• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Featured Do you affirm the fundamentals?

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by Tallguy88, Nov 30, 2017.

  1. Yes

    42 vote(s)
    67.7%
  2. No

    20 vote(s)
    32.3%
  1. Paidiske

    Paidiske Clara bonam audax Supporter

    +14,214
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Oz, I was once a creationist. I am no longer. I was and remain, though, very firmly and devoutly a Christian. Darwin's own personal journey is not necessarily that of any other person.

    I am trained in both science and theology and can discuss either on its own terms. But one thing essential to clarity in either field is knowing where the boundaries of the field are. Science cannot speak of God. Theology cannot explain away science.

    I stand before God without excuse, indeed, and without shame. I know that I am His and I own Him as my Lord forever.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  2. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +627
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    That's not what Charles Darwin thought. See my post #159.

    It's not what Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking conclude.

    Oz
     
  3. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +627
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    Where in Scripture do you find God using the theory of evolution as a means of creating the universe and all living things?

    You say: 'Science cannot speak of God. Theology cannot explain away science'. That's your opinion, assertion. You provided no evidence. The either-or statement is not helpful in this kind of discussion.
     
  4. Paidiske

    Paidiske Clara bonam audax Supporter

    +14,214
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Why would I need to?

    I'm not being flippant. Scripture is not given that we might understand the science of it all. It's given that we might understand God and our relationship to him. Scripture doesn't need to tell us anything not relevant to that.

    I think defining what we're dealing with isn't just helpful, it's essential to being able to have a clear conversation.

    Do you think what I said is wrong? Can science speak of God? Can theology dismiss the claims of science? Why?
     
  5. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +627
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    Of course you don't need to respond to where Scripture teaches creation by evolution. You have free will, so you can choose to ignore the specifics, but I thought that issue was in the mix of our discussions.

    'All Scripture' is profitable for a number of things is how the Scripture states it. 'Essential' is what you want, when God chose 'profitable'. I'll stick with His view.

    Can science speak of God? Of course it can! Any consistent scientist can go from the universe had a beginning (as science demonstrates) to agreeing with how God stated it. That cannot be testable by experiment, but it can be demonstrated by historical science and the implications of design in the universe.

    Can theology dismiss the claims of science? Do you mean empirical/experimental science or historical science?

    Of course, theology can dismiss science because of free will. The more profitable method would be to examine the evidence in an holistic way, biblically and scientifically.

    Oz
     
  6. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +627
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    In this article in Scientific American, Darwin on a Godless Creation: "It's like confessing to a murder", it stated that,

    Hesitatingly, he [Charles Darwin] had revealed to a few other natural scientists his godless theory, over a period of nearly two decades: "It is as if one were confessing to a murder," he wrote to his closest confidante, the botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker.​

    The sub-title of this article is, '200 years after the birth of Charles Darwin, his theory of evolution still clashes with the creationist beliefs of some organized religions. For him personally, it meant the end of his belief in creation by God'.

    Darwin's intent was to get God out of the creation equation and for 200 years this theory has been perpetrated as if it were fact in classrooms around the world. How do I know? I was exposed to such teaching in schools and universities in the USA and Australia.

    You know that is not true because of the ardent, overt evolutionists who not only support evolutionary theory but also are atheists or agnostics: Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan, Daniel Dennett and Stephen Hawking, being just a few examples.

    'Knowing where the boundaries of the field are' seems to be your way of keeping them separate. A Christian worldview evaluates science from a biblical perspective. The two cannot be kept separate. All disciplines must come under the Lordship of Christ. I don't bow the knew to science or theology. I bow to Him, Lord of all.

    'So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.' (1 Cor 10:31 NIV) applies to the disciplines of science as well as theology. Therefore, I cannot support your maxim, 'One thing essential to clarity in either field is knowing where the boundaries of the field are'. Sound science and theology, from this perspective, means that all of life is incorporated in a Christian worldview.

    Oz
     
  7. Hawkins

    Hawkins Member Supporter

    +229
    Canada
    Christian
    Married
    You have to ask the Jews back in Jesus time. The gospel Matthew is mostly addressing what are circling among the Jews back then.
     
  8. Rose Highley

    Rose Highley New Member

    7
    +0
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    If we wouldn't believe that we can't be considered Christians.
     
  9. bling

    bling Regular Member Supporter

    +1,077
    Non-Denom
    Married
    There is Godly type Love and all the other types of love. Godly type Love has no "logic" to it since you get nothing back from Loving others this way and really you get only more sacrificing of self if that is what you want. Why does the "secular person" love you and others (what are they looking for in return "a better world" as an example?)
     
  10. Philip_B

    Philip_B all shall be well and all shall be well and ... Supporter

    +4,666
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    OK. Paul did use a scribe. In evidence I submit Romans 16:22, and Galatians 6:11. We know that the materials they used meant that writing was somewhat slower than today, and nowhere nearly as convenient.

    I think the letter to Philemon is a great way to meet Paul, and don't forget the check Colossians 4:7-9. Paul is a human being, and he tells us that, and I think you need to engage with the humanity of Paul to embrace his theology.

    Paul wrote to Churches to address pastoral concerns he had for them. I don't think that the letter to the Romans was composed as a theology lecture, but as a letter to address pastoral concerns about the Church in Rome. Nero was the emperor of Rome at the time and Rome was not altogether lovely

    Nero's wife, Poppaea Sabina, died in 65, supposedly kicked to death by Nero. In the beginning of 66, Nero married Statilia Messalina. Later that year or in 67 he married Sporus (a young boy he favored, had castrated, and married), who was said to bear a remarkable resemblance to Poppaea.​

    To the Church in the community obsessed with power and importance, filled with lawyers and all the hangers on Paul writes about the things they must confront:

    I urge you, brothers and sisters, to keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offences, in opposition to the teaching that you have learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I want you to be wise in what is good, and guileless in what is evil. The God of peace will shortly crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.​

    As he writes to cosmopolitan Rome he writes about the things that concern them, including the difference between the Jews and the Gentiles. This, I would argue is a significant issue for Paul himself, and hence what I have described as the internal dialogue, or if you like the conversation between Saul and Paul, everything he is by birth in conversation with everything he has worked for as apostle to the gentiles.

    As it so happens I think very highly of Paul's theology, so much so that I think it is very important not to make him a non-person but simply a vassal used by God to convey a message to us. Paul writes in context, part of that context is what he understand of the people he is writing to, and part of that context is his own background and aspirations. I think it is of great value to understand this as part of understanding what Paul is on about.

    The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
     
  11. Philip_B

    Philip_B all shall be well and all shall be well and ... Supporter

    +4,666
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    I think that evolution is trying to address the question 'how did we get here' whilst the creation account addresses the question of 'who put us here', and you are welcome to a view that sees those answers as somewhat divorced from one another, however it need not be so.

    The principle of entropy (that everything slows down, falls apart, corrodes, and dissembles) which is abundantly clear in the universe seems to be strongly counter the arguments for the theory of evolution, so it is quite valid to understand that in the theory of evolution itself there lies a profound argument to understand the creative force of the universe, whom we name as God.

    I don't believe that evolution tries to get God out of the picture, however I do believe that some have seized upon the theory and tried to tell the story of evolution on the one hand a 'fact' and on the other hand as 'proof' that God does not exist. To hold either of those propositions is necessarily neither true nor false, for ultimately they are belief statements.

    In the beginning when God was already creating ...
     
  12. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    +18,036
    United States
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    In the same place where it mentions germ theory as the cause of disease. Or the heliocentric model of the solar system, or the topography of Norway.

    Expecting the Bible to mention these things is an inherently flawed approach to Holy Scripture. The Bible isn't a compendium of everything; it is that collection of writings which the Church has received as holy and inspired of God through which God communicates His Word to His Church--that Word being Jesus Christ our Lord.

    -CryptoLutheran
     
  13. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    +18,036
    United States
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    N.T. Wright once spoke of Genesis 1 as a "Temple story". That the story is framed to describe God creating the House in which He chooses to dwell, "the heavens and the earth", and it is framed by God creating and organizing that House, and at the very conclusion of that story God creates human beings and puts them in the world to bear His image, and to also care for His world--and then He rests, He takes His seat as the One who inhabits the heavens and the earth.

    And when we look through the lens of Christ and the Incarnation, we see how God who said not to make any graven images of Himself has, instead, given His image in Christ. Human beings are the image of God, not carvings of wood, stone, or gold, and in Christ the image of God which is marred by the Fall is healed and restored. God's "Temple story" isn't finished, it includes us and indeed has its conclusion at the End, when Christ returns, the dead are raised, and God makes all things new:

    "And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. ... And the One who was seated on the throne said, 'See, I am making all things new.' And He said, 'Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true.' Then he said to me, 'It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give water as a gift from the spring of the water of life. Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be My children. ... I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb." - Revelation 21:2, 5-7, 22

    -CryptoLutheran
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  14. gordonhooker

    gordonhooker Franciscan tssf Supporter

    +1,040
    Anglican
    Married
    As a child I was taught right from wrong that would be a good starting point.
     
  15. gordonhooker

    gordonhooker Franciscan tssf Supporter

    +1,040
    Anglican
    Married

    Well go and knock on their door and discuss it with them, I have no intention of getting into a discussion about creation v evolution as I don’t believe they are mutually exclusive, and quite frankly trying to argue either side of those extremes is like swimming up a water fall.
     
  16. Open Heart

    Open Heart Well-Known Member

    +4,330
    United States
    Seeker
    Celibate
    Ah, I see. Then my answer would be, no, I am not a Protestant Fundamentalist. There are places where Scripture contradicts itself.
     
  17. Radagast

    Radagast comes and goes Supporter

    +9,020
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    But I would expect you to endorse at least:

    2. That Jesus Christ is God.
    3. That Jesus was born to a virgin.
    5. That Jesus literally died, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and will return to earth.


    And the original "fundamentalists" were a little different from some modern ones.
     
  18. Radagast

    Radagast comes and goes Supporter

    +9,020
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    I used to think that before I understood entropy properly.
     
  19. Paidiske

    Paidiske Clara bonam audax Supporter

    +14,214
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    You asked "Where in Scripture do you find God using the theory of evolution as a means of creating the universe and all living things?" My point was similar to the one ViaCrucis just made in post #172. I don't expect Scripture to teach me science, as that is not its purpose.

    That is not science speaking of God. I can look through a telescope, or a microscope, and praise God for the marvels of creation; but neither telescope nor microscope nor any other scientific tool or method will allow me to test the hypothesis that God exists. When a scientist comes to a personal belief in God, that scientist has integrated science and theology; science has not spoken of God.

    That last is precisely my point. We cannot take the claims of science and say, but that doesn't accord with my reading of (insert Scripture passage here) so it can't be right.

    Galileo's 'two books principle' is useful here. God is the author of two books; Scripture and nature; and since God does not lie, when properly understood, they cannot contradict one another. But when we seem to find Scripture and nature in conflict in what they say, we need to be open to the possibility that our understanding of either is flawed, not assume that our knowledge of Scripture is always perfect.

    No, I don't want to keep them separate, as if they have nothing to say to one another. But they are different, with different foundations, methods and purposes, and in order to usefully integrate them we need to be clear about what we're working with at any given point.

    I must say, Oz, it sounds to me as if you're edging towards saying that people who accept evolution aren't really Christian, or at least not very good Christians, and I really don't appreciate it. I thought better of you, that you would be willing to treat others with more generosity of spirit.
     
  20. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +8,202
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    The definition of that article is "Propitiation is a two-part act that involves appeasing the wrath of an offended person and being reconciled to him."

    I have no problem with that. God is infinitely offended by our sins, and we cannot offer an infinite remedy. Jesus, being sinless, more so being God Himself, can offer an infinite remedy.

    What that article did not go into was the nuts and bolts of the interaction between the Father and the Son in the propitiation. It was all about how WE need propitiation, that the Son does it, but not how. Did the Father hate the Son? Was the Son damned? The article does not go into those questions which are central to my qualification that I cannot accept penal substitution but can accept vicarious atonement. Those are passed over in silence.

    By penal substitution I mean that Jesus received the hatred for sins that the Father rightfully has for such infinite transgression as defying the Holy God. That Jesus was damned in our place. I just don't buy that. Jesus did pay a price for us, a steep price, but not that of being hated by the Father, of being damned in our place. That was Chris' position, that temporarily Jesus the eternal Son of the Father was hated by His Father and actually damned for a short time.

    Jesus paid our debts. His payment substitutes for ours, which we cannot make because we cannot pay the infinite price needed to satisfy our own debts. But Jesus did not pay in kind, one deserved damnation paid off by another damnation. Jesus was the obedient Son of the Father, love expressed in obedience, and love reciprocated, which paid our debts according to Romans 5: 18-19.
     
Loading...