Another question..........

[1denomination]

Does anyone think that this may have any thing to say on this topic.


Act 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, [and] mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

Act 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

1Cr 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1Cr 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

1Cr 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

1Cr 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

1Cr 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;

1Cr 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and [to] Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think [of men] above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

I belive it speaks volumes about denominations. What is this YEC/OEC/TE
junk but another way of dividing God's church?

 

[Calminian]

Does anyone think that this may have any thing to say on this topic.

Act 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, [and] mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

Act 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

1Cr 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1Cr 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

1Cr 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

1Cr 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

1Cr 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;

1Cr 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and [to] Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think [of men] above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

I belive it speaks volumes about denominations. What is this YEC/OEC/TE
junk but another way of dividing God's church?

Hmmm. An important passage but it doesn't touches this issue, nor is it a condemnation of denominations. (The idea of denominations is in my opinion defended in Romans 14.) Paul here is warning men to get away from the teachings of men (albeit christian men) and get back to the Source—the Word of God/Christ. This is what YECs are urging other christians to do. In fact it's worse because nowadays they are not even following other christians but atheistic naturalists and letting their philosophies take priority over the Bible.

The issue here is about the authority of God's word verses the authority of science built on naturalistic assumptions. It's an issue of God's glory. No, YECs don't believe OECs are unsaved. But remember our chief goal in life is to bring glory to God. By putting God’s word second to naturalism we’re going well beyond the sin described here in 1 Corinthians.

 

[notto]

Hmmm. An important passage but it doesn't touches this issue, nor is it a condemnation of denominations. (The idea of denominations is in my opinion defended in Romans 14.) Paul here is warning men to get away from the teachings of men (albeit christian men) and get back to the Source—the Word of God/Christ. This is what YECs are urging other christians to do. In fact it's worse because nowadays they are not even following other christians but atheistic naturalists and letting their philosophies take priority over the Bible.

The issue here is about the authority of God's word verses the authority of science built on naturalistic assumptions. It's an issue of God's glory. No, YECs don't believe OECs are unsaved. But remember our chief goal in life is to bring glory to God. By putting God’s word second to naturalism we’re going well beyond the sin described here in 1 Corinthians.

As a Christian who accepts evolution and rejects YEC, I can assure you that the philosophies of atheistic naturalists have no effect on my faith and have no priority over the bible with me. Although I can't speak for all TE's or OEC's I'm guessing they would feel the same way. You seem to be confusing the acceptance of physical sciences with atheism or philosophical naturalism. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I also do not put naturalism second to the word of God. I give ALL the glory for the creation that science studies to God. Science has no authority with me other than to accurately describe that creation and shows me the glory contained with in it. Please stop misrepresenting this type of thing. It is false witness against other Christians.

Romans 14
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. 10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin

 

[gluadys]

In fact it's worse because nowadays they are not even following other christians but atheistic naturalists and letting their philosophies take priority over the Bible.

The issue here is about the authority of God's word verses the authority of science built on naturalistic assumptions. It's an issue of God's glory. No, YECs don't believe OECs are unsaved. But remember our chief goal in life is to bring glory to God. By putting God’s word second to naturalism we’re going well beyond the sin described here in 1 Corinthians.

This is not a description of the TE position, and you have been here long enough to know that.

TEs do not let athiestic naturalistic philosophies take priority over the bible. We explicity reject such philosophies.

TEs do not put God's Word second to naturalism. We explicitly reject that stand.

But TEs also do not identify God's Word with your particular interpretation of the bible either. The fact that we disagree with you about a question of how the bible is to be interpreted is not at all the same thing as subordinating God's Word to a philosophy of naturalism. For you to insinuate that it is borders on false witness.

 

[notto]

This is not a description of the TE position, and you have been here long enough to know that.

TEs do not let athiestic naturalistic philosophies take priority over the bible. We explicity reject such philosophies.

TEs do not put God's Word second to naturalism. We explicitly reject that stand.

Considering that their are real live Christians here who accept evolution and other sciences and specifically study these in their daily lives, I certainly would like to see it pointed out where any of those Christians on this forum are guilty of what is claimed related to them accepting other philosophies other than Christianity or in any way negating the value of the Bible in their faith. I haven't seen it Gluadys, have you?

 

[gluadys]

Considering that their are real live Christians here who accept evolution and other sciences and specifically study these in their daily lives, I certainly would like to see it pointed out where any of those Christians on this forum are guilty of what is claimed related to them accepting other philosophies other than Christianity or in any way negating the value of the Bible in their faith. I haven't seen it Gluadys, have you?

No, I haven't. It would seem this is a myth creationists have developed to explain the existence of Christians who do not agree with their theology.

 

[Vance]

This whole idea that TE's are TE's because they let science some trump the Bible is just ridiculous, as I explain in my "Faith Presumptions" thread.

 

[SBG]

As you explained, everyone has a faith presumption, including you and the many scientists out there who aren't Christians. By your stance that you show, you wouldn't interpret anything contrary to what you believe.

 

[notto]

As you explained, everyone has a faith presumption, including you and the many scientists out there who aren't Christians. By your stance that you show, you wouldn't interpret anything contrary to what you believe.

Which would only weaken the claim that as Christians, we are somehow influenced by philosophical naturalism, or atheism. It is a false claim as evidenced by those here who flat out testify that this is not the case.

 

[SBG]

Which would only weaken the claim that as Christians, we are somehow influenced by philosophical naturalism, or atheism. It is a false claim as evidenced by those here who flat out testify that this is not the case.

You aren't influenced by philosophical naturalism?

Do you believe the earth is very old, say a few billion years?

Do you believe life spawned from the earth spontaneously, say big bang/abiogenesis/evolution?

Do you think man evolved from an animal?

If you say yes to at least one of the above, then you have allowed philosophical naturalism to influence you. WHy? Because this was the philosophical ideaologies of the Greeks, at the time of Paul.

 

[Vance]

As you explained, everyone has a faith presumption, including you and the many scientists out there who aren't Christians. By your stance that you show, you wouldn't interpret anything contrary to what you believe.

This post shows that you did not grasp the point of that thread at all. The point was that, UNLIKE the non-Christian scientists, Christians have presumptions based purely on faith that will trump ANY statements or concepts to the contrary. Any statement by any scientist to the effect that God did not, or could not, have created the universe, is rejected purely on faith.

Any statement by historian or minimalist Biblical scholar that Scripture is not holy and inerrant and from God is rejected, regardless of the evidence they bring.

Any statement that the miracles of the Bible did not occur based solely on naturalistic assumptions is rejected.

 

[If Not For Grace]

"I belive it speaks volumes about denominations."


Why? or what if it does?

I must have missed the point?

If I say I heard the Gospel from Billy Graham, and someone else says Kenneth Copeland taught me about giving and someone else says Dr. Gene Scott taught me about passover, what would that say? I can honestly say I have learned from all three, now what denomination am I?

 

[notto]

You aren't influenced by philosophical naturalism?

Do you believe the earth is very old, say a few billion years?

Do you believe life spawned from the earth spontaneously, say big bang/abiogenesis/evolution?

Do you think man evolved from an animal?

If you say yes to at least one of the above, then you have allowed philosophical naturalism to influence you. WHy? Because this was the philosophical ideaologies of the Greeks, at the time of Paul.

God created the earth a few billion years ago.
God created life.
Man (an animal) evolved from another animal but God gave us gifts that animals don't have.

Actually, my view of creation is based on actual evidence from that creation that has been found by dilligent scientists, both Christian and otherwise, getting off their chairs and studying it. My faith is based on the theology of the Bible and Christianity. I've never read any greek philosophy, simply peer reviewed scientific research and the Bible, so I would have to disagree that my view has been influenced by greek philosophy or naturalism.

Try again.

 

[Dark Matter]

You aren't influenced by philosophical naturalism?

Do you believe the earth is very old, say a few billion years?

Do you believe life spawned from the earth spontaneously, say big bang/abiogenesis/evolution?

Do you think man evolved from an animal?

If you say yes to at least one of the above, then you have allowed philosophical naturalism to influence you. WHy? Because this was the philosophical ideaologies of the Greeks, at the time of Paul.

SBG, please lay out your assumptions in argument form so I can attempt to follow your logic. Philosophical naturalism did not spawn big bang theory. Neither did philosophical naturalism spawn the idea that the universe is ancient.

These understandings came from examing the material universe of God's creation. They are not ideas of worldview, but developments of understanding based upon research and evidence.

Philosophical naturalists have surely jumped on these items to defend their idealogy, but this is meaningless. They did the same when they thought the universe was static. YEC's do the same. Before they believed in an expanding universe, they said the Bible taught against. When the evidence finally overwhelmed them into accepting an expanding universe, then all of a sudden they found verses to support that view as well. No matter what the evidence, all groups will twist it to make their case.

Your job as a Christian is to accept the evidence for what it is. Paul writes in Romans that the natural revelation is accurate and sufficient to reveal God's invisible attributes, and to hold mankind accountable to God's existance. No greater evidence for a transcendant creator exists than the big bang. It has done more for creationism that the Bible has. The idea that Big Bang theory spawned from philosophical naturalism is fanciful.

Dark Matter

 

[gluadys]

Your job as a Christian is to accept the evidence for what it is. Paul writes in Romans that the natural revelation is accurate and sufficient to reveal God's invisible attributes, and to hold mankind accountable to God's existance. No greater evidence for a transcendant creator exists than the big bang. It has done more for creationism that the Bible has. The idea that Big Bang theory spawned from philosophical naturalism is fanciful.

Dark Matter

Should be compulsory reading for any Christian wanting to engage in debate about science. Especially the first sentence.

 

[Vance]

What Dark Matter said above. Double.

 

[shernren]

You aren't influenced by philosophical naturalism?

Do you believe the earth is very old, say a few billion years?

Do you believe life spawned from the earth spontaneously, say big bang/abiogenesis/evolution?

Do you think man evolved from an animal?

If you say yes to at least one of the above, then you have allowed philosophical naturalism to influence you. WHy? Because this was the philosophical ideaologies of the Greeks, at the time of Paul.

Do you believe that there is a mortal body and an eternal soul that are separated by the happening of death?

You have allowed the Greek philosophy of dualism to influence you. Oops.

We are not being naturalist. For my part, I don't believe in abiogenesis, and I believe that Adam and Eve could have been real people, and the Fall a real but spiritual (non-scientific) event. However, we do believe that anything real should only display evidence of events it has actually participated in - or to be simple, reality is what it actually appears to be (however you interpret what reality is / appears). To assume the contrary (ala AiG's "Any contrary evidence is invalid") is not sound Christianity: it is ruthless Hinduism.

 

[gluadys]

Do you believe that there is a mortal body and an eternal soul that are separated by the happening of death?

You have allowed the Greek philosophy of dualism to influence you. Oops.

We are not being naturalist. For my part, I don't believe in abiogenesis, and I believe that Adam and Eve could have been real people, and the Fall a real but spiritual (non-scientific) event. However, we do believe that anything real should only display evidence of events it has actually participated in - or to be simple, reality is what it actually appears to be (however you interpret what reality is / appears). To assume the contrary (ala AiG's "Any contrary evidence is invalid") is not sound Christianity: it is ruthless Hinduism.

reality is what it actually appears to be

I am so glad to see that at least one creationist understands this!!!

Christianity in general, by no means just creationism, has been so infected by Greek dualism that most people, Christians and non-Christians alike, think dualism is inseparable from Christianity.

But the OT is decidedly non-dualistic, and the NT writers and the early Church fathers fought against the dualism of the Gnostics. That is why they insist that Christ was really incarnate in the flesh, was truly human, really died on the cross, was resurrected bodily and that we await the resurrection of the body. That is why they rejected personal re-incarnation as compatible with Christianity.

To assume the contrary (ala AiG's "Any contrary evidence is invalid") is not sound Christianity: it is ruthless Hinduism.

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to shernren again

 

[shernren]

Actually, I should think that "reality is what it appears to be" comes very much from the fact that the characteristics of God as Creator should be seen in the manner in which He creates. Right?

And before I am replied: No, saying that "reality is what it appears to be" does not in any way mean I reject the "faith which is believing that which cannot be seen". Reality is what it appears: whether or not I believe that there is anything beyond the present reality. For example, resurrection is very much "unreal" at this present moment in time. So does that mean I don't believe in the resurrection of the person? No, I do foresee that one day it will be real, and yet I acknowledge that that moment is not now.

 

[gluadys]

Actually, I should think that "reality is what it appears to be" comes very much from the fact that the characteristics of God as Creator should be seen in the manner in which He creates. Right?

And before I am replied: No, saying that "reality is what it appears to be" does not in any way mean I reject the "faith which is believing that which cannot be seen". Reality is what it appears: whether or not I believe that there is anything beyond the present reality. For example, resurrection is very much "unreal" at this present moment in time. So does that mean I don't believe in the resurrection of the person? No, I do foresee that one day it will be real, and yet I acknowledge that that moment is not now.

I couldn't agree more. That is the primary reason I accept evolution. It in no way means I reject creation or miracles or anything that goes beyond the parameters of our current observations and the science derived from them.