Peanut gallery:Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy

[shernren]

Of course but I would expect Christians with differences to at least understand the real bases for YEC conviction and how it's inextricably linked to doctrinal issues. That is to say that if you can't accept the fact that YEC is a sound doctrinal position and why is vital, otherwise I am going to refrain from discussing doctrinal issues with a point of view I consider deliberately divisive and contentious.

If you expect us to "understand the real bases for YEC conviction", that's certainly a reasonable expectation. But which real bases for YEC conviction? You said "these convictions don't come from a literal reading of Genesis", but I can't see you saying that on behalf of every YEC who has ever lived. Answers in Genesis would disagree with you, as would vossler most likely. You root your YECism in (your understanding of) Pauline theology. yeshuasavedme roots his YECism in 1 Enoch. ClearSky based at least part of it in open theism.

Which of these are the "real bases" for YEC conviction?

Your second expectation was for us to "accept the fact that YEC is a sound doctrinal position". And with all due respect, I don't think you're ever going to see TEs do that. If I thought YEC was a sound doctrinal position, I would be a YEC. It's precisely because I don't think YEC is a sound doctrinal position that I'm not one.

And I back this up by referring to the Scriptures at every step:

That's the one thing that TEs don't get about YEC, these convictions don't come from a literal reading of Genesis. It's the New Testament treatment of the Old Testament narratives as history that is at the heart of the issue.

Indeed. Let's see how, at one point, the New Testament treats the Old Testament narratives. The Psalms has a passage describing the Israelites' forty-year wilderness sojourn thus:

Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts,
as at Meribah,
as on the day at Massah in the wilderness,
when your fathers put me to the test
and put me to the proof,
though they had seen my work.
For forty years I loathed that generation and said,
"They are a people who go astray in their heart,
and they have not known my ways."
Therefore I swore in my wrath,
"They shall not enter my rest."
[Psa 95:7-11 ESV]
​

The author of Hebrews makes use of this psalm in exhorting the church of his day:

Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says,
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion,
on the day of testing in the wilderness,
where your fathers put me to the test
and saw my works for forty years.
Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said,
'They always go astray in their heart;
they have not known my ways.'
As I swore in my wrath,
'They shall not enter my rest.'"
[Heb 3:7-11 ESV]
​

Psalms has:

- seen My works.
- For forty years
- I was provoked with that generation.

Hebrews has:

- seen My works
- for forty years
- Therefore
- I was provoked with that generation.

The author of Hebrews doesn't even quote Scripture accurately, does he? His citation of Psalms gives the impression that God showed the Israelites His works for forty years, and when they rejected Him, then He was provoked (as the insertion of "therefore" shows). This is a markedly different description from both the Psalm itself and the records of the Torah that it refers to.

It is not even that the author of Hebrews is making an unconscious mistake:

For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
[Heb 3:16-17 ESV]
​

So the author knows the "original version" of the story: that God was angry with the Israelites throughout the forty years - indeed, that the very period of forty years was a great demonstration of His wrath. And yet the author feels entirely free to play fast and loose with both the story of the Scriptures and their very words when it suits his point.

So yes, mark. What is the New Testament treatment of the Old Testament narratives as history? And can you back it up with anything that the New Testament actually says?

 

[mark kennedy]

I think Mark weakened his position by supposing evolution is contrary to the notion of Adam as real person. There is nothing in the theory that would deny we are all descended from two people God chose to found mankind.

Except that Paul and Moses said otherwise.

And of course, promoting justification by faith alone undermines his stated support for the Bible as God's word:

You lost me, justification by faith alone is as Biblical as it gets and I strongly defended the doctrine against a Catholic theology student who applauded my defense of it and extended the right hand of fellowship. We had serious differences on the issue of merit and these issues were addressed on both sides. In the end we disagreed on some of the finer points regarding merit but never rejected one another's views as unbiblical.

James 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

I have elaborated on this passage from James repeatedly and explained how works were the result of grace. I even defended the need to bear fruit at the heart of the argument and see no reason to defend it here except to say I do have an answer for that. Of course faith without works is dead and every tree that fails to bear fruit is cast into the fire and burned. The central issue is grace and it's grace that empowers us for service. The people James is addressing were mistreating fellow believers, James is saying they had failed to fulfill the royal law.

I would not have used the arguments Shernen used, but he countered Mark's assertions quite effectively.

He simply pretended I did not make them in the end, that was how it ended in my estimation. He could have made some pretty good points had he stuck to his original line of argumentation but he instead resorted to ad hominem remarks that simply were not reflected in the actual debate. I don't know if he lost confidence in them or just ran out of time but saying I failed to address the theological points was simply false.

I was surprised to see that Mark asserted that nothing was random with God. Randomness is certainly part of His creation.

It's seemingly random, God does not play dice with molecular mechanisms, it just seems like it.

Ecclesiastes 9:11 I returned and saw under the sun that—

The race is not to the swift,
Nor the battle to the strong,
Nor bread to the wise,
Nor riches to men of understanding,
Nor favor to men of skill;
But time and chance happen to them all.

Which makes it meaningless. What had meaning for Solomon in Ecclesiastes?

As Cardinal Ratzinger writes:
According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).
Communion and Stewardship: Report of the International Theological Commission

The flip side to providence is God's intervention where he acts in time and space doing what only God can do. Jesus appealed to this with regards to the work he did in the name of the Father and the special creation of Adam and Eve is such a miracle. You must understand, YEC is based on New Testament conviction and when core doctrine is being dismissed suspicions must arise.

There is a reason why so many creationists shun these debates and perhaps they are right.

 

[mark kennedy]

If you expect us to "understand the real bases for YEC conviction", that's certainly a reasonable expectation. But which real bases for YEC conviction? You said "these convictions don't come from a literal reading of Genesis", but I can't see you saying that on behalf of every YEC who has ever lived. Answers in Genesis would disagree with you, as would vossler most likely. You root your YECism in (your understanding of) Pauline theology. yeshuasavedme roots his YECism in 1 Enoch. ClearSky based at least part of it in open theism.

Which of these are the "real bases" for YEC conviction?

Don't get it twisted, the New Testament is clear on these points. I am very familiar with AIG and I understand their views perfectly. I don't know what to tell you about what many of my creationist brethren have determined but I know that YEC is a New Testament perspective on Genesis.

Your second expectation was for us to "accept the fact that YEC is a sound doctrinal position". And with all due respect, I don't think you're ever going to see TEs do that. If I thought YEC was a sound doctrinal position, I would be a YEC. It's precisely because I don't think YEC is a sound doctrinal position that I'm not one.

I have yet to see you seriously defend your views Biblically. Your discussion of the Scriptures are indicating to me you simply defend your philosophical views and the Bible is a secondary source. YEC has solid doctrinal foundations and to argue otherwise betrays a deep bias that I find flawed and fallacious for a lot of reasons, the most important being doctrinal. Whether or not I continue to discuss them with you is entirely up to you.

And I back this up by referring to the Scriptures at every step:

You simply did not make a case based on a sound exposition of the texts. Then when it came right down to it you ignored the carefully prepared theological discussions saying I failed to present an argument.

Indeed. Let's see how, at one point, the New Testament treats the Old Testament narratives. The Psalms has a passage describing the Israelites' forty-year wilderness sojourn thus:

Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts,
as at Meribah,
as on the day at Massah in the wilderness,
when your fathers put me to the test
and put me to the proof,
though they had seen my work.
For forty years I loathed that generation and said,
"They are a people who go astray in their heart,
and they have not known my ways."
Therefore I swore in my wrath,
"They shall not enter my rest."
[Psa 95:7-11 ESV]
​

The author of Hebrews makes use of this psalm in exhorting the church of his day:

Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says,
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion,
on the day of testing in the wilderness,
where your fathers put me to the test
and saw my works for forty years.
Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said,
'They always go astray in their heart;
they have not known my ways.'
As I swore in my wrath,
'They shall not enter my rest.'"
[Heb 3:7-11 ESV]
​

Psalms has:

- seen My works.
- For forty years
- I was provoked with that generation.

Hebrews has:

- seen My works
- for forty years
- Therefore
- I was provoked with that generation.

The author of Hebrews doesn't even quote Scripture accurately, does he? His citation of Psalms gives the impression that God showed the Israelites His works for forty years, and when they rejected Him, then He was provoked (as the insertion of "therefore" shows). This is a markedly different description from both the Psalm itself and the records of the Torah that it refers to.

Hebrews has echoed the Exodus and the wilderness wandering and dovetails perfectly with the Psalms. Moses complained often that they were a stiff necked and rebellious people and this is echoed in the Psalms and Hebrews. There is no serious issue here and your discussion sounds more like redactory criticism then it does sound Biblical exposition. I think you would do well to learn more about the theology involved before you start making this kind of a sweeping indictment.

It is not even that the author of Hebrews is making an unconscious mistake:

For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
[Heb 3:16-17 ESV]
​

So the author knows the "original version" of the story: that God was angry with the Israelites throughout the forty years - indeed, that the very period of forty years was a great demonstration of His wrath. And yet the author feels entirely free to play fast and loose with both the story of the Scriptures and their very words when it suits his point.

If you had a point there I missed it entirely, how you handle the Scriptures disturbs me greatly.

So yes, mark. What is the New Testament treatment of the Old Testament narratives as history? And can you back it up with anything that the New Testament actually says?

I think you are drifting aimlessly, that's what I think. What you hear in the passage of Hebrews is the Holy Spirit warning New Testament Christians not to harden their heart against the Gospel.

I realize you don't believe I have a dimes worth of academic or intellectual capitol but I could have helped you with this. I can't do that unless you realize that you will get no where with this kind of literary criticism.

Times running out and my patience along with it. I think deep down you really are trying to understand this and I would be happy to help you but I won't contend with this presumption that creationists are intellectual lightweights. Now I'll take a hit here and there but if you think for one minute that I don't know the Scriptures or that you are somehow better grounded you are going lose something you might need.

I have studied the Scriptures most of my adult life and I know where you are making your mistakes. You are failing to make fundamental insights into the passages you are dealing with and they would not be that hard to correct, if you were listening.

I know you don't believe me but time is running out and I'm just waiting for this to run it's course.

 

[BreadAlone]

MOD HAT​

Thread Closed for a cool down. If ya'll are still interested in 24 hrs, you can come back. Otherwise MOVE ON. The bickering is getting annoying . .

 

[BreadAlone]

MOD HAT​

Thread Reopened. If the fighting continues, I'm gonna start Reporting stuff, and the thread may be closed permanently. Just a fair heads-up . . play nice

 

[mark kennedy]

I just wanted to add that while I'm critical of TE I'm only contentious when I feel doctrinal issues are at stake. I wouldn't have a real problem with TE if it stopped with Genesis 1-11. As a student and practitioner of Christian Apologetics I sometimes lose patience with modernist interpretations. I delight in finding well grounded individuals who affirm sound doctrine yet continue to confront YEC critically and fairly.

To be honest, I sometimes find the Old Testament confusing and disturbing, especially Judges. The Exodus has some pretty sever judgments and the Revelation, if taken literally, indicates terrible wrath for the enemies of God. The point is I don't have any real problem with honest skepticism and I happen to like the intellectual vigor of TEs even when I'm frustrated no end by them. I can tell you this, after accepting that Christ was God incarnate a literal reading of Genesis was almost trivial by comparison.

A couple of examples of what I'm getting at. I lived down the road from one of that largest Jesus only churches in Indiana. It's Pentecostal but deviates from mainline Christianity by denying the Trinity and requiring that you speak in tongues in order to be saved (as the 'Church'). Over the years I came to realize that while the Pentecostal experience was not New Testament tongues many Pentecostals were New Testament Christians. On another issue my favorite doctrinal saber was justification by faith for years, only to realize there isn't that much difference between Protestant and Catholic theology.

I'm wondering if there isn't a way to beat our intellectual swords into plowshears. I will make this offer, any TE who is genuinely interested in an open Bible study involving doctrinal issues and personal insights is invited to help me set up a thread for that purpose. Religion tends to be very personal and I'm curious what brought you to faith in the first place.

As the smoke clears from this debate I would like to invite TEs to post their testimony. What brought you to Christ and what is your understanding of the dynamics of sound doctrine and your Christian walk? Maybe then we can start to heal the deep division that our endless arguments creates and hopefully, find common ground as we work to defend our faith from a world that is perishing from lack of knowledge.

Respond as you see fit and I promise you I'm am only interested in building bridges between our often contentious views of natural history.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

I just wanted to add that while I'm critical of TE I'm only contentious when I feel doctrinal issues are at stake. I wouldn't have a real problem with TE if it stopped with Genesis 1-11. As a student and practitioner of Christian Apologetics I sometimes lose patience with modernist interpretations. I delight in finding well grounded individuals who affirm sound doctrine yet continue to confront YEC critically and fairly.

To be honest, I sometimes find the Old Testament confusing and disturbing, especially Judges. The Exodus has some pretty sever judgments and the Revelation, if taken literally, indicates terrible wrath for the enemies of God. The point is I don't have any real problem with honest skepticism and I happen to like the intellectual vigor of TEs even when I'm frustrated no end by them. I can tell you this, after accepting that Christ was God incarnate a literal reading of Genesis was almost trivial by comparison.

A couple of examples of what I'm getting at. I lived down the road from one of that largest Jesus only churches in Indiana. It's Pentecostal but deviates from mainline Christianity by denying the Trinity and requiring that you speak in tongues in order to be saved (as the 'Church'). Over the years I came to realize that while the Pentecostal experience was not New Testament tongues many Pentecostals were New Testament Christians. On another issue my favorite doctrinal saber was justification by faith for years, only to realize there isn't that much difference between Protestant and Catholic theology.

I'm wondering if there isn't a way to beat our intellectual swords into plowshears. I will make this offer, any TE who is genuinely interested in an open Bible study involving doctrinal issues and personal insights is invited to help me set up a thread for that purpose. Religion tends to be very personal and I'm curious what brought you to faith in the first place.

As the smoke clears from this debate I would like to invite TEs to post their testimony. What brought you to Christ and what is your understanding of the dynamics of sound doctrine and your Christian walk? Maybe then we can start to heal the deep division that our endless arguments creates and hopefully, find common ground as we work to defend our faith from a world that is perishing from lack of knowledge.

Respond as you see fit and I promise you I'm am only interested in building bridges between our often contentious views of natural history.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I think it would be best to post this as an OP in a new thread.

 

[theFijian]

I think it would be best to post this as an OP in a new thread.

On another issue my favorite doctrinal saber was justification by faith for years, only to realize there isn't that much difference between Protestant and Catholic theology.

So what was that Reformation thing all about?

 

[shernren]

*munches peanuts wordlessly. *