Evolution vs. Theology

[Sayre]

There is evidence he didn't walk on water! Do the test yourself!

You read evolution into Scripture when it isn't there because you believe the evidence supports it. Evidence supports that Christ didn't walk on water, didn't rise from the dead, and Shadrach/Meshach/Abednego got toasted in the burning fiery furnace. Why accept one account when all the evidence is against it and reject another account because you believe the evidence is against it?

I don't read evolution into scripture - it isn't there. Scripture is not teaching science. Please don't accuse me of reading scripture for science - that is your domain .

There is no evidence that Jesus didn't walk on water. Me doing the test is evidence that I can't walk on water. And I can't.

For the record, I believe in the miracle of the resurrection. I'm not a naturalist.

 

[Achilles6129]

There is no evidence that Jesus didn't walk on water. Me doing the test is evidence that I can't walk on water. And I can't.

Walking on water is physically impossible, like many things in Scripture, which is certainly evidence that it didn't happen.

 

[Sayre]

Walking on water is physically impossible, like many things in Scripture, which is certainly evidence that it didn't happen.

On this we disagree.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There is fairly convincing evidence that a literal reading of Genesis is not a scientifically valid account of our origins. I.e. it didn't happen.

There is no evidence that Jesus did not walk on water. The fact that humans cannot walk on water doesn't mean that God can't.

The first example has evidence that X did not occur. The second example has no evidence that X did or did not occur.

 

[Sayre]

Walking on water is physically impossible, like many things in Scripture, which is certainly evidence that it didn't happen.

Do you want to reverse your position on this?

Resurrecting from the dead is physically impossible, but that isn't evidence that it didn't happen. It did happen. Jesus rose.

Do you realise now how silly this seems?

 

[Achilles6129]

On this we disagree.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It's not absence of evidence - it's evidence directly against!

There is fairly convincing evidence that a literal reading of Genesis is not a scientifically valid account of our origins. I.e. it didn't happen.

There is absolute proof that walking on water is impossible, along with rising from the dead, being cast into a fiery furnace and coming out alive, and so forth.

Why reject the account in Genesis because you believe there is evidence against it, yet then accept all the other accounts when there is absolute scientific proof that they are physically impossible?

There is no evidence that Jesus did not walk on water. The fact that humans cannot walk on water doesn't mean that God can't.

Aha! And the fact that humans cannot conceive of a way to make the cosmos in six days or send a global flood doesn't mean that God can't!

The first example has evidence that X did not occur. The second example has no evidence that X did or did not occur.

No, they are equivalent.

Do you want to reverse your position on this?

Nope

Resurrecting from the dead is physically impossible, but that isn't evidence that it didn't happen.

Yes it is

Do you realise now how silly this seems?

I realize how silly it seems for theistic evolutionists, yes.

 

[Sayre]

You are going to regret this when you come back with a clear head. You just stated there is evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

I'm sure there is a posse of Christians polishing their rocks just waiting for your head to pop up. Twas nice knowing you though.

 

[gluadys]

Ah, but the evidence says he didn't walk on water either. We can do a test with 1000 people and every single one of them will fail to walk on water. That means it's impossible. So the evidence tells against walking on water.

Yes, it is impossible for 1000 people, none of whom are Jesus. That doesn't make it impossible for Jesus.

Your argument is based on what is known as the inductive fallacy or sometimes the black swan fallacy. Most swans are white. Some people pass their whole lives seeing only white swans. If one is doing a scientific study, one might study 1,000 swans and find they are all white. This might lead to the conclusion that all swans are always white.

But that conclusion will be proven false when one observes a black swan.

There is evidence he didn't walk on water! Do the test yourself!

You read evolution into Scripture when it isn't there because you believe the evidence supports it. Evidence supports that Christ didn't walk on water, didn't rise from the dead, and Shadrach/Meshach/Abednego got toasted in the burning fiery furnace. Why accept one account when all the evidence is against it and reject another account because you believe the evidence is against it?

There is evidence that most people cannot walk on water or survive in fiery furnaces. But it doesn't matter whether you test 1,000 people or 10,000 people or 10 million people, that doesn't show that Jesus did not walk on water or that Shadrach/Meshach/Abednego didn't survive the fiery furnace,

There can be exceptions to pretty much every general rule.

Walking on water is physically impossible, like many things in Scripture, which is certainly evidence that it didn't happen.

The first part of your statement is incomplete. As Jesus explained to his disciples: "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

There is absolute proof that walking on water is impossible, along with rising from the dead, being cast into a fiery furnace and coming out alive, and so forth.

All things are possible with God, and there is no evidence that God did not give Jesus power to walk on water or protect the children in the fiery furnace and certainly scriptures attest that Christ was raised by the power of God.

Aha! And the fact that humans cannot conceive of a way to make the cosmos in six days or send a global flood doesn't mean that God can't!

Theistic evolutionists agree. None of this means that God can't make the cosmos in six days or send a global flood. Certainly God can. With God all things are possible.

But the evidence is that God didn't.

That puts these events in a different category than a miracle like walking on water, surviving fiery furnaces, the incarnation or resurrection where no evidence exists to tell us these things did not happen.

 

[mark kennedy]

No evidence? Doesn't the witness of Scripture count as evidence?

 

[Sayre]

No evidence? Doesn't the witness of Scripture count as evidence?

Which claim are you asking about, Mark?

Scripture correctly interpreted serves to inform our faith, yes .

 

[Keachian]

It's baseless, the Theistic Evolutionist position is far closer to Deism due to the naturalistic assumptions requisite in their Darwinian orientation. Deism is marked by it's categorical rejection of miracles which is the defining feature of Darwinian presuppositional logic. There is no such presumption in YEC, in fact the prevalence of miracles in their orientation is the very thing they are criticized for in the first place.

Both TE and modern YEC are reactions to enlightenment deism/atheism the question is can we recognise this and go beyond that to strike at the heart of the problem before we attack the cures that each side has decided works best to treat the symptoms.

The YEC in no way negates the reliance of Providence and God's fixed mechanisms he need not micromanage, natural law and natural rights for example.

Mark, this is an example pure and simple of functional providential deism, is there Scripture elucidating the idea that unless God miraculously interposes then he merely lets "nature" take its own lead. Of course the idea expressed here does make theodicy of nature far easier to deal with in apologetics but that does not excuse the fact that it is unscriptural.

God is always in control, there is no warrant from doctrine or convention that God must continually wind up the clock of creation. How God maintains the universe is entirely up to him and the Scriptures are either silent on the issue or offer only the most superficial of insights into how and when such a thing would occur.

Mark you have your presupposition of functional providential deism and are now reading it back into historical theology, this is far from proper historical theological study and far from biblical theological study.

There is never a lack of theistic imminence, the Most High is Sovereign. Naturalism and Providence are overlapping concepts that only differ with regards to the source of natural law and phenomenon, Providence just indicates that the laws of nature are a provision of God where Naturalism requires no such credit given to a Creator or Designer.

I think that you have misunderstood how a TE would build a case for their metanarrative of creation, if your claim is that the only place where Naturalism and Providentialism differ is in their source then I must contend that it would be far more correct to declare that TE is formulated out of Providentialism and thereby you have no leg to stand on to say that TE is more deistic than YEC.

Indeed, New Birth at justification and the sanctification process of the Holy Spirit are effectual miraculous workings in the life of the believer. We are saved by grace, sanctified by grace and empowered for service by grace, I would not argue otherwise. I only make the distinction between a miracle that is God doing what only God can do and a simple choice or activity of the believer that while being the result of God's exercise of sovereign power still qualifies as a natural occurrence.

No, you're wrong, if the miraculous is to be defined as "God doing what only God can do," then in Calvinistic soteriology only God who can change a heart from one of stone to one of flesh, so my point still stands that every Justification and Sanctification is both a miraculous and supernatural work of God.

Only if you are wrongly equivocating Creationism with Deism which has never had the slightest justification or warrant. Creationism is based on God's intimate relationship beginning at creation and continuing throughout human history.

I have pointed out two times in this post where you are expressing FPD, I have also said many times that I don't see FPD as something merely limited to YEC, but then because I have been using 'Evangelicalism' you may be confused. It permeates all of post-enlightenment Christianity and indeed all of post-enlightenment philosophical thought.

That is the whole problem with Theistic Evolution in the first place, the doctrine of creation is transcendent in that it transcends all of redemptive history including the washing, renewing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit at and as a result of conversion.

I have gotten that distinct impression that perhaps you are neither a Theistic Evolutionist nor a Creationist.

In a loose definition of Theistic Evolution I am one, my working definition at the moment for reference is; A belief that through the use of the historical grammatical hermeneutic one inevitably comes to the conclusion that Genesis 1 does not properly answer questions of origins but rather ones of relationship. As such Scripture is ambivalent towards the scientific metanarrative and seeks only to correct in relation to telos and presumptions regarding deity if such exist

My only real objection to Theistic Evolution is that it is not discernibly different from Darwinian logic and remains an antithetical view towards a worldview predicated on a firm reliance on the clear testimony of Scripture.

I feel I should refer you back to my response to your discussion on Providence and Naturalism.

I would suggest an examination of the doctrine of creation as it includes and transcends the rest of Scripture including the role of miracles in Salvation and redemptive history.

You've got it backwards, the doctrine of the person and work of Christ is where it is at, more on this later.

I'm not sure I'm following your logic here but with historical narratives the literal interpretation is always preferred. There is nothing in the opening chapters of Genesis to suggest, let alone qualify classifying the text as figurative. The literary features enhance the literal interpretation, emphasizing, at the heart of the emphasis, the prevailing theme of God's miraculous work of Creation. This is especially strong with regards to the creation and fall of man.

It's an image of a Temple, it is about God's relationship with his creation far more than anything else, it also serves as a quick apologetic for monotheism.

Neither Creationists, nor Calvinists, nor any Dispensationalist I am aware of replaces Christ with Creation

But you are doing exactly that, every time you say that the central doctrine of the faith is YEC (because I might as well assume that this is what you mean whenever you use the word Creation(ism), TE is a form of Creationism) The central Doctrine is the Person and Work of Christ, creation (God's act) only serves as a vehicle for God's final glorification of himself in Christ on the Cross and the creation of the Church and her unification with Him. The persons of God made covenant before creation in order to glorify themselves through the redemption of a people, by saying that the Cross is a result of Creation you are putting the cart before the horse, the Cross is the driving force behind creation.

by crediting God with Creation.

All Christians do this, stop trying to move the goalposts.

Creation was God's goal and at the end of creation week it was complete in all it's vast array. It's shameless to level these baseless accusations against Creationists who simply affirm the clear testimony of Scripture and creation as essential doctrine.

I don't know whether I should address this as a denial of TE as a form of creationism or as another instance of you putting the cart in front of the horse.

<snip>
Yes I fully realise that there is also a trend in TE towards FPD, I even point this out in what you're arguing with, if you can't see that I'm levelling the accusation at all post-enlightenment western thought then I think you have a problem understanding where I'm coming from and what I find problematic in your view of providence.

 

[Keachian]

Most swans are white. Some people pass their whole lives seeing only white swans.

I've only ever seen black sawns in real life, therefore I conclude that white swans are video/photgraphic manipulation to make me think there exists such a strange creature, in other news platypus are normal creatures I really don't see what the hubbub was upon their discovery.

 

[Assyrian]

If you're trying to say that God is a God of death because Christ died on the cross, then aren't you forgetting something...namely, his resurrection?

I am saying God is a God of love John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. God's plan from before he created the world was that Christ save us by dying on the cross (and as you point out rising from the dead). To die for us, death had to be part of the world God created, part of God's plan for the world he was creating.

Also remember that verse that keeps coming up, Hebrews 2:14:

"14 Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, " Heb. 2:14 (NRSV)
Read Ezekiel 28, the devil was originally a guardian cherub part of God's good creation. You need to watch you don't take verses out of context, ones that describe death now or in the future, when death has been combined with sin, to try to argue that death in the past could not have been part of God's good creation. 1Cor 15:56 The sting of death is sin.

 

[mark kennedy]

Which claim are you asking about, Mark?

Scripture correctly interpreted serves to inform our faith, yes .

Well, walking on water for instance. The testimony of Scripture is evidence just as an eye witness in court is evidence even if that's all you have for evidence.

 

[Sayre]

Well, walking on water for instance. The testimony of Scripture is evidence just as an eye witness in court is evidence even if that's all you have for evidence.

Yes? I have no problem accepting that an historical retelling of an actual miracle. God can perform miracles.

 

[Keachian]

Yes? I have no problem accepting that an historical retelling of an actual miracle. God can perform miracles.

The problem then that Mark will raise is the disconnect he sees between your acceptance of a providential metanarrative of creation as opposed to his preferred miraculous interposition and how to reconcile your view with Scripture.

 

[mark kennedy]

Both TE and modern YEC are reactions to enlightenment deism/atheism the question is can we recognise this and go beyond that to strike at the heart of the problem before we attack the cures that each side has decided works best to treat the symptoms.

I find it hard to believe that enlightenment thinking is the culprit. Christian theism includes God's effectual working in redemptive history and in our lives, it's impossible to escape that for the Christian. The prevailing view in the secular world is the miracles are impossible, all Christianity is to them is a book of moral stories, not all that different from fables. I don't think it's a symptom, I think it's an intellectual cancer brought on by the noetic effects of sin.

Mark, this is an example pure and simple of functional providential deism, is there Scripture elucidating the idea that unless God miraculously interposes then he merely lets "nature" take its own lead. Of course the idea expressed here does make theodicy of nature far easier to deal with in apologetics but that does not excuse the fact that it is unscriptural.

God's interpolation is just a fancy way of saying a miracle. Let's cut to the chase, Creation is a consummate act, definitively preparing the world for life and then creating life by divine fiat. It may be a less troublesome way to interact with unbelievers to concede their naturalistic assumptions with regards to natural history but it is opposed to the clear testimony of Scripture. Calling Creationists Deists is classic projection at best, but more likely, it's nothing more then a smoke screen for your naturalistic assumptions.

Mark you have your presupposition of functional providential deism and are now reading it back into historical theology, this is far from proper historical theological study and far from biblical theological study.

Nonsense, Theistic Evolution is classic Deism with an apologetic zeal. Not apologetic defense of the Scriptures but determined opposition to the detailed description of God acting in time and space to create life on this planet ex nihileo. My presuppositions are the exact opposite of Deism and I think you know that.

I think that you have misunderstood how a TE would build a case for their metanarrative of creation, if your claim is that the only place where Naturalism and Providentialism differ is in their source then I must contend that it would be far more correct to declare that TE is formulated out of Providentialism and thereby you have no leg to stand on to say that TE is more deistic than YEC.

The actual definition of Deism is a rejection of miracles, Darwinism is a rejection of miracles. Theistic Evolution is a defense of those naturalistic presuppositions, in contention with the Creationists, who wholeheartedly affirm the miraculous nature of God's creation. Not just of the universe and all that is in it, but life on this planet. As far as I can tell the concept of Creation for Theistic Evolution, like so many of the Deists who came before them, stops at the second verse of Genesis 1. Classic Deism.

For Deists, human beings can only know God via reason and the observation of nature, but not by revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles) &#8211; phenomena which Deists regard with caution if not skepticism.

Deism​

This is the whole problem with Theistic Evolution, like Liberal Theology, they think they can take words and make them mean whatever they want them to mean.

No, you're wrong, if the miraculous is to be defined as "God doing what only God can do," then in Calvinistic soteriology only God who can change a heart from one of stone to one of flesh, so my point still stands that every Justification and Sanctification is both a miraculous and supernatural work of God.

I never suggested anything else, your point is moot. As I have said repeatedly, the doctrine of creation is inextricably linked to the Incarnation, Resurrection and new birth, they are ex nihileo events. I'll tell you what I think, I think you are still redefining words so there is no way of knowing what you mean by 'miraculous' or 'supernatural'. I mean if you can equivocate Deism with Creationism I can't be sure what you mean by any of your terminology.

I have pointed out two times in this post where you are expressing FPD, I have also said many times that I don't see FPD as something merely limited to YEC, but then because I have been using 'Evangelicalism' you may be confused. It permeates all of post-enlightenment Christianity and indeed all of post-enlightenment philosophical thought.

There is nothing post-enlightenment about evangelical thought and tradition, it goes back at least to the third century AD. Now, there have been a lot theologians like Tillich who called themselves evangelical but they had gutted the traditional meaning of the word. Tillich even redefined God as the 'God above God' or 'being itself', a dialectic that was essentially atheistic.

Evangelicals in the proper sense used to be called 'Word' churches because like our Fundamentalist brethren we stand on the clear testimony of Scripture. Fundamentalists emphasis the essential core doctrines of the Christian message, usually comes down to five. They do that because evangelism is a central emphasis and those core doctrines were always emphasized during times of revival like the Great Awakening.

My brand of evangelical theology is pretty much Wesleyan but I have some pretty strong Calvinist views, not that it's all that important. What you should realize is I'm well acquainted with the theological and philosophical terms you are throwing around and you couldn't possible believe Creationists remotely resemble a naturalistic philosophy that categorically rejects miracles. Unless like all Theistic Evolutionists you think you can just make words mean whatever you want them to mean for the dramatic effect.

In a loose definition of Theistic Evolution I am one, my working definition at the moment for reference is; A belief that through the use of the historical grammatical hermeneutic one inevitably comes to the conclusion that Genesis 1 does not properly answer questions of origins but rather ones of relationship. As such Scripture is ambivalent towards the scientific metanarrative and seeks only to correct in relation to telos and presumptions regarding deity if such exist

Hang on a sec, the 'historical grammatical hermeneutic'? Let me see if I have this straight, are you actually saying that the originally intended meaning of the author is the guiding principle you use, as opposed to the historical-critical method?

I only ask because you call Creationists, Deists, which are terms denoting opposing if not opposite view. Then you claim to be following the hermeneutic that is at the heart of a literal interpretation since the obvious intention of the author is for Genesis to be read as an historical narrative, thus, the genealogies.

I feel I should refer you back to my response to your discussion on Providence and Naturalism.

I know what the words mean and I paid very close attention how you were using them.

You've got it backwards, the doctrine of the person and work of Christ is where it is at, more on this later.

Well, as long as it took to get this far I can wait a little longer.

It's an image of a Temple, it is about God's relationship with his creation far more than anything else, it also serves as a quick apologetic for monotheism.

I've heard that so called exegesis before, NT Wright uses it and there is no such imagery. Creation in Genesis 1 is an historical narrative told by the only one that was there, God himself. Moses recorded it, the Levites preserved it and the Church has always understood it as the beginning of the history of life in general and man in particular. The 'relationship' with God was broken because of the disobedience of one man, the first parent of humanity, Adam.

That's the 'historical grammatical hermeneutic' method applied to Genesis, unless you twist it around to mean something else entirely.

But you are doing exactly that, every time you say that the central doctrine of the faith is YEC (because I might as well assume that this is what you mean whenever you use the word Creation(ism), TE is a form of Creationism) The central Doctrine is the Person and Work of Christ, creation (God's act) only serves as a vehicle for God's final glorification of himself in Christ on the Cross and the creation of the Church and her unification with Him. The persons of God made covenant before creation in order to glorify themselves through the redemption of a people, by saying that the Cross is a result of Creation you are putting the cart before the horse, the Cross is the driving force behind creation.

Let's get something straight because the conversation is twisting in the wind, I am not a Young Earth Creationist. I have no problem with it I just think the age of the earth is irrelevant. What I have said is that you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian and not one Theistic Evolutionist has successfully contradicted that point. The two doctrinal issues are the Creation which sets a hermeneutical principle that transcends Scripture and the fall of man that accounts for why you were born a sinner.

The doctrine of Creation is inextricably linked to Incarnation, Resurrection and new birth. Darwinians realize that and that's why they attack Creation incessantly.

All Christians do this, stop trying to move the goalposts.

I'm not moving anything, I'm repeating the same doctrinal stand I have always maintained.

I don't know whether I should address this as a denial of TE as a form of creationism or as another instance of you putting the cart in front of the horse.

It's tempered outrage at being fallaciously and libelously labeled a Deist for defending the miraculous nature of Creation.

Yes I fully realise that there is also a trend in TE towards FPD, I even point this out in what you're arguing with, if you can't see that I'm levelling the accusation at all post-enlightenment western thought then I think you have a problem understanding where I'm coming from and what I find problematic in your view of providence.

Baloney.

 

[Keachian]

I find it hard to believe that enlightenment thinking is the culprit. Christian theism includes God's effectual working in redemptive history and in our lives, it's impossible to escape that for the Christian. The prevailing view in the secular world is the miracles are impossible, all Christianity is to them is a book of moral stories, not all that different from fables. I don't think it's a symptom, I think it's an intellectual cancer brought on by the noetic effects of sin.

And I would agree with you that Secularism is a cancer, the problem is that is not what I was talking about and I'm pretty sure you know that. I was saying that the differences between TE and non-providential Creationism are symptoms of FPD. If you want to go off talking about secularism then that's your perogative but that's not what I'm talking about, stay on topic please.

God's interpolation is just a fancy way of saying a miracle. Let's cut to the chase, Creation is a consummate act, definitively preparing the world for life and then creating life by divine fiat.

And there is not one word that I would disagree with you here, God definitively prepared the world and created life by divine fiat.

It may be a less troublesome way to interact with unbelievers to concede their naturalistic assumptions with regards to natural history but it is opposed to the clear testimony of Scripture.

Well again I must insist that if the only difference to you between Providence and Naturalism is that Providence has its source in the decree of God then the base assumptions of the common TE worldview are Providence rather than Naturalism. But then I don't agree with nor do I believe that your definition of Providence is Scriptural and that is why I believe that you are closer to naturalism than I. I am bound by Scripture to discard any thought that comes close to your statement on "natural law" as unScriptural and it is this I object to as FPD.

Nonsense, Theistic Evolution is classic Deism with an apologetic zeal.

Not talking about classic deism, I'm talking about a deistic construct that wants to make natural law something which God doesn't need to "micro-manage" You want a clock that God winds up and lets go I submit to you that this is unBiblical.

Not apologetic defense of the Scriptures but determined opposition to the detailed description of God acting in time and space to create life on this planet ex nihileo. My presuppositions are the exact opposite of Deism and I think you know that.

Yes God created Ex Nihilo but that's not what either Gen 1 or 2 actually deal with.

Theistic Evolution is a defense of those naturalistic presuppositions, in contention with the Creationists, who wholeheartedly affirm the miraculous nature of God's creation.

Theistic Evolution is a form of Creationism, specifically a form of Providential Creationism and Old Earth Creationism, like YEC it is opposed to the naturalistic presuppositions, however because it is a Providential Creationism it appears to side more with naturalism esp. when the working definitions of Naturalism and Providentialism as you have supplied only differ in that Providentialism has a source from God.

This is the whole problem with Theistic Evolution, like Liberal Theology, they think they can take words and make them mean whatever they want them to mean.

Kinda like you taking "Creationism" and whittling out TE from it.

I never suggested anything else, your point is moot. As I have said repeatedly, the doctrine of creation is inextricably linked to the Incarnation, Resurrection and new birth, they are ex nihileo events. I'll tell you what I think, I think you are still redefining words so there is no way of knowing what you mean by 'miraculous' or 'supernatural'.

Because creation is the means to the end of I, R and NB.

I mean if you can equivocate Deism with Creationism I can't be sure what you man by any of your terminology.

I have never done anything of the sort, I have at times expressed that I had in the past held both Deism and Creationism at the same time and Deism and Evolution at the same time. Even now I am not equivocating Deism and Creationism. I am merely saying that your definition of Providentialism is far too close to deism for my comfort and far too close to it for me to recognise it as Scriptural.

There is nothing post-enlightenment about evangelical thought and tradition, it goes back at least to the third century AD. Now, there have been a lot theologians like Tillich who called themselves evangelical but they had gutted the traditional meaning of the word. Tillich even redefined God as the 'God above God' or 'being itself', a dialectical that was essentially atheistic.

As long as you hold a definition of Providentialism that only differs from Naturalism on the idea that Providence comes from God then you are working in a post-enlightenment theology, it is far too much influenced by a separation of natural/supernatural as opposed to the pre-enlightenment separation of natural/artificial. And even that distinction is not Biblical.

Evangelicals in the proper sense used to be called 'Word' churches because like our Fundamentalist brethren we stand on the clear testimony of Scripture. Fundamentalists emphasis the essential core doctrines of the Christian message, usually comes down to five. They do that because evangelism is a central emphasis and those core doctrines were always emphasized during times of revival like the Great Awakening.

And I consider myself "mostly" Reformed, it still doesn't detract from the fact that most western though following the enlightenment sought to divorce God from needing to "micromanage" creation.

My brand of evangelical theology is pretty much Wesleyan but I have some pretty strong Calvinist views, not that it's all that important. What you should realize is I'm well acquainted with the theological and philosophical terms you are throwing around and you couldn't possible believe Creationists remotely resemble a naturalistic philosophy that categorically rejects miracles. Unless like all Theistic Evolutionists you think you can just make words mean whatever you want them to mean for the dramatic effect.

My objection is that you are letting Naturalism define your providentialism.

Hang on a sec, the 'historical grammatical hermeneutic'. Let me see if I have this straight, are you actually saying that the originally intended meaning of the author is the guiding principle you use, as opposed to the historical-critical method?

Yes, that is indeed what I mean, the second most common hermenteutic method I use is a Christocentric one, both of these come together wonderfully with Genesis 1 in the idea of Immanuel. I would include comparing and contrasting other ancient writings within the same genre as a part of theHistorical Grammatical hermeneutic, or would you defer this to Higher Criticism, a form of criticism that is far too involved in source, form and redactionism for my liking.

I only ask because call Creationists, Deists

I didn't do that, I said that there were trends in Creationism, evangelicalism and Christianity following the enlightenment era that were functionally deistic in a providential sense. (note that I, unlike yourself include TE as a form of Creationism and so really am addressing TEs as much as I've been addressing you) It's a presupposition we have because that's how the question has shifted following the enlightenment.

and then claim to be following the hermeneutic that is at the heart of a literal interpretation looks suspiciously confused and that's putting it mildly.

Well it probably wouldn't be confusing if you were actually representing what I'm saying accurately, I'm still banging my head on the wall to try and get you to see that it's not just the "pure" creationists that have the preconceptions that I am concerned about but you want to take it as a personal attack.

I know what the words mean and I paid very close attention how you were using them.

I object to your definition of Providentialism and you haven't provided me with one that makes me feel it is less deistic.
Here's mine again, this time with modification to show where I disagree with you;
There is an intimacy between God in his creation known as providence, we cannot treat this providence as something other than the work of God, to make allusions to creation as a wind up clock is to miss the point, God micromanages not because he is not powerful enough to create something that doesn't need it, but rather because it is just and right that creation be wholly dependent upon him for its sustenance from moment to moment.

I've heard that so called exegesis before, NT Wright uses it and there is no such imagery.

Both Wright and I get it from Walton, and I submit to you that you don't see the imagery because you've numbed yourself to it and haven't looked into what a Temple is in Ancient Near East thought, and what the Image of a God is in Ancient Near East thought is either.

Creation in Genesis 1 is an historical narrative told by the only one that was there, God himself. Moses recorded it, the Levites preserved it and the Church has always understood it as the beginning of the history of life in general and man in particular. The 'relationship' with God was broken because of the disobedience of one man, the first parent of humanity, Adam.

Yes, because he was set up as the image of God in the temple of creation and perverted this, yes. Gen 2 has the hallmarks of historical narrative, Gen 1 is more about the intentioned relationship between God and creation.

That's the 'historical grammatical hermeneutic' method applied to Genesis.

I see a literary literal hermeneutic there.

What I have said is that you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian and not one Theistic Evolutionist has successfully contradicted that point.

Because all TE see themselves as inherently creationists, its predominantly non-TEs that want to bifurcate TEs out of creationism.

The two doctrinal issues are the Creation which sets a hermeneutical principle that transcends Scripture and the fall of man that accounts for why you were born a sinner.

Yes, Adam was a literal human being who literally did not fulfill the role he was created to do and that is why under his federal headship we follow after his example to the perversion of our being created as image-bearers.

The doctrine of Creation is inextricably linked to Incarnation, Resurrection and new birth. Darwinians realize that and that's why they attack Creation incessantly.

Yes that is so because God created so that he could get to the Incarnation, Resurrection and New Birth, I still think you are putting the cart before the Horse.

I'm not moving anything, I'm repeating the same doctrinal stand I have always maintained.

No, this is your normal smokescreen, exclude TEs from creationism and then act surprised when TEs affirm that all Christians are Creationists and argue that they should not be TEs if they are Creationists. It is moving the goalposts because TE is providential and old earth creationism and so you're removing at least one of those subgenres from Creationism to attack and annoy TEs.

It's tempered outrage at being fallaciously and libelously labeled a Deist for defending the miraculous nature of Creation.

But I'm not calling you a deist for that, I'm calling you a deist because of your definition of providentialism and that's what I've been doing all the way through this thread I was even explicit in including providential in the term I used.

Baloney.

You can think that, you're wrong, but that hasn't stopped you so far.

 

[mark kennedy]

And I would agree with you that Secularism is a cancer, the problem is that is not what I was talking about and I'm pretty sure you know that. I was saying that the differences between TE and non-providential Creationism are symptoms of FPD. If you want to go off talking about secularism then that's your perogative but that's not what I'm talking about, stay on topic please.

I have stayed on topic and conflating Creationism with Deism is absurd.

And there is not one word that I would disagree with you here, God definitively prepared the world and created life by divine fiat.

Could have fooled me but let's see where you go with it.

Well again I must insist that if the only difference to you between Providence and Naturalism is that Providence has its source in the decree of God then the base assumptions of the common TE worldview are Providence rather than Naturalism. But then I don't agree with nor do I believe that your definition of Providence is Scriptural and that is why I believe that you are closer to naturalism than I. I am bound by Scripture to discard any thought that comes close to your statement on "natural law" as unScriptural and it is this I object to as FPD.

Darwinian evolution is predicated on the view that:

all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)

Another way of saying 'miraculous interposition' is special creation, thus Creationism. Creationists reject the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism with regards to the origin of life for one reason, Genesis one and the transcendent nature of the doctrine of Creation. What your trying to do is defend this idea of God 'guiding' evolution and the doctrine of creation is no where near that ambiguous.

Not talking about classic deism, I'm talking about a deistic construct that wants to make natural law something which God doesn't need to "micro-manage" You want a clock that God winds up and lets go I submit to you that this is unBiblical.

God doesn't need to micromanage Providential natural law, that isn't mutually exclusive with miracles. I'm not the one with a clockmaker God who winds it up and has nothing more to do with it. I'm not the one who is courting the favor of secular skeptics who insist on the requisite naturalistic assumptions of Darwinian evolution.

Yes God created Ex Nihilo but that's not what either Gen 1 or 2 actually deal with.

That is exactly what they deal with.

Theistic Evolution is a form of Creationism, specifically a form of Providential Creationism and Old Earth Creationism, like YEC it is opposed to the naturalistic presuppositions, however because it is a Providential Creationism it appears to side more with naturalism esp. when the working definitions of Naturalism and Providentialism as you have supplied only differ in that Providentialism has a source from God.

They are not opposed to naturalistic presuppositions, they cater to them. Providence can be secondary causes or supernatural means in traditional Christian theism but when it's exclusively secondary causes, as is the case with Theistic Evolution, it's the same rejection of miracles as Deism, Darwinism and philosophical naturalism.

I have never done anything of the sort, I have at times expressed that I had in the past held both Deism and Creationism at the same time and Deism and Evolution at the same time. Even now I am not equivocating Deism and Creationism. I am merely saying that your definition of Providentialism is far too close to deism for my comfort and far too close to it for me to recognise it as Scriptural.

Creation is the antithesis of Deism, if you think anything else your confused.

As long as you hold a definition of Providentialism that only differs from Naturalism on the idea that Providence comes from God then you are working in a post-enlightenment theology, it is far too much influenced by a separation of natural/supernatural as opposed to the pre-enlightenment separation of natural/artificial. And even that distinction is not Biblical.

Your proposition is fallacious and it's typical of the duplicity you get from Theistic Evolutionists. I take the Creation account as an historical narrative and so I get run through the mill for taking Scripture too literally. Then I field these baseless insinuations that I'm some kind of a Deist and somehow not Biblical enough to suite you. It's absurd.

And I consider myself "mostly" Reformed, it still doesn't detract from the fact that most western though following the enlightenment sought to divorce God from needing to "micromanage" creation.

There was never a need to divorce God from micromanaging creation. There was a need to discern between a miracle and a natural phenomenon just as there is a need to discern between an historical narrative and a metaphor. The two are not mutually exclusive, they represent context sensitive designations, nothing more. It's when you equivocate the two that things get nebulous and words can mean whatever you want them to.

My objection is that you are letting Naturalism define your providentialism.

No, I just include natural law and natural rights under the God's providential care. Naturalism defines nothing for me, I reject the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism and Deism as an infectious and debilitating cancer afflicting fallen man because of the noetic effects of sin.

Yes, that is indeed what I mean, the second most common hermenteutic method I use is a Christocentric one, both of these come together wonderfully with Genesis 1 in the idea of Immanuel. I would include comparing and contrasting other ancient writings within the same genre as a part of theHistorical Grammatical hermeneutic, or would you defer this to Higher Criticism, a form of criticism that is far too involved in source, form and redactionism for my liking.

If you say so but that hermeneutic is where the Creationist interpretation of Genesis 1 comes from, just so you know.

I didn't do that, I said that there were trends in Creationism, evangelicalism and Christianity following the enlightenment era that were functionally deistic in a providential sense. (note that I, unlike yourself include TE as a form of Creationism and so really am addressing TEs as much as I've been addressing you) It's a presupposition we have because that's how the question has shifted following the enlightenment.

Creationism and evangelicalism has little to do with enlightenment thinking and nothing at all to do with Deism, in the providential or any other sense. I'm only going to say that so many times before I stop letting you run me in circles.

Well it probably wouldn't be confusing if you were actually representing what I'm saying accurately, I'm still banging my head on the wall to try and get you to see that it's not just the "pure" creationists that have the preconceptions that I am concerned about but you want to take it as a personal attack.

I take it as an absurd statement conflating two meanings that could not be less alike. I can't help but take it personally when Creationism is being libelously defamed as Deism, no matter what kind of distorted semantics your using.

I object to your definition of Providentialism and you haven't provided me with one that makes me feel it is less deistic.

Like I told you, I'm only going to let you this conversation in circles so many times.

Here's mine again, this time with modification to show where I disagree with you;
There is an intimacy between God in his creation known as providence, we cannot treat this providence as something other than the work of God, to make allusions to creation as a wind up clock is to miss the point, God micromanages not because he is not powerful enough to create something that doesn't need it, but rather because it is just and right that creation be wholly dependent upon him for its sustenance from moment to moment.

That's what I have been trying to tell you about Creation as doctrine. It's transcendent both as a hermeneutic principle and a worldview. God's miracles are not deprecated by Creationism, that's something Theistic Evolutionists do by compromising with the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism. If the opposite were the case as you have been pointlessly arguing they would be gang tackling Theistic Evolutionists and patting Creationists on the back, not the other way around.

Your trying to have your cake after you already ate it, it doesn't work that way.

Both Wright and I get it from Walton, and I submit to you that you don't see the imagery because you've numbed yourself to it and haven't looked into what a Temple is in Ancient Near East thought, and what the Image of a God is in Ancient Near East thought is either.

The imagery of the Temple does not exist in Genesis. As for the ANE 'imagery', if there is such a thing it's buried beneath a dead culture, in a dead language from a dead religion. The Hebrew Scriptures are a living history, in a living language including a vibrant religion still practice not only in the Middle East but around the world. That's not an exegetical analysis of the Scriptures, it's not an exposition of the Scriptures, it's not even an interpretation. It's a fabrication based on some nebulous allusion to an ANE frame of reference that no longer exists.

They are just making it up.

Yes, because he was set up as the image of God in the temple of creation and perverted this, yes. Gen 2 has the hallmarks of historical narrative, Gen 1 is more about the intentioned relationship between God and creation.

You have that backwards, there is nothing in the Genesis account of creation about God's relationship to anyone or anything. God creates the world and all the life that inhabits this sphere. When he starts the surface of the earth is covered with darkness and water. A week later it's complete in all it's vast array, including man who he put in the Garden of Eden which is the first mention of God's relation with newly created man.

Your just determined to get everything backwards you can aren't you?

Yes, Adam was a literal human being who literally did not fulfill the role he was created to do and that is why under his federal headship we follow after his example to the perversion of our being created as image-bearers.

Which is a Creationist view Theistic Evolutionists rail against.

Yes that is so because God created so that he could get to the Incarnation, Resurrection and New Birth, I still think you are putting the cart before the Horse.

At least you finally made the connection.

No, this is your normal smokescreen, exclude TEs from creationism and then act surprised when TEs affirm that all Christians are Creationists and argue that they should not be TEs if they are Creationists. It is moving the goalposts because TE is providential and old earth creationism and so you're removing at least one of those subgenres from Creationism to attack and annoy TEs.

I don't attack anyone on here that doesn't inflict absurd and fallacious arguments without provocation. Theistic Evolutionists are the antithesis of Creationists not because Creationists attack them but because the entire view is opposed to Creationist thinking. I don't care if your annoyed or not, if you can't discuss your views substantively I'll call you on it.

But I'm not calling you a deist for that, I'm calling you a deist because of your definition of providentialism and that's what I've been doing all the way through this thread I was even explicit in including providential in the term I used.

Calling me or any Creationist a Deist is absurd no matter how you shuffle the word salad semantics.

You can think that, you're wrong, but that hasn't stopped you so far.

I think I've wasted enough time chasing this in circles, thanks for the exchange but I have other things to do.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Achilles6129]

Theistic evolutionists agree. None of this means that God can't make the cosmos in six days or send a global flood. Certainly God can. With God all things are possible.

But the evidence is that God didn't.

You were doing great until that last sentence. All miracles in Scripture can be proven scientifically impossible. That is strong evidence they did not occur. It is inconsistent for theistic evolutionists to reject one part of Scripture b/c they believe there is evidence against and accept another part when there is evidence against.

I am saying God is a God of love John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. God's plan from before he created the world was that Christ save us by dying on the cross (and as you point out rising from the dead). To die for us, death had to be part of the world God created, part of God's plan for the world he was creating.

Death was only a part of the world after Adam's fall. God obviously knew Adam was going to fall. But that does not mean it was a part of his plan - as a matter of fact, it was not, which was why God commanded him not to eat from the tree in the first place.

Also remember that verse that keeps coming up, Hebrews 2:14:

"14 Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, " Heb. 2:14 (NRSV)
Read Ezekiel 28, the devil was originally a guardian cherub part of God's good creation. You need to watch you don't take verses out of context, ones that describe death now or in the future, when death has been combined with sin, to try to argue that death in the past could not have been part of God's good creation. 1Cor 15:56 The sting of death is sin.

And do you suppose that Ezekiel 28 is actually speaking about the garden of Eden on earth? There is also a garden of Eden in heaven as well which Christ speaks about in Revelation. Kind of like how the tabernacle is a pattern of the heavenly tabernacle.

 

[gluadys]

You were doing great until that last sentence. All miracles in Scripture can be proven scientifically impossible.

That's true. That is one of the marks of them being miracles. They are not explainable scientifically. Science deals with ordinary natural phenomena, not with miracles.

That is strong evidence they did not occur.

No, it is not at all. You are expressing here a very non-Christian philosophy called scientism. Scientism is the belief that nothing is true unless it can be shown to be true by science.

But since Christians believe in miracles--which cannot be shown to be true by science, Christians reject this belief. Christians believe there is much that is true which science cannot prove to be true.

Now, belief in a miracle can be falsified by science: if we find evidence that the alleged miracle did not occur. Note "did" not, not "can" not. So we can use science to expose the faked miracles of spiritualists, for example.

But we have no evidence that the miracles of Jesus or the prophets or apostles were faked. So we have no evidence that they did not happen as recorded.

It is inconsistent for theistic evolutionists to reject one part of Scripture b/c they believe there is evidence against and accept another part when there is evidence against.

It would be, if that is what we were doing. But we are not.

Learn the difference between "can" and "did".

God can do what humans cannot. So we will never deny the possibility of miracles based on what science says humans cannot do.

However, we can ask "Did God do this?" and if there is evidence that God did not, then we follow that evidence. Where there is no evidence contradicting the miracle, we follow the testimony as it stands.

This, btw, is good scientific as well as hermeneutic practice. Science also holds to a theory, even when the evidence for it is not rock solid, as long as there is no evidence against it.

Death was only a part of the world after Adam's fall.

Scripture does not actually tell us that. It does say that after Adam's fall, death spread to all men, because all men sinned. But it says nothing about the death of other beings on earth being a consequence of human sin.