-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Peanut gallery:Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy
- Thread starter PETE_
- Start date
- Status
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Just a note on my first post (which should be up once PETE moderates it), there's a line:
[FONT="]Of all of Paul’s letters, Romans is the closest Paul comes to delivering a systematic theology of salvation. [/FONT]
which might make some people snarky. Am I saying Romans isn't systematic? Hardly. However, the fact is that Romans wasn't simply Paul writing down and saying "Hmm, I feel like writing a theological treatise today" in some kind of non-situational vacuum, the way systematic theologians write today (and which we can read Romans as, which no doubt partly inspires creationist error around Romans 5).
Paul's emphasis in Romans is surprisingly clear: at the church in Rome Jews and Gentiles were squabbling over primacy in the faith. In fact, Paul all but describes the situation of chaos in Romans 14-15. Given that, Paul's emphasis on human solidarity in sin and the universal availability of salvation suddenly become quite clear. Paul is not just making a theological statement, he's pouring oil on Rome's troubled waters by showing the Jews and Gentiles that they are sinners alike and they are saved alike in Christ. That gives it a different kind of feel and puts it kind of in the middle of an interesting theological spectrum between Galatians, given to Jews who were being recaptured by Law, and Ephesians, given to Gentiles liable to being enticed away by the mystical knowledge of Ephesus' mystery religions.
As such, I'm not slurring Romans, I'm simply saying that it, like any other Pauline letter, had a local context which needs to be remembered when it is read.
[FONT="]Of all of Paul’s letters, Romans is the closest Paul comes to delivering a systematic theology of salvation. [/FONT]
which might make some people snarky. Am I saying Romans isn't systematic? Hardly. However, the fact is that Romans wasn't simply Paul writing down and saying "Hmm, I feel like writing a theological treatise today" in some kind of non-situational vacuum, the way systematic theologians write today (and which we can read Romans as, which no doubt partly inspires creationist error around Romans 5).
Paul's emphasis in Romans is surprisingly clear: at the church in Rome Jews and Gentiles were squabbling over primacy in the faith. In fact, Paul all but describes the situation of chaos in Romans 14-15. Given that, Paul's emphasis on human solidarity in sin and the universal availability of salvation suddenly become quite clear. Paul is not just making a theological statement, he's pouring oil on Rome's troubled waters by showing the Jews and Gentiles that they are sinners alike and they are saved alike in Christ. That gives it a different kind of feel and puts it kind of in the middle of an interesting theological spectrum between Galatians, given to Jews who were being recaptured by Law, and Ephesians, given to Gentiles liable to being enticed away by the mystical knowledge of Ephesus' mystery religions.
As such, I'm not slurring Romans, I'm simply saying that it, like any other Pauline letter, had a local context which needs to be remembered when it is read.
Upvote
0
- Oct 30, 2003
- 8,898
- 476
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Don't bear false witness mark, those are your words not Paul's. My question was a perfectly honest one, obviously it was stupid of me to expect an honest answer.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I noticed that you didn't bother to include the reference. Let's get something clear right now while you play your little game. This is about the clear testimony of Scripture and I am perfectly willing to back up what I say with Scriptural authority which is something TEs pay lip service to at best.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Assyrian
Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
theFijian already quoted it once, you quoted it again. The quote button does not copy across quotes in a post, so to include the quote again, for a third time, he would have had to cut and paste it across. I am not sure the point of doing this, when there was no issue about the text of the quote, simply your claim that it was Paul's statement. Yet because he does not include the quote for the third time, you complain. And accuse him of playing games?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,155
- 52,650
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
For you guys begging for a Scripture reference, here you go ---
God's special creation [called "the creature" here] being replaced with evolution, with God Himself being ignored.Romans 1:20-25 said:
Upvote
0
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Except, of course, that the first people to accept evolution were ironically solid Christians like Asa Gray and B. B. Warfield. Go tell one of the very founding fathers of fundamentalism that he was trading the Creator for the creature!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,155
- 52,650
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Or maybe Adam?
---Genesis 1:1a said:
I'm not familiar with either of these two people, but if they accepted the Creation, but later traded the Creator for the creature, then they'll have to answer to God for that.
Upvote
0
- Oct 30, 2003
- 8,898
- 476
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Rather pathetic Mark. You included a quote from Paul (fair enough) then a quote from the gospel according to Mark Kennedy right after it. Maybe you thought people reading it would think they were one and the same. You play fast and loose with scripture and then have the gall to accuse TEs of playing it lip-service (in your mind I'm sure that just means anyone who doesn't agree with you). I think you're beginning to believe your own lies Mark.
Upvote
0
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I was surprised at how often my interpretation of the key passage Romans 5:12-21 has changed over the past months in general, and with looking at my two sources (Tennant and Dubarle) in particular. Then recently I saw something on evanevodialogue that just about hit the spot for me:
) without there having been some kind of historical Adam.
Even so, I think the idea that this passage is communicating some kind of a spiritual "taint" that is transmitted biologically, that causes people to sin, isn't the best way to read this passage. That view seems to me to be too individualistic, too focused on "me" and "myself" and "my bloodline" (which after all is shared only with my siblings, and which will be again unique for my children). Rather, the passage speaks of the human solidarity in sin which is not necessarily (not even primarily) biological in nature.
An example I heard at dinner demonstrates the point. A reverend from my church was discussing how money these days is dirty, and he gave the example of when our church building was being built (or renovated). The church wanted to find their own engineer, but the local authorities would not give a proper building permit unless the church used an engineer who was on their approved list. The church found one, but he (like every other engineer on that list would have done) asked for "contingency money" - a special allowance in case the building process was disturbed by local gangsters demanding "protection fees".
So even the church building is tainted. We supplied money to local hoodlums, who would no doubt go on to use it for evil purposes. And why did they start doing wrong things? Perhaps they had abusive parents; perhaps they fell in with the wrong crowd at school; perhaps our government has failed to provide equity for its citizens. And maybe the parents themselves had abusive parents; maybe the school had a wrong crowd because the discipline teachers were too lax; maybe the government is failing because Western exporters of democracy have failed to understand local sensitivities and adapt to them; and so on ... love may make the world go round but oftentimes it's our sin that holds us together.
And so our church sinned because of those local gangsters; they in turn sinned because of their parents and their government; they in turn sinned because of others; and all these sins are but small tributaries of the great roaring river of human sin that finds its head in Adam's first sin. In Adam all sinned just as all who drink from a river are, in some way, drinking from its head, no matter how far downstream they may happen to be.
No wonder that we cannot be saved on our own. It is not simply that there are switches in our head that have been thrown the wrong way from birth; it is that in today's society (or any other society man has ever known), you often cannot make a move without participating in someone else's sin. I cannot buy a pair of jeans without implicitly endorsing sweatshop labor; I cannot build a house without helping the local thugs. If the Lord marked our transgressions who could stand? The web of sin between man and man is so tightly knit that no man can ever untangle himself.
And yet from Christ, a great river of life flows that can wash away our guilt as individuals and that will one day cleanse human society of the great cobwebs of sin that so cover it.
“[T]the effect of the comparison between the two epochal figures, Adam and Christ, is not so much to historicize the individual Adam as to bring out the more than individual significance of the historic Christ.”
- WORD Biblical Commentary (James Dunn)
I personally think it is difficult, though not impossible, to make full sense of Romans 5:12-21 (hereafter referred to as "the passage" - WORD Biblical Commentary (James Dunn)
) without there having been some kind of historical Adam.Even so, I think the idea that this passage is communicating some kind of a spiritual "taint" that is transmitted biologically, that causes people to sin, isn't the best way to read this passage. That view seems to me to be too individualistic, too focused on "me" and "myself" and "my bloodline" (which after all is shared only with my siblings, and which will be again unique for my children). Rather, the passage speaks of the human solidarity in sin which is not necessarily (not even primarily) biological in nature.
An example I heard at dinner demonstrates the point. A reverend from my church was discussing how money these days is dirty, and he gave the example of when our church building was being built (or renovated). The church wanted to find their own engineer, but the local authorities would not give a proper building permit unless the church used an engineer who was on their approved list. The church found one, but he (like every other engineer on that list would have done) asked for "contingency money" - a special allowance in case the building process was disturbed by local gangsters demanding "protection fees".
So even the church building is tainted. We supplied money to local hoodlums, who would no doubt go on to use it for evil purposes. And why did they start doing wrong things? Perhaps they had abusive parents; perhaps they fell in with the wrong crowd at school; perhaps our government has failed to provide equity for its citizens. And maybe the parents themselves had abusive parents; maybe the school had a wrong crowd because the discipline teachers were too lax; maybe the government is failing because Western exporters of democracy have failed to understand local sensitivities and adapt to them; and so on ... love may make the world go round but oftentimes it's our sin that holds us together.
And so our church sinned because of those local gangsters; they in turn sinned because of their parents and their government; they in turn sinned because of others; and all these sins are but small tributaries of the great roaring river of human sin that finds its head in Adam's first sin. In Adam all sinned just as all who drink from a river are, in some way, drinking from its head, no matter how far downstream they may happen to be.
No wonder that we cannot be saved on our own. It is not simply that there are switches in our head that have been thrown the wrong way from birth; it is that in today's society (or any other society man has ever known), you often cannot make a move without participating in someone else's sin. I cannot buy a pair of jeans without implicitly endorsing sweatshop labor; I cannot build a house without helping the local thugs. If the Lord marked our transgressions who could stand? The web of sin between man and man is so tightly knit that no man can ever untangle himself.
And yet from Christ, a great river of life flows that can wash away our guilt as individuals and that will one day cleanse human society of the great cobwebs of sin that so cover it.
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all men sinned -- just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. [Rom 5:12, 18, 19 NIV]
Upvote
0
I was surprised at how often my interpretation of the key passage Romans 5:12-21 has changed over the past months in general, and with looking at my two sources (Tennant and Dubarle) in particular. Then recently I saw something on evanevodialogue that just about hit the spot for me:[T]the effect of the comparison between the two epochal figures, Adam and Christ, is not so much to historicize the individual Adam as to bring out the more than individual significance of the historic Christ.I personally think it is difficult, though not impossible, to make full sense of Romans 5:12-21 (hereafter referred to as "the passage"
- WORD Biblical Commentary (James Dunn)
Even so, I think the idea that this passage is communicating some kind of a spiritual "taint" that is transmitted biologically, that causes people to sin, isn't the best way to read this passage. That view seems to me to be too individualistic, too focused on "me" and "myself" and "my bloodline" (which after all is shared only with my siblings, and which will be again unique for my children). Rather, the passage speaks of the human solidarity in sin which is not necessarily (not even primarily) biological in nature.
An example I heard at dinner demonstrates the point. A reverend from my church was discussing how money these days is dirty, and he gave the example of when our church building was being built (or renovated). The church wanted to find their own engineer, but the local authorities would not give a proper building permit unless the church used an engineer who was on their approved list. The church found one, but he (like every other engineer on that list would have done) asked for "contingency money" - a special allowance in case the building process was disturbed by local gangsters demanding "protection fees".
So even the church building is tainted. We supplied money to local hoodlums, who would no doubt go on to use it for evil purposes. And why did they start doing wrong things? Perhaps they had abusive parents; perhaps they fell in with the wrong crowd at school; perhaps our government has failed to provide equity for its citizens. And maybe the parents themselves had abusive parents; maybe the school had a wrong crowd because the discipline teachers were too lax; maybe the government is failing because Western exporters of democracy have failed to understand local sensitivities and adapt to them; and so on ... love may make the world go round but oftentimes it's our sin that holds us together.
And so our church sinned because of those local gangsters; they in turn sinned because of their parents and their government; they in turn sinned because of others; and all these sins are but small tributaries of the great roaring river of human sin that finds its head in Adam's first sin. In Adam all sinned just as all who drink from a river are, in some way, drinking from its head, no matter how far downstream they may happen to be.
No wonder that we cannot be saved on our own. It is not simply that there are switches in our head that have been thrown the wrong way from birth; it is that in today's society (or any other society man has ever known), you often cannot make a move without participating in someone else's sin. I cannot buy a pair of jeans without implicitly endorsing sweatshop labor; I cannot build a house without helping the local thugs. If the Lord marked our transgressions who could stand? The web of sin between man and man is so tightly knit that no man can ever untangle himself.
And yet from Christ, a great river of life flows that can wash away our guilt as individuals and that will one day cleanse human society of the great cobwebs of sin that so cover it.Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all men sinned -- just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. [Rom 5:12, 18, 19 NIV]
Yes, there are so many ways of inheriting sin that we should not be bound by Augustine's tying it to sexual reproduction and concupiscience.
I like your analogy of a river. We are all born into this river and we can never do anything without some complicity in the sinful ways of humanity.
I have used the example of language in the past. We are all (normally) born with the instinct and capacity to acquire speech, even though we are not born speaking. And we acquire the particular form of speech we do, not through genetic inheritance, but through the family and society in which we are raised. We learn the language that is modeled to us. Just so, we all learn sin because we have no model of being human that is without sin---save Christ.
I think the river analogy may be better.
Upvote
0
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Reading MK's latest reply has been quite disappointing. It's more than halfway through the debate and, frankly, he has not supplied any Biblical support for his ideas beyond Romans 5:12.
In describing my idea of communal punishment for the sins of one, I canvassed the gamut of Scripture, quoting from books of every genre from every period in Israelite history.
In defending his idea of sin being traced along a lineage back to Adam, MK has quoted - well, two Bible dictionaries, Strong's (on "bara" at that!), and Francis Bacon.
I'm not going to be replying to his post before January 6th because my Romans commentaries are back in Canberra (while I spend my holidays in Malaysia - hurrah!). Thing is, I'm pretty sure mark's analysis of Romans doesn't make sense, but I'm just going to double check with Charles Hodge and John Stott to make sure - and I can't do that from here. Martin Luther calls Romans 5:12-21 "a pleasant little side-trip"; do Hodge and Stott concur? I'm about to find out.
As I take this little break from the debate I'm just curious what others think about the presentations up to now.
By the way, mark - no, I'm not "pretending" that you don't know proof texts on a subject you have studied for over 20 years. I'm saying it. Perhaps you who take so seriously Francis Bacon's sayings on idols of the mind should heed closely his instructions on how to avoid them:
In describing my idea of communal punishment for the sins of one, I canvassed the gamut of Scripture, quoting from books of every genre from every period in Israelite history.
In defending his idea of sin being traced along a lineage back to Adam, MK has quoted - well, two Bible dictionaries, Strong's (on "bara" at that!), and Francis Bacon.
I'm not going to be replying to his post before January 6th because my Romans commentaries are back in Canberra (while I spend my holidays in Malaysia - hurrah!). Thing is, I'm pretty sure mark's analysis of Romans doesn't make sense, but I'm just going to double check with Charles Hodge and John Stott to make sure - and I can't do that from here. Martin Luther calls Romans 5:12-21 "a pleasant little side-trip"; do Hodge and Stott concur? I'm about to find out.
As I take this little break from the debate I'm just curious what others think about the presentations up to now.
By the way, mark - no, I'm not "pretending" that you don't know proof texts on a subject you have studied for over 20 years. I'm saying it.
Perhaps you who take so seriously Francis Bacon's sayings on idols of the mind should heed closely his instructions on how to avoid them:[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Idols of the Cave take their rise in the peculiar constitution, mental or bodily, of each individual; and also in education, habit, and accident. Of this kind there is a great number and variety; but I will instance those the pointing out of which contains the most important caution, and which have most effect in disturbing the clearness of the understanding.
[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Men become attached to certain particular sciences and speculations, either because they fancy themselves the authors and inventors thereof, or because they have bestowed the greatest pains upon them and become most habituated to them. But men of this kind, if they betake themselves to philosophy and contemplations of a general character, distort and color them in obedience to their former fancies ... [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]... generally let every student of nature take this as a rule,--that whatever his mind seizes and dwells upon with peculiar satisfaction is to be held in suspicion, and that so much the more care is to be taken in dealing with such questions to keep the understanding even and clear.[/FONT]
http://www.whitworth.edu/academic/Department/Core/Classes/CO250/Readings/fr_baco.htm
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Idols of the Cave take their rise in the peculiar constitution, mental or bodily, of each individual; and also in education, habit, and accident. Of this kind there is a great number and variety; but I will instance those the pointing out of which contains the most important caution, and which have most effect in disturbing the clearness of the understanding.
[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Men become attached to certain particular sciences and speculations, either because they fancy themselves the authors and inventors thereof, or because they have bestowed the greatest pains upon them and become most habituated to them. But men of this kind, if they betake themselves to philosophy and contemplations of a general character, distort and color them in obedience to their former fancies ... [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]... generally let every student of nature take this as a rule,--that whatever his mind seizes and dwells upon with peculiar satisfaction is to be held in suspicion, and that so much the more care is to be taken in dealing with such questions to keep the understanding even and clear.[/FONT]
http://www.whitworth.edu/academic/Department/Core/Classes/CO250/Readings/fr_baco.htm
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Again neither quoted nor commented on.
Again, you don't bother to make the line of debarkation clear.
No, but you obviously hoped that kind of equivocation would work.
Notice, not a single Scriptural referenced offered or even alluded to.
The accusation remains unanswered.
Another ad hominem attack that tells me in no uncertain terms you have no substantive argument, let alone Biblical.
When Christ testified to the High Priest before going to Pilate he told them He was the Son of God and a slave smacked him. Jesus simply said give testimony that what I said was not true. I can turn the other check, you just called me a liar, now prove it or shut up.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I accuse him of playing games, I accuse you of conflating the Scriptures by diverting the discussion to irrelevant tangents, yours is the greater error. I love some of the TEs on here, pray for them earnestly and believe them to be misled by a secular myth. Others I feel are led into fascinating but divisive intellectual exercises which is not only forgivable, but important. You I have not made up my mind about but suspect are simply promoting an atheistic philosophy. If you actually care about the Scriptures or sound Christian doctrine you couldn't prove it by your posts and the fact that you took your pseudonym is from a pagan empire indicates to me your just here for sport.
Bottom line, I don't think you know what the scientific or theological implications are for the ongoing debate. What is far more important, I don't think you care.
Rage on you crazy diamond, I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
