So... what if everyone that believes in Theistic Evolution, etc... is deceived...

[shernren]

the one man is an obvious reference to Adam. Just because it doesn't say it outright doesn't mean its not assumed in the text.

Really? How do you get from

"from one man he made every nation of men"

to the Adam (and Eve, don't forget!) of the Bible? After all, both Jews and Muslims also believe that all humanity descended from one man: yet they have different theologies of creation and the fall. While we're at it, plenty of ancient religions also believed that all humanity descended from one man, without so much as taking a look at Genesis 1-3.

Read the passage again, and compare it with the creationist treatment:

Acts 17 evangelism

In the ‘Acts 17 approach,’ Paul used a different method. In this approach, Paul had success in preaching to the Greeks. The Greeks were outright pagans who had no knowledge of the true God, or an understanding of the meaning of sin and the Fall, etc., as the Jews did. The Greeks basically dismissed that message as foolish.

But when Paul explained who the real God is (the God of creation) and laid the foundation of the gospel about all of us being descendants of one man Adam (thus explaining the origin of sin and the need for salvation), and then dismantled their belief in pagan gods, he then presented the salvation message. They began to respond.
​

(emphasis added) Read the passage again. Paul says nothing about the origin of sin, and nothing about why the creation story implies that we need salvation. Ken Ham simply wasn't reading Acts 17 when he was talking about Acts 17, and if that's how the president of one of the most influential creationist groups in the world treats the Bible, what hope does the rest of the movement have?

Also, evolution has things evolve in community, so it wouldn't be from one man that God made everyone, but from a group of people that came from a monkey ancestor tribe.

What Papias said.

 

[shernren]

Indeed, Acts 17 gets more disastrous for creationists the more you understand it. Paul says:

As even some of your own poets have said, "For we are his offspring." (v.28)

Which poet was he talking about? Most likely Aratus, who in his Phenomena says:

From Zeus let us begin;
him do we mortals never leave unnamed;
full of Zeus are all the streets
and all the market-places of men;
full is the sea and the havens thereof;
always we all have need of Zeus.

For we are also his offspring;
and he in his kindness unto men
giveth favourable signs
and wakeneth the people to work,
reminding them of livelihood.
He tells what time the soil is best
for the labour of the ox and for the mattock,
and what time the seasons are favourable
both for the planting of trees
and for casting all manner of seeds.

For himself it was who set the signs in heaven,
and marked out the constellations,
and for the year devised what stars chiefly
should give to men right signs of the seasons,
to the end that all things might grow unfailingly.

Wherefore him do men ever worship first and last.
Hail, O Father, mighty marvel, mighty blessing unto men.
Hail to thee and to the Elder Race!
Hail, ye Muses, right kindly, every one!

In him we live and move « a simple desire
​

Whoaa. This is a creation myth. It describes Zeus setting out the seasons, teaching man to farm, and being responsible and praiseworthy for all his further civilization.

So to recap, Paul did not tell them the story of Adam. He did not even allude to it, because how could he allude to something they did not know? Instead, Paul quoted a foreign, Greek creation myth that gave all glory for creation not to the true God but to the idol Zeus.

If creationists really applied the principles of Acts 17, they wouldn't start talking to people about God by reading from Genesis 1: they would start by reading from Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking.

 

[mark kennedy]

So... what if everyone that believes in Theistic Evolution, etc... is deceived... about their salvation?

They may or may not be confused about their salvation but if they do believe the Gospel then they have been deceived by the spirit of the age. Theistic Evolution is little more the Darwinism which is evident in the fact that all they do is confront creationists. It is a world-view devoid of Christian theology and dedicated to bashing Christians who take the early chapters of Genesis literally.

What if they aren't truly saved, not because they don't believe the beginning account, but because God never saved them to begin with...

Then they would be no different from fundamentalists who took to the Christian religion without ever receiving the Holy Spirit by faith in the Gospel.

so they come up with these false theories because the Spirit isn't inside of them? I would think that the Lord would keep His people on track generally...

Well you might think that God would keep his people on track but the track record of believers is riddled with failures and false beliefs. Ever read Jesus' words to the Churches in Revelations 3 and 4? He has some pretty harsh and scathing warnings for five of the seven.

While I'm a YEC and have deep reservations about this philosophical Darwinism being paraded as if it were Christian in some way, I have to warn you of something.

This is all philosophical, I don't think that all who profess Christ actually believe. The thing is, that is whether they are TE, YEC or even seminary trained ministers of the Gospel. You have to be discerning but sweeping generalities are not only not helpful, they can be dangerous...to you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

So was Galileo.

Galileo was anything but a heretic, he was a devote Catholic who had no less then 6 audiences with Pope Urbane. He got into trouble when he started arguing against Aristotelian mechanics which eventually transposed into Copernican type sun centered model for the solar system. Nothing remotely heretical in a Biblical context was ever a part of it even though they did manage a couple of quotes taken out of context.

Galileo was a rather minor Catholic heretic, I believe in justification by faith, they would have burned me to the stake.

 

[Mallon]

Galileo was anything but a heretic, he was a devote Catholic who had no less then 6 audiences with Pope Urbane.

Oh, well if acceptance by the Catholic Church is what it takes to avoid the label of heretic, then I guess evolutionary creationists have nothing to worry about.

 

[Mallon]

It is a world-view devoid of Christian theology

http://www.christianforums.com/t7485386/#post55315304

http://www.christianforums.com/t7485039-2/#post55310785

http://www.christianforums.com/t7481273/#post55181736

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh, well if acceptance by the Catholic Church is what it takes to avoid the label of heretic, then I guess evolutionary creationists have nothing to worry about.

Biblical creationists have nothing to worry about because we, like the Apostle Paul and the Catholic church, realize the origin of sin in humanity was through Adam and Eve. The issue of justification by faith is a theological issue I was making a passing reference to and why am I not surprised that it didn't interest you in the slightest. Theological issues never do.

 

[mark kennedy]

Indeed, Acts 17 gets more disastrous for creationists the more you understand it. Paul says:

As even some of your own poets have said, "For we are his offspring." (v.28)

If creationists really applied the principles of Acts 17, they wouldn't start talking to people about God by reading from Genesis 1: they would start by reading from Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking.

What is disastrous is that this kind of ridicule and childish mockery does not come from faith. In the context Paul is speaking of the 'unknown god', not Zeus and simply making a point. In the doctrinal portion of two of his most important epistles he describes Adam as the first man in no uncertain terms. Oh wait, you already know that and choose to ignore the theological issues while mocking things you long ago learned to ignore.

I don't know what you call that philosophical mess but it's neither biblical or in keeping with traditional Christian theism. Your philosophical rants are more like something Dawkins would say then the 2,000 years of Christian scholarship you trample under foot.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Mallon]

Biblical creationists have nothing to worry about because we, like the Apostle Paul and the Catholic church, realize the origin of sin in humanity was through Adam and Eve. The issue of justification by faith is a theological issue I was making a passing reference to and why am I not surprised that it didn't interest you in the slightest. Theological issues never do.

Maybe it isn't theology I object to.

 

[mark kennedy]

Maybe it isn't theology I object to.

Oh it's theological when you start to realize that Paul makes the Fall the reason for a need for Justification by Faith. I've seen how you deal with it, you just deny the clear, consistent and original intent of the New Testament authors. I don't know if you ever noticed but other aspects of TOE don't concern me nor does the age of the earth. There is a reason for that, only human lineage has any connection to essential doctrine.

If you are not interested in the theological aspects you don't know whats at stake, or more likely you just don't care.

 

[Mallon]

I'm sorry you can't be more cordial, mark. This is why discussing theology with you is fruitless.

 

[shernren]

Oh it's theological when you start to realize that Paul makes the Fall the reason for a need for Justification by Faith.

Such silliness is dispelled by nothing more than a look at the structure of Romans. Justification by faith is introduced in chapter 3 and a doctrine of the Fall in chapter 5 (if indeed you can call it that - it focuses far more on Jesus than Adam, not even named). No sane builder erects the first floor before laying the foundations.

Paul discusses sin in full in Romans 1, and he does so without referring to the Fall, without referring to Adam, without referring to Eve, without referring to Satan, and thus without in any way whatsoever validating mark kennedy's warped and uninformed view of Romans and Pauline theology. The actors of Romans 1:18-32 are named in plural, practice idolatry, are given up to homosexuality, and disobey their parents: clearly they are not Adam and Eve.

 

[Marking Time]

Thanks much for this enlightening note, and for referencing the _a simple desire_ Anabaptist biblical commentary blog.
As for quoting or refuting or dealing with Dawkins and Hawking in our discussions/witnessing with nonbelievers:
I believe that "by any means necessary" applies when speaking to a postmodern person. Too many people --Christian and non -- are fairly ignorant of the new sciences and physics used by such leading atheists to discount theistic origins (and ongoing activities... like miracles, etc.). The more we can point people toward Christians like DNA researcher Francis Collins-- and the amateur scientist/theologian blogging cooperative Quantum Pork to which I contribute [www .quantumpork. com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26roteins-and-parlor-tricks&catid=29:qp-philosophy&Itemid=12 ] -- the more progress we will make in not being dismissed as ideologues and fundies, by noncommittal moderates and proudly opinionated agnostics.

Do your homework, dear Church. People's souls are on the brink...

 

[Assyrian]

Actually that's not quite true.

Read Acts 17. As Paul was staying in Athens, one of the most pagan and idolatrous cities in the Greek world he was compelled to preach the gospel to the pagans there. People who had no Jewish background or understanding of the prophets. So Paul didn't start there as he did with Jewish audiences or those acquainted with the prophets. In fact note carefully what Paul used as the foundation of his argument he preached to win over a city of pagans, including stoic philosophers strongly trained in Greek philosophy and argument.

I bolded the relevant parts. In fact I think all Christians interested in Evangelism in our increasingly post-Christian modern society, or in any country without a Christian background should study Paul's methodology in Acts 17.

22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. 24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
29"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. 30In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

Hi again folks It is worth pointing out here, the text doesn't actually say 'from one man'. There are two main manuscript variations here. The Byzantine and Majority says from one blood, And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation. (KJV) Modern versions tend to use texts that say 'from one he has made...' And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation. (RSV) Translating the passage 'from one man', as many modern translations do, is adding to the text. Paul could have meant from one man, he could have meant from one people, or he could simply have been emphasising the unity of the human race as all the offspring and creation of God. But it is pretty hard to say Paul was preaching about Adam when he does not mention Adam by name and does not actually say as some translations put it, that God started off the human race with a single man.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm sorry you can't be more cordial, mark. This is why discussing theology with you is fruitless.

Only because you don't have one

 

[mark kennedy]

Such silliness is dispelled by nothing more than a look at the structure of Romans. Justification by faith is introduced in chapter 3 and a doctrine of the Fall in chapter 5 (if indeed you can call it that - it focuses far more on Jesus than Adam, not even named). No sane builder erects the first floor before laying the foundations.

Such unbelief, the Scriptures are clear that the need for justification is based on the sin of Adam:

The Scriptures are crystal clear, in Adam all sinned and there is no orthodox Christian doctrine to the contrary.

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12) or as shernen said it, Adam’s dragging everyone down into sin. It looks something like this:

1) Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2) Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3) All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4) Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5) Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6) Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7) The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8) Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.​

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.

But you already know that:

Paul discusses sin in full in Romans 1, and he does so without referring to the Fall, without referring to Adam, without referring to Eve, without referring to Satan, and thus without in any way whatsoever validating mark kennedy's warped and uninformed view of Romans and Pauline theology. The actors of Romans 1:18-32 are named in plural, practice idolatry, are given up to homosexuality, and disobey their parents: clearly they are not Adam and Eve.

As always what you are saying is true but beside the point. The reason for the need for justification was the sin of Adam and Eve. You know this but you don't believe it because you don't want to accept the original creation. It's sad really, a religious profession guarded by nothing but a philosophical assumption that has nothing to do with actual conviction.

I feel sorry for you

Have nice day
Mark

P.S. I'm back...

 

[shernren]

It's sad really, a religious profession guarded by nothing but a philosophical assumption that has nothing to do with actual conviction.

He reads minds now, folks!

 

[mark kennedy]

He reads minds now, folks!

He has the ability to post and say nothing in answer to the post with nothing up his sleeve....? The quip is faster then the eye...

Try again...

 

[shernren]

He has the ability to post and say nothing in answer to the post with nothing up his sleeve....? The quip is faster then the eye...

Try again...

The irony, it burns.

 

[laconicstudent]

Only because you don't have one

One what?