Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Never heard of Tillich, and I consider Liberal Theology repugnant. My theology is conservative, orthodox Lutheran.
That's three TEs so far, two of them noted conservatives (I lean "conservative" often but do not label myself such).
With all due respect, Mark, your case doesn't look promising.
I Whether you believe the gospel or not, evolution as epistemology rejects God as a cause of anything because to them God does not exist. So you choose to side with these enemies of the Christian faith and attack Bible believing Christians. I don't get it.
Rather, I would think they give scant recognition of a God who does anything except in ways that are comprehended and explainable by humans.
Evolution does not reject God, as you can easily see as there are many evolutionists who believe in God. But if you think that it rejects your own idea of God, let me ask two questions.Whether you believe the gospel or not, evolution as epistemology rejects God as a cause of anything because to them God does not exist. So you choose to side with these enemies of the Christian faith and attack Bible believing Christians. I don't get it.
Then you can appreciate the fact that Luther was more of a Young Earth Creationist then Augustine:
A tradition embraced by every version of Lutheran theology I can find:
It is quite evident that such subtilties have originated in the schools, not in the council of the Emperor. Apology But although this sophistry can be very easily refuted; yet, in order that all good men may understand that we teach in this matter nothing that is absurd, we ask first of all that the German Confession be examined. This will free us from the suspicion of novelty. For there it is written: Weiter wird gelehrt, dass nach dem Fall Adams alle Menschen, so natuerlich geboren werden, in Suenden empfangen und geboren werden, das ist, dass sie alle von Mutterleibe an voll boeser Lueste und Neigung sind, keine wahre Gottesfurcht, keinen wahren Glauben an Gott von Natur haben koennen. [It is further taught that
since the Fall of Adam all men who are naturally born are conceived and born in sin, i.e., that they all, from their mother’s womb, are full of evil desire and inclination, and can have by nature no true fear of God, no true faith in God.](TRIGLOT CONCORDIA)The Bible and Lutherans teach that at the beginning of time God created heaven and earth and all creatures. He did this in six days. He spoke his almighty word to create all things. He made everything out of nothing. But man and woman are God’s special creation.
That's three TEs so far, two of them noted conservatives (I lean "conservative" often but do not label myself such).
With all due respect, Mark, your case doesn't look promising.
Assuming that was true... and it is not... is it any worse than giving scant recognition to a God who only acts in ways that cannot be comprehended or explainable by humans? Must the only sign of God's presence be our own ignorance of His methods?
We do acknowledge as much. But we don't use that as an excuse to stop trying and simply chalk what we don't yet understand up to a miracle of God. God promises to bless those who seek to unravel His mysteries (Proverbs 25:2). If God has given some of us with the capacity to think, why not take Him up on the offer?That being said, it may matter to you that this is illogical to some. But, I can't imagine why an intelligent person would not assume that most of what's good is outside of their knowledge.
Is your God so weak that some scientific discovery can put him out of existence?
You are creating a rather harsh dilemma here. You make it so that the only choices are: 1) Being a Christian who agrees with a literal interpretation of Genesis 2) Being a non-Christian who agrees with the current findings of science. By forcing people to choose you will cause some to reject Christianity wholesale. You don't even seem to acknowledge the many many shades in between.Traditionally Christians have embraced YEC without reservations. Now with the advent of Darwinism that attack a literal interpretation of the Scriptures and that's really all they do. Whether you believe the gospel or not, evolution as epistemology rejects God as a cause of anything because to them God does not exist. So you choose to side with these enemies of the Christian faith and attack Bible believing Christians. I don't get it.
Baloney, Moses describes the historical narrative and Paul affirms the event in no uncertain terms. I have seen it in the original and never read it in the Latin. Don't you know that it is the original that is canonical and not the translation?Which is it? Is it based on tradition, or is it based on Moses and Paul, because neither Moses nor Paul ever mention 'Original Sin' or ever suggested we sinned when Adam did, while you favourite quote 'we all sinned in Adam' is simply a human tradition that dates back to a bad translation into Latin.
Actually Augustine would never qualify as a modern Creationist because he did not take the Genesis days literally and he believed using your scriptural interpetation to argue against science was 'disgraceful and dangerous' and brought the gospel into disrepute.Because you cites 11 Church fathers which establishes Creationism as a traditional doctrine. That's how!
Once again you are assuming this without any supporting evidence. I say again, I have seen it in the original and it's not complicated exegesis to understand that Adam means the first human being.
I don't care about the Vulgate, I know where he got the English translation and it was not the Latin. It was translated, primarily by William Tyndale and John Wycliffe not the Vulgate.
The real question is why you don't accept Creationism as a Christian doctrine. I don't care about Augustine and certainly don't wholeheartedly embrace RCC doctrine unconditionally. What I do appreciate is scholarship and the TE perspective is unheard of in a Christian context before the advent of TOE.
It's the lack of righteousness and holiness based on a single event in human history. That is exactly what the article says and exactly what Christians have been teaching for 2,000 years.
For someone who isn't an apologist for the Catholic Church, you sure quote the Catholic Encyclopedia a lot, and quote it as authoritative too. Like is said it is odd behaviour for an evangelical.First of all I am not an apologist for the RCC. Second of all I can cite all the Christian scholarship you need in support of the doctrine of original sin going all the way back to Paul and Moses. Split the semantical hairs all you like but the Scriptures are crystal clear and you can believe the historical narrative of Genesis or you can believe the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common ancestry but you cannot have it both ways. It's Moses and Paul or it's Darwin, there is not third choice.
No it's not a mistranslation, that is not only untrue it's pure undiluted ignorance to insist that it is. Now either you look at the original or you have nothing.
That sounds like a challenge, no problem. Would you consider arguing this formally. Just the exposition of the proof texts from the original. Put you money where you mouth is and drop me a PM if you actually have the courage of your convictions.
Technically you are not twisting my words, you are twisting Paul's You have not offered a shred of supporting evidence that the passage was mistranslated.
I know what you are doing, you are trying to get me to defend Catholicism knowing full well I am an evangelical but I am wise to these tricks.
Look at the original and if you are convinced that the passage was translated wrong then we can deal with this in depth and formally. Otherwise I would have to conclude that your worldview has polluted your theology and I have no remedy for that.
I do not play with trolls.
I don't know what you believe and I don't really care,
I know Creationism is the traditional Christian doctrine of the origin of man, sin and life on this planet.
Traditionally Christians have embraced YEC without reservations. Now with the advent of Darwinism that attack a literal interpretation of the Scriptures and that's really all they do.
Whether you believe the gospel or not, evolution as epistemology rejects God as a cause of anything because to them God does not exist.
So you choose to side with these enemies of the Christian faith and attack Bible believing Christians. I don't get it.
Agreed.
Make it four, including one unabashed "liberal". (I don't like labels much either.)
I know of no one in my theological circles who would have problems with any of these six points.
Amazing the way you switch subjects back and forth. I say that Moses and Paul never mentioned original sin or suggested we sinned when Adam did. You reply "Moses describes the historical narrative". What has that got to do with it? Even if Moses did consider the creation account literal, which is doubtful, it still does not justify your claiming Moses as a basis for your 'all sinned in Adam' Original Sin doctrine, neither Moses nor Paul ever say that.
And if you have seen 'all sinned in Adam' in the original, why don't you tell us where the verse is? Unless you can do that, I can only conclude you got it from it's actual source, Augustine and the mistranslation into Latin of Romans 5:12. Augustine tells us he got "all then sinned in Adam" from Romans 5:12 and quotes the Latin Vulgate in quo omnes peccaverunt (in whom all have sinned). It is a mistranslation. The original says εφ ω παντες ημαρτον, because all sinned. So how do you get all sinned in Adam from the original when the phrase dates back to Augustine got it from a Latin mistranslation?
Actually Augustine would never qualify as a modern Creationist because he did not take the Genesis days literally and he believed using your scriptural interpetation to argue against science was 'disgraceful and dangerous' and brought the gospel into disrepute.
And it is not Creationism he was trying to establish as a doctrine with his 11 church fathers, but his doctrine of original sin. However he only succeeded in establishing it as Catholic Doctrine. The Churches in the East never accepted his view. Why should they when it is really based on a bad Latin translation?
Switch again. What have you seen in the original?
We all sinned in Adam?
Or
Adam means the first human being?
Anyway Adam means a man or mankind too. In fact when Genesis talks about God wiping out the human race in the flood the human race is describe as 'the Adam whom I have created' Gen 6:5&6. It is circular exegesis to say Adam means the first human being therefore the Genesis account is a historical narrative because the dictionary description of adam as the name of the first human being is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis to start with.
But that is all beside the point. The issue is not Adam being the first human being, but that we all sinned in Adam.
What??? Augustine got the verse from Tyndale?
Wycliffe followed the Vulgate in his translation of Romans 5:12
You are creating a rather harsh dilemma here. You make it so that the only choices are: 1) Being a Christian who agrees with a literal interpretation of Genesis 2) Being a non-Christian who agrees with the current findings of science. By forcing people to choose you will cause some to reject Christianity wholesale. You don't even seem to acknowledge the many many shades in between.
As others noted, science does not say "God does not exist". It is agnostic, not atheistic.
This creates no dilemma for the evangelical.
Scientists by and large believe religion is a social biological manifestation of purely naturalistic impulses.
This creates no dilemma for the evangelical. The Scriptures are authoritative in the historical narratives that they give us in detailed and meticulous fashion. They (Moses, Paul and Luke) are preferred above secular sources that do not regard the Scriptures as historical simply based on their supernatural element.
Scientists by and large believe religion is a social biological manifestation of purely naturalistic impulses. The personal God of Scripture is unknown in modern academics. They are, in fact, overtly hostile to any inference of God and intend to expunge it even from the Christian religion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?