TE Observations

This veers tremendously from origins theology, but I would believe that it is simply the revelative work of the Holy Spirit that allows us to experience and know the evidence for God. Until we have the revelation of the Holy Spirit we do not have the truth of God, fullstop. I appreciate the tension between the revelation of God ("without the Holy Spirit, no one can get to know God") and the free choice of man ("God is evident to all, it is man who rejects Him") and I don't pretend to have an answer to the apparent conflict.

shernren said:

This veers tremendously from origins theology, but I would believe that it is simply the revelative work of the Holy Spirit that allows us to experience and know the evidence for God. Until we have the revelation of the Holy Spirit we do not have the truth of God, fullstop. I appreciate the tension between the revelation of God ("without the Holy Spirit, no one can get to know God") and the free choice of man ("God is evident to all, it is man who rejects Him") and I don't pretend to have an answer to the apparent conflict.

Click to expand...

Veers from origins theology!? I think you just went to the heart of the whole thing. That is a perfect explanation for the basis of Christian conviction, how could that not be relavant to a discussion about Origins Theology. I don't really have a problem with TE or OEC, I know these things are difficult. What I have a problem with is forgetting that this is completly incomprehensible without the Holy Spirit revealing the wonderfull works of God to us on a personal level.

I appreciate the humility it took to say that you don't have the answer. This subject is so deep that we should all feel dwarfed by it. We don't have all of the answers but if we know the One who does that's the place to start. Anything less is chasing the wind.

Good post shernren, thanks for that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

shernren said:

This veers tremendously from origins theology, but I would believe that it is simply the revelative work of the Holy Spirit that allows us to experience and know the evidence for God. Until we have the revelation of the Holy Spirit we do not have the truth of God, fullstop. I appreciate the tension between the revelation of God ("without the Holy Spirit, no one can get to know God") and the free choice of man ("God is evident to all, it is man who rejects Him") and I don't pretend to have an answer to the apparent conflict.

Click to expand...

I do not think by the Spirit we can fully know the knowledge of Creation. We are going to have to wait for Heaven to ask God himself. Which ever side is right or maybe it was completely different then we even know. But as far as making an educated opinion on the matter of young earth old earth or Creation Evolution etc. Make sure to research both sides before you make you decision. I was strictly a belive what main stream science tells us knid of guy until I researched Young Earth and the science many people use is sound and scriptural. Those two combined convince me.

God Bless

mark kennedy said:

Faith, yes of course, but faith as defined as what exactly.

Hebrews 1:2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

The Scriptures persude but it is the Holy Spirit that convicts. Faith is based on real evidence, the only evidence we need to understand the origin of life on planet earth.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Click to expand...

And does the Holy Spirit "convict" by laying out objective evidence at our feet?

What "real evidence" is any of our faith based on?

mark kennedy said:

Faith is based on real evidence, the only evidence we need to understand the origin of life on planet earth.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Click to expand...

I have been puzzled for a while now on why you say evidence is needed for faith.

In debates on origins, the term "evidence" usually means "scientific evidence" IOW concrete evidence perceived through the physical senses.

But you seem to be using "evidence" in a completely different way.

I would agree there are forms of evidence which do not meet the criteria of scientific evidence.

An important one is testimony. In a court of law, the sworn testimony of a witness is received as evidence. In science it is not.

Testimony, of course, is very important in Christian faith, for faith is built on the testimony of the Holy Spirit, the testimony of the prophets and apostles, the testimony of the Church as it has preserved the faith once delivered to the saints, and the testimony of the evangelists who committed their own or others' testimony to writing in the Holy Scriptures. (And all of these, of course, are built on the one foundation of Christian faith, Jesus Christ.)

You and I have disagreed on what the evidence shows about miracles such as the resurrection of Jesus. I have been using the scientific criteria of "evidence". By that standard I hold there is no evidence whatsoever of the resurrection.

You have said there is evidence, and that faith must be built on evidence.

But what evidence?

When I have asked, your replies don't make sense if the evidence to be considered is supposed to meet the criteria of scientific evidence.

Are you using a different measure of what constitutes evidence? If so, we may not be as far apart as it appears. I am certainly open to a meaning of "evidence" that is not as narrow as the scientific meaning.

mark kennedy said:

Veers from origins theology!? I think you just went to the heart of the whole thing. That is a perfect explanation for the basis of Christian conviction, how could that not be relavant to a discussion about Origins Theology. I don't really have a problem with TE or OEC, I know these things are difficult. What I have a problem with is forgetting that this is completly incomprehensible without the Holy Spirit revealing the wonderfull works of God to us on a personal level.

Click to expand...

And that is what convinces me that this whole origins thing, fun and important as it is to discuss, does not affect our salvation faith. I find it impossible to believe that the Holy Spirit would say one thing to me (or allow me to believe in one thing) and yet say another thing to a brother or sister, equally passionate about God. I can only deduce that when it comes to origins we are, as it were, "on our own". The Holy Spirit seems to have decided in His wisdom not to give His church a consensus on this just yet. I am not saying that both sides of the debate are right, but that in the end it will have been just "human mistake" for the side which is wrong, and not a matter of having heard God wrongly.

vossler said:

Consensus in the church, where? Show me!

Click to expand...

Precisely. One would think that if it was such a critical issue to salvation, surely the Holy Spirit would've seen to it that we all got the same message...

gluadys said:

I have been puzzled for a while now on why you say evidence is needed for faith.

Click to expand...

I have been puzzled for some time that you would not insist on it. Faith is not something you just grab out of the ether. There has to be a tangible basis for it.

In debates on origins, the term "evidence" usually means "scientific evidence" IOW concrete evidence perceived through the physical senses.

Click to expand...

there are those naturalistic assumptions clouding up the issue again. Tell me something, do you love your family? Can you prove that scientifically? Do you believe that Christ was raised from the dead and that power is available to you by faith? Can you empirically test that belief?

An important one is testimony. In a court of law, the sworn testimony of a witness is received as evidence. In science it is not.

Click to expand...

That's not true, eyewitness testimony is evidence in court and it is scientific. Science is the fine art of observation, every scientific observation is an eyewittness account.

Testimony, of course, is very important in Christian faith, for faith is built on the testimony of the Holy Spirit, the testimony of the prophets and apostles, the testimony of the Church as it has preserved the faith once delivered to the saints, and the testimony of the evangelists who committed their own or others' testimony to writing in the Holy Scriptures. (And all of these, of course, are built on the one foundation of Christian faith, Jesus Christ.)

Click to expand...

I can see no reason to disagree with this.

You and I have disagreed on what the evidence shows about miracles such as the resurrection of Jesus. I have been using the scientific criteria of "evidence". By that standard I hold there is no evidence whatsoever of the resurrection.

Click to expand...

I am not really sure I know how you are using that term and I'm not really sure I care. Did the ressurection happen and is the same power available to you by faith? Origins theology is not a part of the Nicean Cread but the ressurection definiatly is. If there is no evidence that it happened then what is our faith based on? The Apostles didn't accept it lightly, why should we?

You have said there is evidence, and that faith must be built on evidence.

When I have asked, your replies don't make sense if the evidence to be considered is supposed to meet the criteria of scientific evidence.

Are you using a different measure of what constitutes evidence? If so, we may not be as far apart as it appears. I am certainly open to a meaning of "evidence" that is not as narrow as the scientific meaning.

Click to expand...

You keep using the words scientific and evidence as if they were mutually exclusive with faith. I don't do that and I never seen any reason why we should. Evidence does not have to come out of a beaker, or be observed at the end of a microscope. I still am waiting for you to explain to me why I should believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and why I should care.

Is there anything science can help us with here are is there more to reality then meticulas experimentation?

Grace and peace,
Mark

mark kennedy said:

I have been puzzled for some time that you would not insist on it. Faith is not something you just grab out of the ether. There has to be a tangible basis for it.

Click to expand...

I don't know of any tangible basis. The lack of a tangible basis is why faith is necessary.

there are those naturalistic assumptions clouding up the issue again.

Click to expand...

I would say they are criteria rather than assumptions.

Tell me something, do you love your family?

Click to expand...

Yes

Can you prove that scientifically?

Click to expand...

No

Do you believe that Christ was raised from the dead and that power is available to you by faith?

Click to expand...

Yes

Can you empirically test that belief?

Click to expand...

No

That's not true, eyewitness testimony is evidence in court and it is scientific.

Click to expand...

No, it is not scientific unless and until what the witness testified to seeing is brought into the courtroom. And then the witness's testimony is no longer necessary. The case can be made on the basis of the jury seeing the objective evidence for themselves.

I am not really sure I know how you are using that term and I'm not really sure I care.

Click to expand...

I already told you how I am using it. Whether you care or not is up to you.

Did the ressurection happen and is the same power available to you by faith?

Click to expand...

Yes

If there is no evidence that it happened then what is our faith based on?

Click to expand...

Faith in the testimony of the apostles, the church and the Holy Spirit.

You keep using the words scientific and evidence as if they were mutually exclusive with faith.

Click to expand...

They are. One does not need trust in someone else's word to believe the evidence one can see for oneself.

Evidence does not have to come out of a beaker, or be observed at the end of a microscope.

Click to expand...

Even scientific evidence is not that narrow, but it does have to be objective. It has to be something that everyone can see if they look, and that everyone will describe in much the same way upon observing it. Or if reasoning is involved, everyone will be able to follow and agree with the reasoning and that the conclusion is valid. (In practice this may be limited to those qualified e.g if the reasoning is mathematical, one will need to have the necessary background in mathematics.)

I still am waiting for you to explain to me why I should believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and why I should care.

Click to expand...

I can't. This is the difference between science and faith. In science I can show you exactly why I come to the conclusions I do. In matters of faith, I can give you my testimony as to why I believe, but you have to decide if that is a reason for you to believe. Faith has to come from within yourself. I can't pour it into you.

In fact, faith has to come from God. It is a gift of grace. "For by grace you have been saved, through faith; and this is not your own doing. It is the gift of God." Ephesians 2:8

Is there anything science can help us with here

Click to expand...

No

is there more to reality then meticulas experimentation?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course there is.

gluadys said:

They are. One does not need trust in someone else's word to believe the evidence one can see for oneself.

Click to expand...

This is a very interesting conversation and I am glad to see it being discussed. I apologize for my intruding, but I am curious about this statement you made.

You stated that you don't need to trust in someone else's word to believe the evidence one can see for oneself. When there is no evidence, but someone's word, how readily can you trust it?

Take the Apostles for instance, how do you know you can trust their word? You don't have evidence to go on about the resurrection, evidence that you can see, so how do you know to trust the Apostles?

It could, afterall, be a myth where some aspects are not historically accurate about the resurrection, say the resurrection itself. The Apostles may think they saw Christ and wrote it genuiely down, but it may have never happened. So, how do you know it did and why do you trust that it did when you require more from things like creation in order to be accepted?

SBG said:

Take the Apostles for instance, how do you know you can trust their word? You don't have evidence to go on about the resurrection, evidence that you can see, so how do you know to trust the Apostles?

It could, afterall, be a myth where some aspects are not historically accurate about the resurrection, say the resurrection itself. The Apostles may think they saw Christ and wrote it genuiely down, but it may have never happened. So, how do you know it did and why do you trust that it did when you require more from things like creation in order to be accepted?

Click to expand...

A Christian is by definition someone who trusts the Apostles, and everything that can be inferred from the Apostles' teachings and lifestyles.

I remember once in a camp we were asked to discuss this: "How do you know that the Bible is true?" All the groups started listing points about how the Bible is historically valid, it is coherent despite being put together over an immense period of time, etc. ... then our camp leader stood up and said, "The first thing you all should have said is that 'Jesus said, 'My Word is spirit and truth'.'"

"But," we protested, "that's circular logic!"

I can't remember what his reply was but it went something along the lines of "So what? Everything that makes you Christian begins with the Bible."

We must keep in mind that we can't play the same game the atheists play and expect to win. The atheist starts saying "Hmm, if I poke around with Christianity long enough something's going to contradict something else and poof! the whole thing collapses!" and we can't play that game with their beliefs. Christianity is beyond rationality. Not irrational, but superrational - as all human contact with the Divine must be.

The Gospels are historical documents that are nearly 2,000 years ago, and an atheist may be justified to wave them away by pointing out apparent distortion over the ages. Of course apologetics against this kind of propaganda is necessary and vital; but in the long run, the Bible is not accountable to human criticism. It is not true just because so-and-so says it; it is true because God says so. And no human evidence can falsify the Gospels, not when this human evidence is up against the Divine testimony of the quickening of the Holy Spirit. Christians often spend too much time quibbling about just what exactly these true Scriptures, being true, must mean; they forget that they are united against an unbelieving world over the common ground that the Scriptures are true to begin with.

If you'd never seen anything else I'd said on Origins Theology you would have thought I was a YEC based on what I've just said right? ... heh. Just goes to show that this whole YEC/OEC/TE shebang really isn't as important as some of us like to believe. There's still a mighty huge load of Christianity we can agree on.

I believe in the Bible. But not in certain interpretations of it.

shernren said:

A Christian is by definition someone who trusts the Apostles, and everything that can be inferred from the Apostles' teachings and lifestyles.

Click to expand...

While I agree, I tend to view Christian as meaning one who follows Christ. One who follows Christ accepts the eye witness testimony of the Apostles.

My question was more along the line of what I thought Gluady's was expressing about evidence and beliefs. If we have God's given message being expressed through His chosen people, do we accept their testimony even if many people declare otherwise? Or how about in despite of evidence that people have brought forth?

There are people have tried to disprove the resurrection. The common assertion that the Apostles stole the body of Jesus Christ. There are others as well. Then we have evidence that people who are dead and have been dead do not come back to life. Especially after 3 days. There is surmounting evidence that proves this to be true.

We have the Bible that has recorded testimony of the Apostles who claim Jesus rose from the dead. We have no other testimony else where for this claim. We have surmounting evidence that proves human beings who are dead for three days do not come back to life. Scientifically, this is impossible.

So, as a science person, why accept the resurrection and deny the scientific fact in the light of acceptance of evolution and the denial of 6 day creation?

I think this is a valid question to ask.

shernren said:

I remember once in a camp we were asked to discuss this: "How do you know that the Bible is true?" All the groups started listing points about how the Bible is historically valid, it is coherent despite being put together over an immense period of time, etc. ... then our camp leader stood up and said, "The first thing you all should have said is that 'Jesus said, 'My Word is spirit and truth'.'"

"But," we protested, "that's circular logic!"

I can't remember what his reply was but it went something along the lines of "So what? Everything that makes you Christian begins with the Bible."

We must keep in mind that we can't play the same game the atheists play and expect to win. The atheist starts saying "Hmm, if I poke around with Christianity long enough something's going to contradict something else and poof! the whole thing collapses!" and we can't play that game with their beliefs. Christianity is beyond rationality. Not irrational, but superrational - as all human contact with the Divine must be.

The Gospels are historical documents that are nearly 2,000 years ago, and an atheist may be justified to wave them away by pointing out apparent distortion over the ages. Of course apologetics against this kind of propaganda is necessary and vital; but in the long run, the Bible is not accountable to human criticism. It is not true just because so-and-so says it; it is true because God says so. And no human evidence can falsify the Gospels, not when this human evidence is up against the Divine testimony of the quickening of the Holy Spirit. Christians often spend too much time quibbling about just what exactly these true Scriptures, being true, must mean; they forget that they are united against an unbelieving world over the common ground that the Scriptures are true to begin with.

Click to expand...

Amen!

My question was more along the line of what I thought Gluady's was expressing about evidence and beliefs. If we have God's given message being expressed through His chosen people, do we accept their testimony even if many people declare otherwise? Or how about in despite of evidence that people have brought forth?

Click to expand...

If you are talking specifically about origins here, my personal view (I won't speak for gluadys) is this: I agree with you that God gave His eternally true message through His chosen people to us. I just happen to disagree on what that message actually is.

It is not surprising that each of us petty humans see a different side to a message that is essentially God-sized.

So, as a science person, why accept the resurrection and deny the scientific fact in the light of acceptance of evolution and the denial of 6 day creation?

Click to expand...

I accept the resurrection simply because I do. Simply because I trust the word of the Apostles and of Jesus Himself on this matter. And I trust those words because of the revelation of the Holy Spirit. That is what being a Christian is. ... I find that I need the resurrection to be a Christian, but not the literal-6-day creation.

SBG said:

While I agree, I tend to view Christian as meaning one who follows Christ. One who follows Christ accepts the eye witness testimony of the Apostles.

Click to expand...

Amen.

My question was more along the line of what I thought Gluady's was expressing about evidence and beliefs. If we have God's given message being expressed through His chosen people, do we accept their testimony even if many people declare otherwise? Or how about in despite of evidence that people have brought forth?

Click to expand...

Shernren said earlier that faith is beyond rationality but not irrational. I agree with that. Yes, we do accept the testimony of God's people as to the message of God over the testimony of other people proclaiming other gods (or no god). And we do this based on faith, for we have no rational means on deciding whose testimony is true. However, while this faith goes beyond rationality, it is not irrational.

Evidence, however, is a different matter. The sort of evidence science deals with is provided by creation itself. And creation itself is a revelation from the Creator. To deny evidence is not faith. It is not beyond rationality. It is irrational. It is a denial of a message which God has given us. It is a denial of the gifts God has given us for perceiving his Creation and glorifying him for it.

We have the Bible that has recorded testimony of the Apostles who claim Jesus rose from the dead. We have no other testimony else where for this claim. We have surmounting evidence that proves human beings who are dead for three days do not come back to life. Scientifically, this is impossible.

Click to expand...

Scientifically it is impossible. Because science tells us what will ordinarily happen if there is no interference with nature. But of course, no one claims the resurrection was an ordinary natural event. So the scientific impossibility is irrelevant.

shernren said:

If you are talking specifically about origins here, my personal view (I won't speak for gluadys) is this: I agree with you that God gave His eternally true message through His chosen people to us. I just happen to disagree on what that message actually is.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

shernren said:

It is not surprising that each of us petty humans see a different side to a message that is essentially God-sized.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

shernren said:

I accept the resurrection simply because I do. Simply because I trust the word of the Apostles and of Jesus Himself on this matter. And I trust those words because of the revelation of the Holy Spirit. That is what being a Christian is. ... I find that I need the resurrection to be a Christian, but not the literal-6-day creation.

Click to expand...

First, I want to state what I am going to ask is out of my curiousity, and my intent is not for it sound as if I am trying to agrue against you. I apologize now if it come across that way. Sometimes I find it hard to express what I want in way that will not be taking wrongly by anyone.

We all accept here that Jesus is God, so we don't need to look at that. We also know that because of Who Jesus is, that the Old Testament message came from Him. Jesus also said, if one doesn't/can't believe what He says about earthly matter then how can one believe Him about heavenly matters. Jesus also said, believe in Me. The Bible states God is not the author of confusion.

Now, I would take this all and put it together when looking at any part of the Bible. This is how I see it: Jesus being the very nature God, inspired holy men to write His message. Also, God isn't the author of confusion, His word never changes, and He wants His message to be understood by man at the time it is being given and for whom it is given. Looking at ancient writings, men at the time did understand longer periods than 6 days. They also talked about time as 'forever'. So, they understood about very long periods and talked about God being the ancient of days, which now would be understood as eternal. My conclusion would be that they were capable of understanding a creation that could be ancient.

Yet, God/Jesus, gives the creation message in six days. Examination of the Hebrew on my part, leads me to believe that this isn't poetic or all symbolic so that the plain message is not the real message, but the deeper meaning is. My investigation of it leads me to believe that the plain message was intended, which is a six day creation as well as a deeper message, God the Creator all powerful and mighty that He and He alone should be glorified.

So, after all this fluff talk by me, my question would be: how do you know that when Jesus said believe in Me, He didn't also mean accept and believe by faith in what I say? Especially when He did say if one cannot believe what He has to say about earthly matters then how can one believe what He says about heavenly matters. The earthly matter here being six day creation. It just seems to me that you easily accept the resurrection because without accept it, you have no hope. But when it comes to creation as one understands it plainly, six days, you don't easily accept it but reject the six day part.

To be completely honest with you, to me it sounds like a double standard. Since, you used to be a YEC, I am sure you may understand my point of view on this and can help me see this as you do.

I know I said a lot here and it may or may not be taken as I hope it will. I take joy in knowing that we serve the same God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

gluadys said:

Amen.

Click to expand...

It is awesome to be serving God, isn't it?!

gluadys said:

Shernren said earlier that faith is beyond rationality but not irrational. I agree with that. Yes, we do accept the testimony of God's people as to the message of God over the testimony of other people proclaiming other gods (or no god). And we do this based on faith, for we have no rational means on deciding whose testimony is true. However, while this faith goes beyond rationality, it is not irrational.

Evidence, however, is a different matter. The sort of evidence science deals with is provided by creation itself. And creation itself is a revelation from the Creator. To deny evidence is not faith. It is not beyond rationality. It is irrational. It is a denial of a message which God has given us. It is a denial of the gifts God has given us for perceiving his Creation and glorifying him for it.

Click to expand...

How do you know that the scientists have interpreted that evidence accurately and that no new evidence will come up in the future to prove the current acceptance of a creation over millions/billions of years?

Do you feel that you have put your trust in science and scientists to be accurate and not be wrong in the future, however long that may be?

gluadys said:

Scientifically it is impossible. Because science tells us what will ordinarily happen if there is no interference with nature. But of course, no one claims the resurrection was an ordinary natural event. So the scientific impossibility is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

What if creation was no ordinary natural event either? Wouldn't then science also be irrelevant concerning creation?