Christ and the art of Edification.

[mark kennedy]

There is a basic principle in the New Testament that is essential to enteracting with other Christians. 'Let all things be done unto edifying' (ICor. 14:3,5,12,26), 'Let us pursue things by which one may edify another.' (Romans 14:19; 15:2). I think as Christians we would do well to remember there are no end to controversy, creation/evolution is just the latest one.

We can beat one another up intellectually making endless arguments against one anothers theology or scientific acumen ad infinitum. When we tire of that I dare say we can just as easily find something else to argue in the same way. Might I suggest a more excellent way.

For Creationists:

Whether you believe in a young earth or ape ancestory, why not try explaining how your theology is involved in you view of evolution. I myself am a young earth creationist who believes in a global flood and a lot of other miracles in the Bible I can't explain scientifically. The question that most often confronts me is then why would I believe it at all? The fact is for me theology is far larger then what scientists look at under microscopes. It is what God has done throughout redemptive history that informs my intellect as to human origins, not a bunch of old bones and dirt. If you are interested in sharing I would be interested in your views, theological or otherwise, what makes you a Creationist?

I get to talk to evolutionists all the time and I rarely get to talk about this issue from a Biblical perspective. Let's share a bit, tell me the proof texts you have in mind that makes you reject evolution in whole or in part.

For Evolutionists:

Did you ever wonder if creationists might come around if they learned a little more about how science works? Let's forget about paleontology and geology for a while and talk about the life sciences. What I am thinking about are the Mendelian Laws of Inheritance, meiosis, independant assortment and some of the other mechanisms of adaptation. I have this little problem however, I am looking at a lot of speciation and variation of predetermined 'kinds' in a very brief period of time, less then 10,000 years. Do you have any ideas on how speciation and widerspread variation could happen on such a vast level.

I know you are used to thinking in terms of millions of years lets keep it relatively contemporary. Can you think of any dramatic evolutionary examples that yeilded adaptive traits without dramaticlly altering the gene pool? This has been my biggest interest in natural science for sometime and it's a whole lot tougher then stretching it out over millions of years.

You can all feel free to respond as you see fit and I'll be glad to consider whatever you want to post. I suppose if someone wants to turn this into a debate there isn't much I can do to prevent that. Still I think there should be a way of turning this highly contentious controversy into a way of mutually edifying one another. Evolutionists could learn us a thing or two about the life sciences and creationists could share some things from their religious and theological views.

I like to think we can do this without going to the mat over theological and scientific issues. I like to think so because if its creation vs. evolution today then it will be something else down the road when this is no longer a popular debate topic.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

For Evolutionists:

Did you ever wonder if creationists might come around if they learned a little more about how science works?

Do I ever. I am appalled at the level of scientific ignorance often displayed. I am even more appalled that, judging from many posts, a considerable number of YECists are not the least bit interested in improving their knowledge of science.

I have this little problem however, I am looking at a lot of speciation and variation of predetermined 'kinds' in a very brief period of time, less then 10,000 years. Do you have any ideas on how speciation and widerspread variation could happen on such a vast level.

It can't.

Can you think of any dramatic evolutionary examples that yeilded adaptive traits without dramaticlly altering the gene pool?

Not sure what you mean by "dramatic".

Evolutionists could learn us a thing or two about the life sciences and creationists could share some things from their religious and theological views.

I would be happy if you would learn something about the life sciences, mark. Oh, and on Origins Theology, we evolutionists have religious and theological views too. A big reason I accept science is because I take Genesis 1:1 very seriously.

I like to think so because if its creation vs. evolution today then it will be something else down the road when this is no longer a popular debate topic.

Of course it will. Christians have always found something to debate about. And unfortunately they have too often not limited debate to verbal thrusts.

 

[Proselyte]

The Bible was good enough for Jesus. Jesus and key supporters all turn to the Bible to answer questions that people have. They may not be the answers some want but...

Let's have a look:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

That is a telling statement there. In my opinion, some would spin Genesis to read into it as some symbolism for Evolution and Old Earth, but why wouldn't it just talk about that then? Literally, Genesis says creation was achieved in 6 days. The Bible is very direct about how it happened, and no where does the Bible directly say anything about Evolution or the Old Earth which has only recently come into fashion, relatively speaking.

Matthew 24:37-39 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

In my opinion, Matthew refers to Noah and affirms the story of the Flood. His statement is acknowledging Noah as an actual historical figure, and the Flood as a real event. Biblical evidence against this is not favorable.

Luke 11:51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.

Luke is acknowledging Abel and his murder by Cain. The argument might be made that Abel is just a literary figure that Luke is referring to, but Genesis does not depict it that way.

Matthew 12:39-41 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.

Matthew is acknowledging Jonah was in the belly of the great fish. That would seem scientifically unprobable, but the Bible says it happens.

I don't think all of us fathom the great miracles that have occurred:

That God turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt.
That God parted the Red Sea.
That Jesus healed thousands of people of diseases considered incurable at the time.
That Jesus brought Lazarus back from the dead.
That Jesus rose from the dead.

Why is it we can accept some of these miracles, but not accept that God did what is said in Genesis about literal 6 day creation? We get so caught up in the hows and whys of the Flood, yet think about how God brought all the animals to Noah, and divinely made the whole thing work without the chaos ensuing. Sometimes 3 cats are enough for me, imagine all those animals!

It just seems we have relegated the Bible and the literal interpretation to the back seat of theories that provide a comfort zone with people's world views. The Bible doesn't contradict itself, why take only parts that seem applicable, and dismiss others as myth or symbolism? (Aside from the obvious like parables.)

John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.

Jesus was there in the beginning! He knew the Bible inside and out. He used it as a foundation for teaching and prophecy. He never said the Bible was in error about anything, nor did he belittle it. I would encourage that we as Christians follow His example and treat the Bible with the reverance Jesus did.

This is my opinion, some may agree, some may not. In good faith I am open to hear opposing views, and I respect opposing views. Let us though not belittle each other and harbor prejudice for our differences. Let us lovingly come together with this and discuss in a calm manner.

 

[mark kennedy]

Do I ever. I am appalled at the level of scientific ignorance often displayed. I am even more appalled that, judging from many posts, a considerable number of YECists are not the least bit interested in improving their knowledge of science.

What really gets to me is in a forum called Origins Theology there is virtually no discussion of theology. I don't mind if you take Genesis 1 literally or not, that's not such a big deal really. It's just this idea that taking Genesis 1 literally is contrary to science that I refuse to accept.

It can't.

Ironic, there are less letters in this sentence then in the shortest sentence in the Bible, 'Jesus wept' (John 11:35)

Not sure what you mean by "dramatic".

I would be interested in the common ancestor of the modern platypus. I don't think millions of years are nessacary but I would be interested in who their closest relatives would be.

I would be happy if you would learn something about the life sciences, mark. Oh, and on Origins Theology, we evolutionists have religious and theological views too. A big reason I accept science is because I take Genesis 1:1 very seriously.

Nice dig and by the way, I don't have a problem with your theology. We have been over that a couple of times and you don't challenge any central doctrines, at least not to my knowledge. Still, I accept science but when it comes to things like String Theory and Universal Common Ancestory I think they are chasing the wind.

A buddy of mine was a big Cosmology buff with an IQ that was nearly off the chart. When he would start to talk about things like time travel I thought he had flipped his lid. A mutual friend of ours who was studying engineering (I believe it was Purdue) got into one of these discussions once and I was dumbfounded. These two were in total agreement that going back in time was possible but you had to go there and start over.

Call it an argument from incredulity but that was the biggest bunch of whey I think I ever heard. They tried to explain to me how it resolved a lot of physics and math problems but I remain to this day utterly incredulous.

Of course it will. Christians have always found something to debate about. And unfortunately they have too often not limited debate to verbal thrusts.

My favorite is the Sabbath controversy. I am just amazed that God goes to the trouble of establishing a day of rest and people want to turn it into a work. Sometimes I think God must sit in heaven shaking His head thinking, silly humans.

 

[chaoschristian]

The Bible was good enough for Jesus. Jesus and key supporters all turn to the Bible to answer questions that people have. They may not be the answers some want but...

'The Bible' didn't exist until more than 300 years after Christ left the earth to sit at the right hand of God.

When Jesus walked the Earth with his disciples, scripture existed, but it was most certainly not 'The Bible.'

 

[Proselyte]

'The Bible' didn't exist until more than 300 years after Christ left the earth to sit at the right hand of God.

When Jesus walked the Earth with his disciples, scripture existed, but it was most certainly not 'The Bible.'

Scriptures then, which in essence are the same thing. Thanks!

 

[Willtor]

Scriptures then, which in essence are the same thing. Thanks!

I think ChaosChristian is pointing to a change in the way the Scriptures are viewed, now that they exist (almost exclusively) in codex form. They are thought of as a single document, rather than a set of documents that are connected by a single, consistent thread; "the Word of God." As such, arguments like, "if we treat Genesis as myth, it calls the literal interpretation of the whole Bible into question," are possible. Of course, the argument is silly because the style of any particular document was never not in question. But the idea that the whole must be treated as a single document, not only in theological truth (the light of the Word), but also in literary style is, of course, silly, when we realize that the Bible is actually a compilation of the Scriptures.

 

[chaoschristian]

Scriptures then, which in essence are the same thing. Thanks!

You are welcome.

Scripture, when speaking in the context of 'it was good enough for Jesus' is most certainly not the the same thing as 'The Bible' in essence or otherwise. The scripture that we refer to as 'The New Testament' didn't exist. The set known as scripture, for Jesus, would have been 'The Old Testament.'

 

[Proselyte]

You are welcome.

Scripture, when speaking in the context of 'it was good enough for Jesus' is most certainly not the the same thing as 'The Bible' in essence or otherwise. The scripture that we refer to as 'The New Testament' didn't exist. The set known as scripture, for Jesus, would have been 'The Old Testament.'

Yes, but I do feel that Jesus was certainly aware of the scriptures being written during his time, about him, as well the Old Testament which he so often referred to. (Hence the Bible statement hehe)
I hope that is more clear, which was not the main focus of my original post.

 

[chaoschristian]

I think ChaosChristian is pointing to a change in the way the Scriptures are viewed, now that they exist (almost exclusively) in codex form. They are thought of as a single document, rather than a set of documents that are connected by a single, consistent thread; "the Word of God." As such, arguments like, "if we treat Genesis as myth, it calls the literal interpretation of the whole Bible into question," are possible. Of course, the argument is silly because the style of any particular document was never not in question. But the idea that the whole must be treated as a single document, not only in theological truth (the light of the Word), but also in literary style is, of course, silly, when we realize that the Bible is actually a compilation of the Scriptures.

That and the fact that the last time I had a real-world encounter with someone saying "The Bible was good enough for Jesus" she was actually referring to her preferred English translation (and dead serious too.)

Scripture is a collection. It is tied together with a golden thread, but we must be careful to be sure that we don't become entangled in own, less glorious, threads.

Which leads me to 2 Timothy 3:16, which will have to wait because I'm desperately trying to get to sleep (but not having great success.)

 

[Proselyte]

I think ChaosChristian is pointing to a change in the way the Scriptures are viewed, now that they exist (almost exclusively) in codex form. They are thought of as a single document, rather than a set of documents that are connected by a single, consistent thread; "the Word of God." As such, arguments like, "if we treat Genesis as myth, it calls the literal interpretation of the whole Bible into question," are possible. Of course, the argument is silly because the style of any particular document was never not in question. But the idea that the whole must be treated as a single document, not only in theological truth (the light of the Word), but also in literary style is, of course, silly, when we realize that the Bible is actually a compilation of the Scriptures.

Thanks!

 

[chaoschristian]

Yes, but I do feel that Jesus was certainly aware of the scriptures being written during his time, about him, as well the Old Testament which he so often referred to. (Hence the Bible statement hehe)
I hope that is more clear, which was not the main focus of my original post.

Clearly understood. But I couldn't begin to address your other points until we cleared the field regarding 'The Bible.'

 

[Willtor]

Thanks!

No prob. In general, I tend to think that viewing the Bible as the codex I read at night and take to Church on Sunday, and the Scriptures as the set of documents contained therein, is a boon in hermeneutics.

 

[Proselyte]

Clearly understood. But I couldn't begin to address your other points until we cleared the field regarding 'The Bible.'

Acknowledged.

 

[Proselyte]

No prob. In general, I tend to think that viewing the Bible as the codex I read at night and take to Church on Sunday, and the Scriptures as the set of documents contained therein, is a boon in hermeneutics.

That is a good way to look at it. The Bible (Scriptures) can be so personal yet completely revered at the same time.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

The Bible was good enough for Jesus. Jesus and key supporters all turn to the Bible to answer questions that people have. They may not be the answers some want but...

Let's have a look:

You do realize that the bible did not exist in the time of Jesus. Even what we now know as the Old Testament was not in it's current form at that time. Jesus never carried a bible, nor any other book around with Him either.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What really gets to me is in a forum called Origins Theology there is virtually no discussion of theology.

last time i tried to initiate a decent theological discussion i was informed that the statement "God spoke" is certainly not an anthropomorphic metaphor, at that time i figured the general theological education here is roughly comparable to that in science and ceased the effort to discuss theology at anything but the most basic level. If there is no agreement on such a simple issue can you even imagine the diversity over something difficult?

 

[Proselyte]

You do realize that the bible did not exist in the time of Jesus. Even what we now know as the Old Testament was not in it's current form at that time. Jesus never carried a bible, nor any other book around with Him either.

There were the scriptures that composed the Old Testament, as well as scripture being written of Jesus' events. When I say Bible, i refer to these scriptures.

I appreciate the comments guys, maybe we can hear some of your views rather than semantics on Bible or Scriptures.

 

[Willtor]

There were the scriptures that composed the Old Testament, as well as scripture being written of Jesus' events. When I say Bible, i refer to these scriptures.

I appreciate the comments guys, maybe we can hear some of your views rather than semantics on Bible or Scriptures.

Actually, semantic issues are really close to the heart of dogmatics. What is it that we mean when we say, "Word of God?" What does it mean when Jesus says, "I and the Father are one?" In what contexts do we treat the Scriptures as a collection, and in what contexts do we treat them as a single text?

A Christian is always asking, "what does this mean?" "Why is this so?" "What are the implications?" Semantics plays a big part in this.

 

[Proselyte]

Actually, semantic issues are really close to the heart of dogmatics. What is it that we mean when we say, "Word of God?" What does it mean when Jesus says, "I and the Father are one?" In what contexts do we treat the Scriptures as a collection, and in what contexts do we treat them as a single text?

A Christian is always asking, "what does this mean?" "Why is this so?" "What are the implications?" Semantics plays a big part in this.

Hehe I gotcha.
It just seems we have gotten off track of what the original poster intended, because I said Bible instead of Scriptures. (Though I quoted Timothy regarding Scriptures, which is what I was implying when saying Bible...since I don't have a nice set of ancient scriptures in my computer room )