The Mysteries of God

cubanito · Feb 24, 2015

Mr Caner, I do not understand your position. "...He did not use evolution to facilitate His creative act..." but you are not a fundamentalist? There is a fluid, ill defined conotation of what a Christian fundamentalist is in the culture: "no dancing, no drinking, no cussing and no going out with girls who do" comes to mind. That is NOT the definition here in this subforum.

It would help me to understand if 1- there is anything in the "Statement of Faith" in this subforum that you either disagree or would modify or amplify;
2- what positions on Genesis you feel comfortable with (as someone who flits back and forth between a young vs old Earth I do understand some flexibility of opinion)
3- is what you wish to know is what we here believe, or how important we believe views on Genesis are? I personally strongly defend the position that one's views on Genesis are NOT determinitive of salvation, and cite men such as Gresham Machen, BB Warfield and CS Lewis, all evolutionists, in defense of my belief that one CAN be a great Christian theologically, yet err on interpreting Genesis.

JR

Resha Caner · Feb 24, 2015

cubanito said:
It would help me to understand if 1- there is anything in the "Statement of Faith" in this subforum that you either disagree or would modify or amplify

On the face of it, I don't disagree with anything in this forum's statement of faith. Yet I suspect some of the terms are theologically laden, by which I mean that someone with only a familiarity of the dictionary will miss what those terms really mean.

In terms of what Lutheran's might emphasize differently, there is a lack of sacramental language which produces a heavier reliance on the Bible. There is no attempt to balance law and gospel or the two kingdoms. I'm sure other things would come out if we discussed it further, but I don't know that comparing whose daddy is stronger is healthy.

cubanito said:
2- what positions on Genesis you feel comfortable with (as someone who flits back and forth between a young vs old Earth I do understand some flexibility of opinion)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this aside from what you specifically ask next in #3. A text can be both historical and allegorical; both historical and poetic. So, I have no problem with many of the allegories people draw from the text or the poetry they see there. If, however, they draw those allegories as a means to denying the historicity I have a problem. On the other side, even though we all seem to agree God's power is infinitely beyond ours, everyone also seems to like saying they have it all figured out. So when I point out some of the things the Bible doesn't say, and that maybe we don't know the answers to some questions, people get their shorts in a wad.

cubanito said:
3- is what you wish to know is what we here believe, or how important we believe views on Genesis are? I personally strongly defend the position that one's views on Genesis are NOT determinitive of salvation, and cite men such as Gresham Machen, BB Warfield and CS Lewis, all evolutionists, in defense of my belief that one CAN be a great Christian theologically, yet err on interpreting Genesis.

I agree. That does not mean, however, it couldn't cause someone to stumble. For many years I stayed away from this discussion because it didn't interest me and I didn't see why so many made it a litmus test. However, since it seems to be among the top 5 conversations between believers and unbelievers (if not #1) I decided I needed to have an answer.

So, it's not my reason for asking this question. I just wanted to gage how receptive fundamentalists would be to an idea which would oppose evolution but might not fit their traditional answer to the evolutionary challenge.

cubanito · Feb 25, 2015

Thank you Mr Caner for your responses, they make a lot of sense to me.
1- The older titles for various Christians have only partial validity today. Liberals whether they be Roman "catholics", Lutherans, Presbytereans, Baptist (eg Northern Baptists) and so on have far more in common with each other than they do with those in any of those denominations that have a high view of Scripture, especially if they flat out believe Scripture is the exhaled inerrant Word of God. I have never understood Lutheran theology, nor made a serious effort to, which is to my shame. From my very limited understanding Luther and those that followed him thought that many of the reformers had elevated human logic too far. In this I am quite in agreement. I do NOT believe God is bound by the laws of classical logic, as do many Presbytereans.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that your responses seem congruent with you being a fundamentalist as defined in the SOF of this subforum. I would encourage you to look up the "Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy" short version: http://www.etsjets.org/files/documents/Chicago_Statement.pdf
long version: http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_2.pdf
as a document produced by many Protestant from different denominations including Lutherans http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1_typed.pdf

BTW, for Jack, a frequenter here, even the above statements are not enough as he has an even stricter definition of Biblical inerrancy, but I leave Jack to object if he wishes.

You appear to be the only fundamentalist Lutheran here now, and thus you find the lack of "sacramental language" disconcerting. You will also find that there are some very rude people here, and some also have a "know nothing" attitude which is a very understandable reaction. As a fundamentalist I can see the derogatory way in which we are generally treated even among many truly Christian circles. My arrogance renders me mostly immune from this kind of criticism.

On this forum at times I have been called satanic, more than once my comments have been expunged and so on for stating what I believe the Bible plainly states about certain subjects. I can not type examples because they will be reported, I will be warned and so on, but believe me, I have caused major irritation around here and not for any kind of personal attack, just my honest interpretation of certain passages of the Bible/

I would encourage you to perservere past the disdain that will come your way as a Lutheran and stick around. I at least have much to learn from you.

2- That a passage may be both historical and poetic is true. Yet there are certain rules to Hebrew poetry, and those who study the subject have concluded that Genesis is not poetic. It follows the typical pattern of prose for Hebrew. Unfortunately, I can only point you to the work of Hebrew scholars on this as I am totally out of my realm here http://www.ldolphin.org/genmyth.html

3- When I was still an agnostic, I rejected Darwinism and the idea that stars could form from gas in a vacuum simply on the experimental scientific evidence I knew about. Punctuated equilibrium in my opinion offers no improvement to the Neodarwinist hypothesis. That was high school, since then as my understanding especially of biochemistry has grown, so has my rejection of what I consider to be mythology, not science. That the great majority of my collegues believe it does not at all distress me. I always assume I am the most intelligent and knowlegeable person in any conversation, except when speaking with God. I am usually right. I am arrogant, and that has a pleasant side effect: I am relatively immune to peer pressure. So unlike many of my fellow fundies I do not feel threatened by theistic evolutionaries.

JR

Resha Caner · Feb 25, 2015

cubanito said:
The older titles for various Christians have only partial validity today. Liberals whether they be Roman "catholics", Lutherans, Presbytereans, Baptist (eg Northern Baptists) and so on have far more in common with each other than they do with those in any of those denominations that have a high view of Scripture, especially if they flat out believe Scripture is the exhaled inerrant Word of God.

True. If you want to drop by the Lutheran forum sometime with a question, I'd be freer to answer.

cubanito said:
I would encourage you to look up the "Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy"

I think I did at one time, but I don't recall the details.

cubanito said:
I would encourage you to perservere past the disdain that will come your way as a Lutheran and stick around. I at least have much to learn from you.

That's a very humble thing for an arrogant man to say. I don't know if I could match you, so maybe I need to learn from you.

cubanito said:
That a passage may be both historical and poetic is true. Yet there are certain rules to Hebrew poetry, and those who study the subject have concluded that Genesis is not poetic.

I've heard it both ways. I don't really care. Writing is another hobby of mine, and in years past I published a few things. I've seen horrid poetry that followed the rules and astounding poetry that had no rules. IMO "poetry rules" is an oxymoron.

cubanito said:
When I was still an agnostic, I rejected Darwinism and the idea that stars could form from gas in a vacuum simply on the experimental scientific evidence I knew about. Punctuated equilibrium in my opinion offers no improvement to the Neodarwinist hypothesis. That was high school, since then as my understanding especially of biochemistry has grown, so has my rejection of what I consider to be mythology, not science. That the great majority of my collegues believe it does not at all distress me. I always assume I am the most intelligent and knowlegeable person in any conversation, except when speaking with God. I am usually right. I am arrogant, and that has a pleasant side effect: I am relatively immune to peer pressure. So unlike many of my fellow fundies I do not feel threatened by theistic evolutionaries.

This is the part that interests me. I wasn't planning on hanging around, as I got an answer to my question, but so far I've enjoyed our conversation. While evolution doesn't threaten me personally, it does concern me due to the influence I see it having over others.

So, one question I always like to ask regarding this topic is: What is your objection to evolution? To clarify, I'm not asking why you think the hypothesis is flawed. I'm asking what tenet of the Christian faith it opposes (if any).

cubanito · Feb 27, 2015

1- I do not believe macroevolution is in direct conflict with any core Christian doctrine.

2- I do believe it has a corrosive effect over time in practice.

3- I also am addicted to theoretical Truth. Some are drawn to God's Love or His Justice, or His Might or some other attribute of the Trinity. My nature, even before rebirth, is adoration of theoretical Truth. It does not bother me if I am lied to about some financial or other passing matter. To my shame I occasionally lie when it advances my financial circumstances. It is sin, and I still sin often, and it is not right. However, what makes me passionate is theoretical Truth. I have been swindled and embezzled for large sums. I took action but it never made me angry. But tell me to believe in some idiotic theory that is contrary to all known facts and I go crazy! I am whatever part of the body it is that is peculiiarly sensitive to that tiny aspect of God's nature. I am sure I would be among those debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or wether hydroxycobalamin offers any improved metabolic performance over cyanocobalamin except in cases of nitrite poisoning. So my irritation with macroevolution is huge because this particular mythology is so widely believed among otherwise intelligent people.

JR

Resha Caner · Feb 27, 2015

cubanito said:
I do not believe macroevolution is in direct conflict with any core Christian doctrine.

Interesting.

cubanito · Mar 1, 2015

Anyone who believes that macroevolution is in direct conflict with Christianity needs to explain men like CS Lewis, BB Warfield and Gresham Machem. These men were Christian intellectuals whom I respect yet believed the myth of macroevolution.

I am not saying that macroevolution does not fit well with the Bible, nor that it is at home with Christian doctrine. Only that it is not DIRECTLY incompatible with the Bible of Christianity.

The atheist MUST have macroevolutionist or live with a gaping hole in his religion/philosophy. For the Christian, either rejection or acceptance of macroevolution is acceptable. Who then is most likely to have a strong bias? It is the atheist who must defend his position as he has nowhere else to go. For the Christian, acceptance or rejection of macroevolution is not an essential.

When I rejected macroevolution, I became truly an agnostic. I really had NO idea where I came from, where I was going, or where I was. I even had doubts as to my own existence, though "puteo ergo sum" always seemed plausible.

Mr Caner, you will find a siege mentality among most fundys, and often an accompanying hostile attitude. This is not my roblem, but I empathize with my fellow fundys. We fundies ARE under siege. We are ridiculed, demonized and discounted more than any group I know of in Western society. I just don't care because I know I am a vastly superior intellect to those around me. Not a Christian attitude on my part, not at all, and I am trying to be less arrogant. This attitude does however insulate me from herd mentality.

JR

Resha Caner · Mar 1, 2015

cubanito said:
Anyone who believes that macroevolution is in direct conflict with Christianity needs to explain men like CS Lewis, BB Warfield and Gresham Machem.

I admire Lewis and Warfield as well. I'm not familiar with Machem.

Regardless, the explanation is simple. God forgives sinners. It doesn't mean what those sinners did is not in conflict with Christianity.

cubanito · Mar 2, 2015

Agreed, yet would you be as willing to consider as Christian a Jehova's Witness who denies the Divinity of Christ or a Holiness preacher who believes he has already reached a state of sinless perfection in this life?

The fact that deep thinkers who were truly Christian have been theistic evolutionists ought give us pause before we declare rejection of macroevolution a core doctrine.

For me it is bad science, bad hermeneutics and a poor fit with Christianity

Resha Caner · Mar 2, 2015

cubanito said:
Agreed, yet would you be as willing to consider as Christian a Jehova's Witness who denies the Divinity of Christ or a Holiness preacher who believes he has already reached a state of sinless perfection in this life?

The fact that deep thinkers who were truly Christian have been theistic evolutionists ought give us pause before we declare rejection of macroevolution a core doctrine.

For me it is bad science, bad hermeneutics and a poor fit with Christianity

I see theological issues with some aspects of evolution, but that has no bearing on whether I consider someone Christian or not. More to the point, people are going to use whatever label they think best, and they don't care whether I consider them Christian. When I talk with JW (or Mormons, which is more common in my case) the issue of whether they are Christian never comes up. I simply do my best to speak the truth to them in love.

A Confessional Lutheran is not someone who worships Luther. Luther was just a man. C.S. Lewis was just a man ... great men though both of them were, they had their faults. So, I can accept both of them as fellow humans who want(ed) to know Christ. Sometimes it seems to me the Mormons I talk to want to know Christ. I'm not going to insist we begin that conversation by defining the term "Christian", and that they accept they are not. Rather, we'll just talk. Whether the conversation succeeds in drawing the person away from the LDS is a matter for the Spirit.

I can admire evolutionists, abortionists, gays, ... and yes even Democrats and NY Yankees without ever condoning their sin. Hopefully I can show them their sin in a loving, respectful way. I pray to be the witness they need ... when, in all honesty, I don't want to.

Hopefully I'm not wrong in thinking that I am a better witness if I can articulate what I think are theological issues with parts of evolution.

cubanito · Mar 3, 2015

Which Lutheran denomination are you with? Your public profile does not show that.

If you are with the conservatives like Missoury Synod, they have a clear distinction of which other denominations they consider Christian and which not. Such a distinction appears to be Christological, basically the acceptance of Nicea.

Nonetheless, I do understand your admirable stance in personal witness, to speak Truth in Love. So I commend you in not refusing a mormon to call himself Christian. Yet you have your opinion, at some point you draw a line.

All I am saying about myself, and I think I speak for most fundamentalists (as defined here) that acceptance or rejection of macroevolution, an old Earth ect is NOT a defining belief as to being a True Christian. Being saved is a synonym for me with being a True Christian.

Not worshiping Luther I understand, but Calvin, we must worship him of course.

JR

Resha Caner · Mar 3, 2015

cubanito said:
Which Lutheran denomination are you with? Your public profile does not show that.

The LCMS.

cubanito said:
If you are with the conservatives like Missoury Synod, they have a clear distinction of which other denominations they consider Christian and which not. Such a distinction appears to be Christological, basically the acceptance of Nicea.

We need to be careful here. You'll need to show me what you are referencing, because I suspect you are confusing "defining a Christian" with those whom the LCMS holds in fellowship. Those are 2 different things. I'm not aware that the LCMS ever defines which denominations are considered Christian.

In that regard, we'll need to set some ground rules. Another rule of mine is I never interpret the Book of Mormon for a Mormon; I never interpret the Koran for a Muslim; etc. I will challenge the claims they make based on those interpretations, but I never challenge the interpretation itself. I expect the same from others, so I don't accept people interpreting the LCMS for me. If you disagree with what the LCMS claims, that's one thing, but please leave the interpretation to me. Otherwise we'll be dragged into a pointless, endless semantic debate.

cubanito said:
Nonetheless, I do understand your admirable stance in personal witness, to speak Truth in Love. So I commend you in not refusing a mormon to call himself Christian. Yet you have your opinion, at some point you draw a line.

Not really. For the purposes of communication I use the word "Christian", and I have my opinions regarding how to define it. But in a theological sense, I don't draw any lines.

May I ask what the purpose is? Why do you need to know who is saved?

- - -

Also, since you don't see any theological problems with parts of evolution, let me ask a few other questions. The difference in our answers may come down to our use of terms.

Do you think God would ever lie? Is your position on that question a theological position?

cubanito · Mar 3, 2015

1- Holds in fellowship is what I meant.

2- I respect your ground rules and will try abiding by them. I do not operate the same way, but perhaps that is why I spend so much time in pointless arguments. I would like to proceed with you as per your stated methods. When I wander off the lines, alert me and I shall try to remain courteous. I am going to drop all discussion about this as I think it will go in an unfruitful direction. If you wish to pursue it, okey dokey, just bear in mind I am nowhere near as gracious as you. Anybody that goes to Church and tells the pastor that he is there to "worship the other Jesus" has some serious problems (me).

3- Through James God has said it is impossible for Him to lie however... unfortunately I have been reprimanded on this forum, and called satanic, for explaining any further. So I am not going to state what I believe again here. As an enthusiastic post-modern fundamentalist that believes in Absolute Truth which can in part be effectively communicated but never comprehended I have some rather convoluted theological positions, and I believe all ideas, all acts, have a theological basis.

God does not lie. Beyond that will get me in trouble here.

JR

Resha Caner · Mar 3, 2015

cubanito said:
Holds in fellowship is what I meant.

OK.

cubanito said:
I respect your ground rules and will try abiding by them.

I'm in your forum, so technically I need to abide by your rules. It's just that if it turned into that, I would politely bow out.

cubanito said:
Anybody that goes to Church and tells the pastor that he is there to "worship the other Jesus" has some serious problems (me).

Agreed. But at least they're in church. It's sometimes hard to reach people who aren't. I wouldn't consider removing them (i.e. excommunication) unless their view somehow became disruptive and they refused to acknowledge the authority of the church.

And in real life I'm not actually that gracious. It's a standard I wish I could live up to, but don't. I just don't like how some people lower the standard to something they can meet.

cubanito said:
God does not lie. Beyond that will get me in trouble here.

OK. Well, my position would be that if certain parts of evolution are true, God lied in Genesis. Even though my historical view of Genesis is weaker than a fundamentalist position. Even if Genesis were only an allegory, I would say God lied in Genesis.

So, there's one theological issue with evolution.

cubanito · Mar 4, 2015

Mr Caner, my first name is Jesus, and I am the first born of Jose and Maria.

It is me who disturbs the peace of my Church by saying things like "I'm here to worship the other Jesus."

My pastor used to be a very athletic man who through a rare disease not of his fault is in a wheelchair and able to only use one arm. So on ocassion I sneak up behind an put irritating home made bumper stickers on the back of his chair. I have openly "accused" him of being lazy because "all you do is sit around all day." Luther's advice to "sin boldly" resonates well with me.

Mr Caner, I am as Jack here once remarked "something else." I THOROUGHLY enjoy my life as a child of God, and I do mean child. Take me seriously at your own peril.

As to this not being "your forum", it sure sounds to me that it IS your forum. I find all your opinions so far expressed thoroughly consistent with the SOF on this forum.

Anyway, I'm going to leave this thread unless there is something else you'd like from me here. I need to spend my free time pursuing the info provided on Lutheran theology.

It has been a pleasure.

JR

Resha Caner · Mar 4, 2015

cubanito said:
Luther's advice to "sin boldly" resonates well with me.

An often abused and misunderstood quote. In proper context it may be the best advice one Christian has ever given another.

cubanito said:
As to this not being "your forum", it sure sounds to me that it IS your forum. I find all your opinions so far expressed thoroughly consistent with the SOF on this forum.

Perhaps I was too subtle. I've found it is typically best to understate your position until you know who you're speaking with.

I'm not a fundamentalist. I could pretend to agree with the SOF based on the wording given and thereby twist it to a Lutheran view, but that would be disingenuous. I'm not necessarily fluent in fundie, but I know enough to know some of what is behind the words ... and I'm not a fundamentalist.

cubanito said:
Anyway, I'm going to leave this thread unless there is something else you'd like from me here. I need to spend my free time pursuing the info provided on Lutheran theology.

OK. I'm looking forward to your return.

John the Bpt · Apr 8, 2015

Resha Caner said:
I am curious about the general fundamentalist view of the mysteries of God - specifically with relation to life and the means by which it was created.

Would you say:
A) We are incapable of comprehending how God created life
B) To the extent we are capable of comprehending it, God reveals that knowledge to us
C) The process of creating life left behind some clues from which we can partially discern how it happened
D) We can fully discern how it happened
E) Something else

If your answer falls in the range of B or C, do you think it is possible for us to discern how far we can go? IOW, if we can only partially discern how it happened, do we know where the line is between what we can discern and what we can't?

The mysteries of God are indeed mysterious.

"The order of creation is different in the two stories.[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]In the six-day creation story, the order of creation is plants, birds and fish, mammals and reptiles, and finally man to reign over all created before him, while in the Adam and Eve story, the creation order is reversed, with man coming first, then plants and animals. The two creation stories also have different narrative rhythms, different settings, and different names for God.[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]In the six-day story, the creation of humanity occurs through a single act and the creator, seeming more cosmic than human-like, is present only through a series of commands.[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]In the Adam and Eve story, on the other hand, man and woman are created through two separate acts and God is present in a hands-on, intimate way.[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]The pre-creation setting in the six-day story is a watery chaos, while in the Adam and Eve version, the setting before creation is a dry dessert.[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]Finally, in the six-day story, the creator is called Elohim, while in the other version of events, the creator is the Lord God (Yahweh)."

FredVB · Apr 18, 2015

Yahweh God is by nature and by definition from revelation the Creator. How precisely creation is caused, or life, which can truly only come from God, just as it is with our consciousness, we cannot know, it is still only the Creator who can do so.

The Mysteries of God

Well-Known Member

Expert Fool

Well-Known Member

Expert Fool

Well-Known Member

Expert Fool

Well-Known Member

Expert Fool

Well-Known Member

Expert Fool

Well-Known Member

Expert Fool

Well-Known Member

Expert Fool

Well-Known Member

Expert Fool

Retired Engineer

Regular Member

Similar threads