Faith Presumptions and science

[SBG]

To accept Jesus as the True Son of God, you cannot get around the fact that Jesus is the True Son of God because the Holy Spirit conceived Him.

 

[Vance]

To accept Jesus as the True Son of God, you cannot get around the fact that Jesus is the True Son of God because the Holy Spirit conceived Him.

Yes, that is how I get there as well, but that does not answer the question. What if a person DOES accept Jesus as the True Son of God, does, indeed, accept the gift of redemption and accept Jesus as the Lord of his life, but does not believe in the virgin birth? What then?

You can jump up and down and shout "how can you possibly accept Jesus is the true Son of God without believing in the virgin birth?!", but if he does, he does. You can say all day long that "in order to believe X, you MUST believe Y", but if someone comes along and believes X as strongly as you do, but does not believe Y, then your statement is proven false.

This happens a lot in YEC thinking in particular. They say that YEC'ism is necessary for properly theology, but when pressed, we find that the issues that are the "essentials" they are talking about are a couple of steps removed. It ends up being, "well, if you don't accept X, then how can you believe Y, and this will then lead to Z, which is an essential of salvation."

Personally, I believe in the virgin birth, and I do think it is a basic tenet of the Christian faith, but I am not going to say that someone who does not believe in it is going to Hell. I think it was about 85% of the clergy and ministers in England (Catholic, Anglican and other Protestant) did not accept the virgin birth, IIRC. I am not sure I can sit in judgment on them and say they are all bound for Hell.

But getting back to the point at issue in these forums, we are not talking about issues like the virgin birth or resurrection. Almost every TE here believes those whole-heartedly. Again, you are raising a phantom menace. Those who believe differently in those areas do not do so because they are Theisitic Evolutionists, which is shown by the fact that almost every TE here would disagree with them on those points. There is no nexus between the two.

 

[]RiSeN[]

Get a room you two!

 

[Vance]

Personally, Fallen, I agree with your position entirely. This creation/evolution debate should not be something that we make an issue over, and I wish that the Creationist ministries were not out there making it an issue. I wish that it was not brought up in the pulpit and the school boardroom in a dogmatic fashion. But it is, and the rest of Christianity which is on the other side of this issue needs to make sure there is "equal time" given to both views within Christianity, both internally, and in the public eye.

As it is, TE's keep their debate and discussion about this issue limited to forums and discussions like this, and don't develop ministries with books, tapes, lecture series, and many other things you can obtain with a small contribution to the cause.

 

[]RiSeN[]

Personaly i believe in whats in the bible. Call me crazy. Genesis is where i start reading. If what happened before then isnt in the bible, its because its useless information, as the bible is a guide for us from God for our day-to-day lives, not a historical chronicle(lol, it rymes). If someone wants to know about what might have happened before Genesis, maybe check out "The land before time" series, 1 through 11. Thats a joke. But its my way of telling you where i think it measures up on the importance scale. That and i think Darwins version of evolution is blasphemy.

 

[]RiSeN[]

Dont either of you bite on my last sentence,lol. Im not in the mood, lol.

 

[1denomination]

Personaly i believe in whats in the bible.

.

If someone wants to know about what might have happened before Genesis, maybe check out "The land before time" series, 1 through 11. Thats a joke. But its my way of telling you where i think it measures up on the importance scale..

That and i think Darwins version of evolution is blasphemy.

I'm starting to notice a pattern here.

 

[Vance]

Well, I am not sure exactly what you mean by "Darwin's version of evolution", but if you mean one that excludes God, then I am with 1denomination is saying

 

[]RiSeN[]

Good Lord, i think we've made history in this forum. Good job brothers!

 

[PaladinValer]

I guess it is a great thing that evolution doesn't exclude God, right Vance?

 

[Vance]

I guess it is a great thing that evolution doesn't exclude God, right Vance?

Not when it is "rightly divided".

Just as we must rightly divide the word of truth in Scripture, we must do likewise regarding all other concepts and teachings, including scientific conclusions. In this case, if we rightly divide the scientific explanation of the diversity of the species called evolution from the purely naturalistic philosophy which some associate with it, I think we can reach the truth.

 

[PaladinValer]

I couldn't agree more.

Science is not a threat to Christianity, though it shouldn't simply be ignored and/or blindly accepted in terms of its affect of Christian faith, doctrine, and understanding of salvation. This is something that TEs, be they of conservative, moderate, or liberal bent, can fully and truly agree on.

Naturalistic philosophical evolution is indeed contrary to Christianity, for it simply negates God due to its Atheistic bias.

Luckily, evolution in its actual status as a scientific theory makes it completely neutral in terms of religion; it doesn't prove it right or wrong, being a truly scientific approach that cannot give true weight to what is "moral" or "spiritual truth."

Since our theistic evolution belief neither excludes what has been found by science due to evidence and example nor does it negate or nullify a belief in God, it is a rational, faithful medium to which evolution can be approached intelligently, faithfully, and warmly.

 

[]RiSeN[]

If you want to call "evolution", God "taking his time" to get to Genesis, ok. "Taking his time" is fine, if you mean that His creation was in a constantly forward proccess of addition, in that he kept adding to it fully matured, independent decisions which could be classified as "components" say for example; the law of gravity. I would not however, agree that God was indecisive or indefinite in his proccess. That He was somewhat unsure of His actions or destination, and would let it, creation, take its own unguided course somehow, would suggest a fissure in God's All-knowingness. It would incite a lack of direction by fault of insufficiant knowledge. It would question His ability to rule over us as His creation, just as Adam did. But thats just what i think.

 

[Vance]

If you want to call "evolution", God "taking his time" to get to Genesis, ok. "Taking his time" is fine, if you mean that His creation was in a constantly forward proccess of addition, in that he kept adding to it fully matured, independent decisions which could be classified as "components" say for example; the law of gravity. I would not however, agree that God was indecisive or indefinite in his proccess. That He was somewhat unsure of His actions or destination, and would let it, creation, take its own unguided course somehow, would suggest a fissure in God's All-knowingness. It would incite a lack of direction by fault of insufficiant knowledge. It would question His ability to rule over us as His creation, just as Adam did. But thats just what i think.

Evolution is not just "God taking His time", but simply a natural process like every other natural process He put in place on this planet. There is nothing at all about the acceptance of evolution as a natural process created by God which would indicate God was indecisive or indefinite. God created a process that works, and works very well. The fact that He would let it run in a natural way does not mean He is not in control of it.

Consider the process of photosynthesis He created. Does He micromanage each aspect of every chemical reaction that goes on, or did He create a process that can run on its own? Look at the process of weather patterns. Does God micromanage every breeze, or did He create natural processes which result in the wind and the rain in a natural way? Is the fact that such breezes may happen in a random manner mean that God is not in control, not in charge?

 

[]RiSeN[]

Evolution is not just "God taking His time", but simply a natural process like every other natural process He put in place on this planet. There is nothing at all about the acceptance of evolution as a natural process created by God which would indicate God was indecisive or indefinite. God created a process that works, and works very well. The fact that He would let it run in a natural way does not mean He is not in control of it.

Consider the process of photosynthesis He created. Does He micromanage each aspect of every chemical reaction that goes on, or did He create a process that can run on its own? Look at the process of weather patterns. Does God micromanage every breeze, or did He create natural processes which result in the wind and the rain in a natural way? Is the fact that such breezes may happen in a random manner mean that God is not in control, not in charge?

The things you talk of are governed by 'laws'. Evolution is not one of those 'laws'. You are using it as a process.

 

[Vance]

The things you talk of are governed by 'laws'. Evolution is not one of those 'laws'. You are using it as a process.

Photosynthesis is not a law. Meiosis and dozens of other natural processes are not laws. They are not governed by laws any more than evolution would be governed by a law. Evolution is simply a natural process that works at the genetic level. Keep in mind that even "Creation Scientists" agree that evolution happens, at the genetic level, very much as real scientists say it does. They just don't think it can create the "macro" changes postulated by the theory of evolution.

But, really, this is getting a bit far afield from the original post. Any thoughts on that?

 

[]RiSeN[]

I am in complete agreement with the sense of your OP. This is what atheists and even TE's get agrevated by, my 'faith presumption' trumps all else. Especialy when they stand under the umbrella of science and point and tell me im standing in the rain. When i speak of evolution i do not mean i dont believe 'the way things work'. The line gets blurred when an atheist is debating evolution because as he does not belive in God, science must become his absolute, science is his god, it must no longer only tell him how and why things work, but how they came to be, an incomplete absolute when talking of creation.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

meh, i still can't fathom how God called creation "good" if through evolution it was filled with death and destruction before sin entered the picture.

my issue with splitting God away from nature/reality and saying His laws are what make things work is that it seems to be to be pushing away from Christianity (John 1:3 specifically) and towards deism. Jesus is the "law" that created everything and keeps it going.

not sure what to say on the gent who thinks Jesus wasn't virgin born but still somehow had it in Him to be fully God and therefor able to live a sinless life and through His death atone for the sins of others... where does his "faith presumption" kick in with this scenario? ie, "Since Jesus was virgin born He was not affected by original sin" vs. "If Jesus was not virgin born how did he escape original sin? If the miracle was that God removed original sin from this single individual (instead of the miracle of a virgin birth) why would He not remove it from every other non-virgin born human and dodge the need to kill His Son?"

 

[PaladinValer]

The Hebrew word translated as "good" doesn't mean anything moral, but something that is perfect. Whether we like it or not, what that is born, must die. That's a part of life.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

The Hebrew word translated as "good" doesn't mean anything moral, but something that is perfect. Whether we like it or not, what that is born, must die. That's a part of life.

since not everyone that was born has died i'm not sure this system can be called perfect. (not that i'd call that much death and destruction perfect, but that's using a different definition of perfect)