The Case of the Phantom Menace

[Vance]

It seems to me that the majority of the Creationist platform is based on the fear of a Phantom Menace. So often, when a topic is raised, whether it be interpretation of Scripture, the Fall of Man, a literal Adam, etc, etc, the argument that Creationists will eventually fall back on a slippery slope/phantom menace position. They will acknowledge that a belief in evolution, or figurative Adam, etc, is not itself a "salvation" issue, but . . .

I will give some examples and in each, consider X something that is not a "salvation" issue in and of itself (an old earth, evolution itself, a figurative Adam, no global flood, etc), but Y is. Here is what we end up hearing:

"Well, if you don't believe X, then how can you believe Y?" [or even, "you can't possibly believe Y."]

"A belief in X means you reject A and B, which means, ultimately, that you reject Y".

"You can't truly have faith in the truth of Y if you believe X".

"A belief in X will lead to a disbelief in Y"

"The whole concept of X does away with the need for Y".

And numerous other variations on this theme. Not only does this rely on a slippery slope (which ends up being not as slippery as they think), the entire "menace" is a PHANTOM menace, since all of these statements are almost immediately falsified. It is shown over and over that those who DO believe X almost always still believe Y. Just because a given Creationist can't imagine how someone can accept Y when they also accept X doesn't mean a thing. The facts are the facts.

Those Christians who accept all those X's tend to believe (and believe just as strongly) in every orthodox essential for salvation. Their belief in evolution, or a figurative reading of Genesis, or a typological Adam, does not seem to do ANY damage, whatsoever, to their faith in anything essential for salvation at all. Yes, there have always been those within Christianity who hold unorthodox beliefs, as much before the advent of this debate as now. But the fact that millions of Christians entirely accept evolution and have NONE of their essential Christian beliefs undermined is a plain and simple falsification of the phantom menace.

The bottom line is that any rejection of an idea or concept based on "what the effect will be on other beliefs", is only a valid objection to the extent that effect actually is observable. In the case of Creationist arguments, it is NOT observable. We are still Christians, and devout, committed, Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians at that!

 

[SBG]

You cannot claim to be Bible believing when you reject Adam, the fall, global flood, and the Holy Spirit Incarnation. The Bible teaches these things you reject as true events, as written.

You further claim that things written in the Bible aren't necessary to be believed. We have such a small amount of what is written about God, and yet you claim we don't need to believe certain things that are written. You call them not important.

God speaks, and you call it not important to believe.

 

[Remus]

Be sure to catch the next installment of our debate called Attack of the Clones. Ten years after the 'Phantom Menace' threatened the planet Origins, TwinCrier Amidala is now a Senator representing her homeworld. A faction of political separatists, led by Count Didaskomenos, attempts to assassinate her. There aren't enough Jedi to defend the Republic against the threat, so Chancellor SBG enlists the aid of Remus Fett, who promises that his army of clones will handle the situation. Meanwhile, Obi-Wan b*unique continues to train the young Jedi Vance Skywalker, who fears that the Jedi code will forbid his growing romance with Amidala...

Shameless hack from this site.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121765/plotsummary

 

[Vance]

I'm too old to be Skywalker. :0)

Funny that the "advertisements" that come up are for the movies.

 

[Remus]

Okay, you can be Jar Jar then. The part for Anakin has just come open. Any takers?

 

[SBG]

That is so funny! You had me rolling while reading that, Remus!

 

[Remus]

That is so funny! You had me rolling while reading that, Remus!

Seriously though, we have a big problem here. We don't have someone to play Yoda. :-\

 

[SBG]

Whoever is short and green has the job!

 

[Remus]

After giving this some thought, I think I want to be Jar Jar.

 

[Vance]

After giving this some thought, I think I want to be Jar Jar.

Phew! I was willing to sacrifice for the cause, but really!

 

[SBG]

What about Jabba the hut? Who is gonna play him, huh?

 

[Remus]

Phew! I was willing to sacrifice for the cause, but really!

LOL

What about Jabba the hut? Who is gonna play him, huh?

hmm.. umm... I'll be in my trailer.

 

[JesseRaymondBassett]

Is this really a thread for the theology sub-forum or the movie sub-forum?

 

[Remus]

Not my fault! Vance brought it up first.

Besides, I'm in a StarWars kind of mood.

 

[SBG]

I cannot wait to see the third and final movie!

 

[Vance]

My church says Star Wars and Harry Potter are of Satan. They seem wobbly on Lord of the Rings. I am a rebel and saw them all anyway. :0)

 

[Remus]

Is this really a thread for the theology sub-forum or the movie sub-forum?

Oh, would you like to play the part of Anakin?

I cannot wait to see the third and final movie!

My work is taking us next week during business hours. Are we a bunch of geeks or what?

My church says Star Wars and Harry Potter are of Satan. They seem wobbly on Lord of the Rings. I am a rebel and saw them all anyway. :0)

I don't know what my church thinks about them, but Harry Potter makes my head hurt. The wife likes them, so I have to watch them too.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You cannot claim to be Bible believing when you reject Adam, the fall, global flood, and the Holy Spirit Incarnation. The Bible teaches these things you reject as true events, as written.

You further claim that things written in the Bible aren't necessary to be believed. We have such a small amount of what is written about God, and yet you claim we don't need to believe certain things that are written. You call them not important.

God speaks, and you call it not important to believe.

this touches on an important issue that AFAIK has never been solved in the church without schism. How do you define what is essential to believe to be a Christian?

it is not tangential to these origins questions. For instance, I can subscribe to the Westminster Confession except for the YECist and Sabbatharian positions. I believe that Adam is fully historical, but i admit that it is not a necessary position, the federal headship doctrine seems to work just fine with Adam as a model in God's mind. Does this put me outside the pale of the church, often YECists argue so. These same YECists however would object to 90% of my church's confession thus making them uneligible for church membership. Why is this one issue (along with abortion) raised to such a litmus test for orthodoxy position?

vance captures a good piece of the puzzle with the slippery slope to unbelief argument. but i think there are historical and sociological reasons as well.

....

 

[Vance]

The bottom line still is that what almost every Christian would call essential for salvation is believed just as devoutly by those who accept evolution, a figurative Adam, reject a global flood, etc, etc. Whether someone wants to call them Bible-believing or not is their call. But the menace is still a phantom one.

As for Bible-believing, though, YEC's want to beg the question. They want to be the ones who define what the Bible says, and then those who don't believe THAT are not "Bible-believers". Yet, those who believe whole-heartedly that the Bible says something very different would beg to differ. They believe what they are convinced the Bible says. Exactly the same as YEC's do.

 

[SBG]

this touches on an important issue that AFAIK has never been solved in the church without schism. How do you define what is essential to believe to be a Christian?

it is not tangential to these origins questions. For instance, I can subscribe to the Westminster Confession except for the YECist and Sabbatharian positions. I believe that Adam is fully historical, but i admit that it is not a necessary position, the federal headship doctrine seems to work just fine with Adam as a model in God's mind. Does this put me outside the pale of the church, often YECists argue so. These same YECists however would object to 90% of my church's confession thus making them uneligible for church membership. Why is this one issue (along with abortion) raised to such a litmus test for orthodoxy position?

vance captures a good piece of the puzzle with the slippery slope to unbelief argument. but i think there are historical and sociological reasons as well.

....

The first part of being a Christian is to accept Jesus Christ and follow Him. It is often said that this is enough and we can stop here. This is true and false at the same time.

It is enough for salvation, but do you not want to grow as a Christian? Do you not want to understand and hear what God has to say? If you do, then you will explore God's Word and open your ears to what His Spirit has to say.

Because we accept and follow Jesus Christ doesn't mean we just stop with that. You can, but it would be unwise. Scripture, every piece of it, every word of it, is useful for teaching. If you want to grow in your relationship with God, you will take God's Word as absolute truth and not hold anything outside of God and His Word over His Word.

A wise man does not use the philosophy of the world to judge the Bible. A wise man hears God's Words and judges what the world says against what God says.

You cannot make an excuse saying you don't know what God is saying. He speaks very clearly, so even a child can understand Him. It is granted that there are parts that are rather difficult, but when we are talking about creation, salvation, and His second coming, these are easy enough for a child to understand. Read Romans, Paul teaches that we are without excuse because we can understand what God says.

When you state 'what is essential' it suggests to me that you only care about what gets you into heaven, not what teaches you in the way of righteousness. Shall you only accept what is concerning salvation and not the other teachings of our Lord? Will you make the excuse of calling it my interpretation, when you know what the Bible clearly says?

If you are only concerned with making sure you get into heaven, but not about trying to walk in the steps of Christ, then stick only to what you call the essentials. If you are concerned with becoming like Christ, then read and understand God's Word as it is written. If you cannot figure out what is written, then don't hold science over God's Word. Study the original languages and know what the author truly meant.

I am curious about your view on abortion, since you brought it up. Do you think it is ok to kill an unborn child that God is fashioning inside the womb?