illustration, the temperature is not the one given by you, but the one apparent to your observers.

Rev 3:15 "'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. 17 For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.

Apart from dragging the passage kicking and screaming out of context for a personal attack on TEs, I am not sure how you could use it more inappropriately. The Laodiceans were complacent and content and thought they had everything. Because we realise we don't know everything you think we are being lukewarm like the Laodiceans?

 

[shernren]

Apart from dragging the passage kicking and screaming out of context for a personal attack on TEs ...

I don't even know if it was much of an attack on TEs. Of course Jesus doesn't have the time for lukewarm water, cold water doesn't make Him cough and hot water doesn't scald his palate. But this side of eternity I like my water lukewarm, thank you very much (and a twist of lemon would be fantastic).

 

[Van]

Hi Shernren, talk about irony?

Have you noticed when a post says, "so what you are saying in other words is ..." what follows is always unbiblical. Why do folks misrepresent others. God created life supernaturally, He said (paraphrase) "let there be life, and there was life."

So what is all this "Van you are being profoundly unbiblical" nonsense? The theistic evolution position presented in the "b" alternative is profoundly biblical. We have a transcendent God who intervenes to bring about His purpose and plan.

 

[Mallon]

God created life supernaturally, He said (paraphrase) "let there be life, and there was life."

Actually, he said "let the Earth produce life." And it did. Sounds more like a natural process instated by supernatural means to me.

 

[shernren]

Hi Shernren, talk about irony?

Have you noticed when a post says, "so what you are saying in other words is ..." what follows is always unbiblical. Why do folks misrepresent others. God created life supernaturally, He said (paraphrase) "let there be life, and there was life."

So what is all this "Van you are being profoundly unbiblical" nonsense? The theistic evolution position presented in the "b" alternative is profoundly biblical. We have a transcendent God who intervenes to bring about His purpose and plan.

If I paraphrase an unbiblical position the result will also be unbiblical, Van, what did you expect?

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
(Genesis 1:11-12 NIV)

And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
(Genesis 1:20-21 NIV)

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
(Genesis 1:24-25 NIV)

In all these passages agency is ascribed to creation. It's almost like a parent saying "Let Tommy clean up his room"; there's no point commanding as such if Tommy's dad then proceeds to barge into Tommy's room and clean it all up himself.

Why should God have to intervene to bring about His will? He has every right to use supernatural means that we don't understand, of course, but He also has every right to use natural means that science can elucidate.

 

[Van]

So God does not intervene to bring about His purpose? Now that is a profoundly unbiblical position. And folks, note the slippery use of "God has to use supernatural" again changing the argument. It is a given God can use whatever method He chooses, but the bible indicates He uses supernatural means on occasion, such as walking on water, the wine at Cana, etc.

 

[theFijian]

Why should God have to intervene to bring about His will? He has every right to use supernatural means that we don't understand, of course, but He also has every right to use natural means that science can elucidate.

So God does not intervene to bring about His purpose? Now that is a profoundly unbiblical position.

And folks notice the deliberate misrepresentation of the views of others, one the many underhand tactics employed, par for the course I'm afraid.

 

[shernren]

And folks, note the slippery use of "God has to use supernatural" again changing the argument. It is a given God can use whatever method He chooses, but the bible indicates He uses supernatural means on occasion, such as walking on water, the wine at Cana, etc.

I'm sorry, but if anybody's been doing argument-changing around here, it isn't me.

Remember your cute little A-B dichotomy? Lemme pull an Assyrian on it.

Theistic Evolution says one of two things. First, either there is a God, but He wasn’t directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it does, whatever that is, and life eventually emerged from non-living material. This view is similar to Atheistic Evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic origin of life.

Do you see the clear associations here? Naturalistic origin goes directly with He wasn't directly involved and He stepped back.

The second alternative of theistic evolution is that God did not perform just one or two miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. His miracles were multitudinous. He led life step by step down a path that took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin’s Evolutionary Tree of Life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile's limb evolve into a bird's wing naturally?), God stepped in. This view is similar to Special Creation in that it presumes that God acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it.

Again, multitudinous miracles goes with He led and He stepped in.

You can try to justify yourself and portray a more moderate image now but you can't deny the fact that when you posed your question (and indeed, for your dichotomous answer to even make sense), to you, naturalistic processes precisely preclude God's direct involvement.

"In a miracle, God steps in.
Outside a miracle, God steps back."
You said it yourself. Do you stand by it now?

 

[Mallon]

Bingo. Thanks, shernren.

 

[Van]

Bingo? Shrenren said I was trying "to justify myself." Par for the course, change the subject from the topic to my behavior. LOL

Does God intervene to bring about His purpose and plan supernaturally? Of course. Did God intervene supernaturally to bring the universe into existence? I think so. Did God intervene supernaturally to bring life into existence? I think so. Did God intervene to create us with the capacity to handle abstract thought? I think so.

Some theistic evolutionists do take the deistic view of God, the "A" alternative. I do not. As for the "B" alternative, it rejects the deistic view and has God intervening to bring about His purpose and plan. This is the view I believe is correct.

I have not changed this view in the least from the OP to now.