FYI, 90% of the time you bring up ad hominem attacks, it is ironic.
Notice the focus of your remarks is me rather then the Scriptures. Thanks for making my point for me.
They are very much the same thing. A belief that has origins in scripture (Exodus 30:18-21) has been elevated and misused to the point to where it becomes associated with one's holiness.
Let's see what you have here:
mark kennedy said:
The creation of the heavens and the earth in general and the creation of man in particular are not the same thing as eating with unwashed hands
"You shall also make a basin of bronze, with its stand of bronze, for washing. You shall put it between the tent of meeting and the altar, and you shall put water in it, with which Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet. When they go into the tent of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister, to burn a food offering to the LORD, they shall wash with water, so that they may not die. They shall wash their hands and their feet, so that they may not die. It shall be a statute forever to them, even to him and to his offspring throughout their generations." (Exodus 30:18-21)
So you quote me and the reference for the instructions for the bronze basin and equivocate them how exactly?
I am very aware of that, and I'm trying not to pin you on that here. I am pointing to Ham and MacArthur - not that they're necessarily anti-grace, but that they are preaching a message that many take that way. Grace + 1% is 100% wrong, as my preacher says.
I can't speak to Ken Ham's theology but I know for a fact that John MacArthur's theology is strictly Calvinist and he upholds the doctrine of grace through faith alone in no uncertain terms. Both of them affirm the infallibility, inerrancy and historicity of Scripture which is what you don't like about their teaching so drop the pretense of defending 'faith alone'.
You think I haven't? I am very comfortable and confident with my current origins views.
Then you already know to worship Christ as Savior is to worship him as Creator.
The entire bible is NOT written as historical document. It is written as a spiritual document, using many genres (history, psalm, proverb, prophecy, poetry, letters, etc) as delivery mechanisms for a larger picture. All genres are presented in a way that is more true to the primary purpose (spiritual) than the genre itself. Thus, timelines are mixed, single events are split, multiple events are reported as if they are one, some events are portrayed different ways in multiple views. EVERYBODY knows this, and everybody interprets scripture using that information, yet only TE's are honest enough to admit that the same methods can be applied to the early chapters of Genesis.
Genesis, while written in highly figurative language, is still an historical narrative. Failure to acknowledge this vital literary feature of the text leads to a faulty interpretation of the text. The Old Testament is understood in the light of the New Testament and all the New Testament writers understood Genesis in this way.
My worry about you literalists: you are so intent on keeping your "literal" view pure that you lose the larger, grander picture that God is painting through His word.
My worry about you figurativists is that you dismiss as myth what is a product of redemptive history. The naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism distorts the clear testimony of Scripture, that world view does not mix with Biblical theism any more then water and fire mix. One will either be quenched or the other evaporated. You can't have your naturalistic assumptions and faith in God as Creator, they are mutually exclusive.
Nope, and I can explain quite logically why I feel that way. Among evangelical TE's, I know none that believe otherwise. Saying "since this is not historical then the rest is in question" is a logical fallacy. Any piece of scriptural is as literal as it was meant to be when written by its particular human author.
I honestly don't care if you take Genesis 1 literally or figuratively, I really don't. What I refuse to accept is that the New Testament writers took it figuratively, it's an absurdity that is popular but deeply fallacious. A false assumption will produce faulty reasoning every single time.
And as mentioned in another thread, Jesus was "the second man". I'll assume you understand that Jesus was not literally, "the second man created", but instead the second man in this comparison; two beginnings, two men. I know you don't see it this way, and in my opinion you are so intent on gaining scripture support of Adam as the first, literal man that you're unable to see that you're turning this comparison into apples and oranges.
Its sometimes hard to tell if you think your really making a point or just talking in circles around a point long since refuted. I'm not Catholic but apparently Pope Benedict is taking a liking to a Catholic friendly intelligent design argument. His words last night speak directly to your ungainly rationalization:
"The sweep of history established by God reaches back to the origins, back to creation," the Pontiff explained. "Our profession of faith begins with the words: 'We believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.' If we omit the beginning of the Credo, the whole history of salvation becomes too limited and too small." (GLOBAL ZENIT NEWS Rome's Zenit News. Faith in God Begins With Creation, Says Pope)
I concur.
I'm being dead serious. Adding ANYTHING to grace is heresy, regardless of how you try to bend the bible to support it. I will stress that I'm not saying these men are unsaved or unchristian; only that, like the early church that bent the gospel to make demands of faith to grace, they are falling outside of the wishes of God. You can't have it both ways.
Your begging the question of proof on your hands and knees. There is no denial of grace here, your trying to slander Christian ministers who have neither denied grace nor failed to defend 'justification by grace through faith' in their many years of service. Your tactics are shameful, your argument is fallacious and your insistence on defending this empty rhetoric is ill advised.
Yes, that's true. Care to explain how they reconcile that view with evolution?
I'd love to.
mark kennedy said:
BTW, anathema is a theological way of telling someone to go to blazes. It's one of the harshest things and strongest indictments a theologian can level against a heresy. Read that statement carefully and understand something, Rome affirms in no uncertain terms that Adam was the first man.
This statement is reconciled with evolution by first of all defining evolution as 'the change of alleles in populations over time' while dismissing the false assumption of universal common descent as unwarranted. If you can get that far, and evolutionists never do, the rest happens naturally.
The bible can also be considered "the creature".
There is an old adage I find useful, if any man be an idolater, his favorite idol will be himself. To worship and serve the creature rather then the Creator is not only idolatry, it is a sin we are all capable and guilty of according to Paul. To unhold the Scriptures is neither idolatrous nor does it diminish the doctrine of 'justification by grace through faith'. It is by grace that the Word is preached in power as Paul says.
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. (I Cor. 15:10)
Grace not only saves us but sanctifies us, apart from Christ we can do nothing and to make myself clear, your merit counts for nothing. If one were to ask the Apostle Paul how it is that he worked so hard and suffered so much and bringing so many the Gospel, he would, and did, tell us that it is by grace.
A good working definition for grace is 'unmerited favor', Paul worked in the ministry field by grace alone and he is crystal clear on this point. The merits of Christian ministry are Christ's alone we can add nothing.
You were making this inane point about how the bible doesn't affirm evolution and I was mentioning a number of other modern discoveries that it doesn't affirm, either.
You want to claim that God is the God of the natural, but then somehow if evolution is natural it can't include God? What kind of ridiculous statement is this? If you really don't understand what I'm saying, then it's no wonder that YEC's are willingly backing themselves into this metaphorical wall.
First of all I do understand what you are saying, I just disagree with it. More importantly your shameful indictment that YEC is legalism is beyond fallacious, it's down right shameful. Finally, I know how to discern between metaphor and historical passages in Scripture and find your criticisms of YEC to be highly inflammatory while lacking any merit as a valid criticism of myself of the ministers of the Gospel you have slandered.
As John MacArthur said, 'you either believe it you don't'.
I concur.
Give me a break, you aren't so brittle. I've taken far more personal and virulent attacks than this from you and not whined about it.
Looks like your running out of steam.
YECs and naturalist atheists have the same goal as far as the bible is concerned; they want to convince the world that if the bible is true then science is false. And conversely, if science is true then necessarily the bible is false. This dichotomy - this false dichotomy - allows them to attack the bad science of YEC and to put to ridicule all people of faith.
Nonsense, YECs believe that science and Biblical theism are in perfect unison and defend their beliefs using both science and Scripture. You are making another false accusation, probably because you get tired of Creationists telling you that your world view is based on atheistic naturalistic assumptions. You have far more in common with atheistic materialists then any YEC ever could. I neither subscribe to nor am I aware of any such dichotomy, true, false or indifferent.
The TRUTH is, we TE's have been excessively nice to our YEC friends, out of love for God and the truth. We weather attacks daily on our dedication to God, on our intentions, on our love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, on our respect for scripture and on many other things. We weather it because we know that God's truth is not always easy for people to hear when it differs from their ensconced cultural belief system.
You shamelessly slandered YECs twice in the post I'm responding to and you call that 'excessively nice'? I'm appalled.
I will NOT attack your YEC beliefs, your dedication to God or your status as a Christian. I WILL speak out when you are acting in a way contrary to the word of God. Take it as you will.
You characterize creationism as legalism and I take that as a slanderous, fallacious and pedantic abandonment of the substantive issues being raised. You twist the Scriptures to fit the naturalistic assumptions, making sport of Bible believing Christians and you pretend that it's because OUR conduct is contrary to the Word of God?
Your arguments are fallacious, slanderous and a pedantic exercise in Darwinian rhetoric. I take it as a failed attempt to put a Christian face on a naturalistic assumption, rationalize it away as you see fit, that Emperor wears no clothes.
Have a nice day
Mark
