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

Assyrian · Nov 28, 2008

mark kennedy said:
I said...

Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy but the rejection of the special creation of Adam and original sin definitely is.

Click to expand...

Its not from my statement it's from Paul. This is about the Scriptures and I don't compromise with secular skeptics as much as I would like to.

Any questions?

Paul said that? Do you have a reference?

shernren · Nov 28, 2008

Shhh, don't ruin the punchline.

shernren · Nov 28, 2008

Just a note on my first post (which should be up once PETE moderates it), there's a line:

[FONT=&quot]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.

theFijian · Nov 28, 2008

mark kennedy said:
I said...

Its not from my statement it's from Paul. This is about the Scriptures and I don't compromise with secular skeptics as much as I would like to.

Any questions?

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.

Sphinx777 · Nov 28, 2008

PETE_ said:
This thread exists to discuss the formal debate (in the formal debate forum) between shernren and Mark Kennedy regarding the accepting evolution as the best scientific explanation for the biological makeup of humans does not constitute a rejection of orthodox Christian belief.

Debate thread located here

Another thread of interest...

Click Me

shernren · Dec 15, 2008

Yayzors, got my post up. Now it's back to editing fifteen-minute-long videos of lasers doing funny things to really tiny bits of silica. Fun fun.

Sphinx777 · Dec 15, 2008

_______________________________________

Assyrian · Dec 15, 2008

shernren said:
Yayzors, got my post up. Now it's back to editing fifteen-minute-long videos of lasers doing funny things to really tiny bits of silica. Fun fun.

Where?

shernren · Dec 15, 2008

Assyrian said:
Where?

Debate thread's moderated so it might be a while before PETE puts my post up.

mark kennedy · Dec 15, 2008

theFijian said:
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.

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.

Assyrian · Dec 16, 2008

mark kennedy said:
I noticed that you didn't bother to include the reference. Let's get something clear right now while you play you 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.

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?

AV1611VET · Dec 16, 2008

For you guys begging for a Scripture reference, here you go ---

Romans 1:20-25 said:
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

God's special creation [called "the creature" here] being replaced with evolution, with God Himself being ignored.

shernren · Dec 16, 2008

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!

AV1611VET · Dec 16, 2008

shernren said:
Except, of course, that the first people to accept creation were ironically solid Christians like Asa Gray and B. B. Warfield.

Or maybe Adam?

Genesis 1:1a said:
In the beginning, God created...

---

shernren said:
Go tell one of the very founding fathers of fundamentalism that he was trading the Creator for the creature!

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.

theFijian · Dec 18, 2008

mark kennedy said:
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.

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.

shernren · Dec 23, 2008

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.”

- 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" ) 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]

gluadys · Dec 23, 2008

shernren said:
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.

- 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" ) 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]

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.

shernren · Dec 25, 2008

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:

[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]

mark kennedy · Dec 31, 2008

theFijian said:
Rather pathetic Mark. You included a quote from Paul (fair enough)

Again neither quoted nor commented on.

then a quote from the gospel according to Mark Kennedy right after it.

Again, you don't bother to make the line of debarkation clear.

Maybe you thought people reading it would think they were one and the same.

No, but you obviously hoped that kind of equivocation would work.

You play fast and loose with scripture

Notice, not a single Scriptural referenced offered or even alluded to.

and then have the gall to accuse TEs of playing it lip-service

The accusation remains unanswered.

(in your mind I'm sure that just means anyone who doesn't agree with you).

Another ad hominem attack that tells me in no uncertain terms you have no substantive argument, let alone Biblical.

I think you're beginning to believe your own lies Mark.

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.

mark kennedy · Dec 31, 2008

Assyrian said:
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?

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.

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

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

you are not reading this.

you are not reading this.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

you are not reading this.

Well-Known Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

you are not reading this.

Natura non facit saltum

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

you are not reading this.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

you are not reading this.

Legend

you are not reading this.

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency