The Idols and False Notions have Taken Deep Root

[mark kennedy]

Speaking of being sloppy with terms, you're applauding someone who said:

That's right, theology is science or don't you know what the term actually means. Science is a word

The word science comes through the Old French, and is derived from the Latin word scientia for knowledge, which in turn comes from scio, "I know". The Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root that yields scio is *skei-, and it means "cut, separate, or discern". (Wikipedia)​

Paul didn't use that word for science since he wouldn't have used a French word derived from Latin:

1Tim. 6:20 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"​

The focus is epistemology or theories of knowledge. To know about God in the New Testament is in essence a science. Now I'll agree that there is a difference between natural science and theology but science is not defined by naturalistic assumptions.

Luke 1:76, 77 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,​

The word used here is gnosis (γνῶσις gnōsis) in 28 of the 29 occurrences it's translated 'knowledge' which is the literal meaning of the word science.

Are you sure you still want to label us as having no respect and being sloppy with words? Because it seems to me that if you're commending someone who equates theology with science, and who has earned a reputation for being invective, the shoe might be on the other foot!

I would respond that anyone who equates naturalistic assumptions with science being sloppy and invective.

 

[mark kennedy]

For what it's worth, here's some Greek soup for the last bit of that verse.

Wherefore,1223, 5124 as5618 by1223 one1520 man444 sin266 entered1525 into1519 the3588 world,2889 and2532 death2288 by1223 sin;266 and2532 so3779 death2288 passed1330 upon1519 all3956 men,444 for1909 that3739 all3956 have sinned:264
(Romans 5:12 KJV+)

(emphasis added)

G1909
ἐπί
epi
ep-ee'
A primary preposition properly meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution [with the genitive case], that is, over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.: - about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, [where-]) fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-) on (behalf of) over, (by, for) the space of, through (-out), (un-) to (-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).

G3739
ὅς, ἥ, ὅ
hos hē ho
hos, hay, ho
Probably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article G3588); the relative (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, that: - one, (an-, the) other, some, that, what, which, who (-m, -se), etc. See also G3757.

G3956
πᾶς
pas
pas
Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

G264
ἁμαρτάνω
hamartanō
ham-ar-tan'-o
Perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and the base of G3313; properly to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), that is, (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin: - for your faults, offend, sin, trespass.

Both in the original and in any responsible English translation, "Adam" simply isn't there in the verse.

Adam is named as the one man sin came from in verse 14. Paul clearly says:

by (διά dia 'through') one (εἷς heis 'one') man (ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos 'man') sin entered into the world​

And that man was Adam. The contention that the 'original sin' doctrine was based on Latin or Augustine's mistranslation is absurd. The passage in Romans clearly indicates that Paul considered Adam the first man and specially created. The idea that Adam had ancestors would never have occurred to him. You can rationalize it away because no matter what position you take or what you base it on Theistic Evolutionists will agree with it. If and only if you are attacking Creationism. Augustine took up this issue when the Pelagians argued that sin was a choice and you could choose not to sin.

 

[Melethiel]

How does "by one man sin came into the world" (a clear foundation of the doctrine of original sin, I agree) immediately mandate that Adam was "specially created" (for lack of a better term)? (I would also agree that Adam was the first man endowed with the imago Dei).
Much as I look, I do not see the logical progression.

 

[Mallon]

That's right, theology is science or don't you know what the term actually means. Science is a word

The word science comes through the Old French, and is derived from the Latin word scientia for knowledge, which in turn comes from scio, "I know". The Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root that yields scio is *skei-, and it means "cut, separate, or discern". (Wikipedia)​

Excellent. But the etymology of a word is not the same as its definition (e.g., a hippopotamus is not really a horse). Read further up the wikipedia page and you will find the definition of science at the top:
"Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of developing explanations for what we observe in the world around us based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of such knowledge gained through such research."

That is the definition of science, and theology does not fit that definition.

I would respond that anyone who equates naturalistic assumptions with science being sloppy and invective.

You are not and never have been a scientist, mark. So who are you to tell trained scientists what does and doesn't work as far as the scientific methodology goes? What credibility or experience do you have with respect to this subject? Because as it stands right now, it's you vs. the entire scientific community. What makes you right and all of them so wrong?

 

[mark kennedy]

How does "by one man sin came into the world" (a clear foundation of the doctrine of original sin, I agree) immediately mandate that Adam was "specially created" (for lack of a better term)? (I would also agree that Adam was the first man endowed with the imago Dei).
Much as I look, I do not see the logical progression.

Paul, Luke and Christ all are clearly working from a literal understanding of the Genesis account of creation. I'm no imposing that on the text and it's never been an issue expect when Christians opposed heretical traditions. That held true until the advent of Darwinism. Natural selection in On the Origin of Species was just an argument against special creation.

What we have here is a worldly philosophy imposing itself on Christian doctrine. You can interpret Genesis 1-11 figuratively if you think that is warranted but you will never get that from the proof texts in the New Testament.

 

[chaoschristian]

Adam is named as the one man sin came from in verse 14. Paul clearly says:

by (διά dia 'through') one (εἷς heis 'one') man (ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos 'man') sin entered into the world​

And that man was Adam. The contention that the 'original sin' doctrine was based on Latin or Augustine's mistranslation is absurd. The passage in Romans clearly indicates that Paul considered Adam the first man and specially created. The idea that Adam had ancestors would never have occurred to him. You can rationalize it away because no matter what position you take or what you base it on Theistic Evolutionists will agree with it. If and only if you are attacking Creationism. Augustine took up this issue when the Pelagians argued that sin was a choice and you could choose not to sin.

Mark:

I don't disagree with that Paul wrote 'Therefore as sin came into the world through one man.'

That's clearly written in Romans 5:12.

What I disagree with is your conclusion that all men inherit Adam's sin from Adam directly.

Because that conclusion ignores that rest of what Paul rights, 'and so death spread to all mean because all mean sinned.'

Death spread because all men sinned, not because Adam sinned.

That it was possible for men to sin was due to Adam, but sin spread because other men chose it, not because Adam passed that sin on to them.

I've read through this thread several times, especially these last pages, and really what you seem to be arguing for a biological component to sin. It strikes me that the vision you are presenting is one of an apple that somehow changed Adams DNA from holy to sinful and that because of that sin was spread to the following generations of man.

I don't know. Is that really what you are presenting here Mark? Is that why a literal Adam and a literal geneology from Adam to Jesus is so important to you? Please correct me if I've misunderstood.

 

[Melethiel]

Paul, Luke and Christ all are clearly working from a literal understanding of the Genesis account of creation. I'm no imposing that on the text and it's never been an issue expect when Christians opposed heretical traditions. That held true until the advent of Darwinism. Natural selection in On the Origin of Species was just an argument against special creation.

What we have here is a worldly philosophy imposing itself on Christian doctrine. You can interpret Genesis 1-11 figuratively if you think that is warranted but you will never get that from the proof texts in the New Testament.

Well, ignoring the fact that figurative and mystical interpretations of Genesis have been around for thousands of years...

So there's no logical reason to mandate this, only your assumptions.

 

[mark kennedy]

Excellent. But the etymology of a word is not the same as its definition (e.g., a hippopotamus is not really a horse). Read further up the wikipedia page and you will find the definition of science at the top:
"Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of developing explanations for what we observe in the world around us based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of such knowledge gained through such research."

Theology is also an organized body of research into the character and works of God from the world around us. The ancient Greeks laid the foundations for modern science and included the highest good as being the highest of the

Apprehensions derived from the impression of sense can never give us the knowledge of true being -- i.e. of the forms. It can only be obtained by the soul's activity within itself, apart from the troubles and disturbances of sense; that is to say, by the exercise of reason. Dialectic, as the instrument in this process, leading us to knowledge of the ideas, and finally of the highest idea of the Good, is the first of sciences (scientia scientiarum). Greek Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ​

Now if you choose to reject theology as science you have to reject Darwinism for the same reason since the focus has at it's foundation a theological theme:

Can we feel satisfied by saying that each Orchid was created, exactly as we now see it, on a certain "ideal type:" that the omnipotent Creator, having fixed on one plan for the whole Order, did not depart from this plan: that he, therefore, made the same organ to perform diverse functions -- often of trifling importance compared with their proper function -- converted other organs into mere purposeless rudiments, and arranged all as if they had to stand separate, and then made them cohere? Is it not a more simple and intelligible view that all the Orchideae owe what they have in common, to descent from some monocotyledonous plant....? [Charles Darwin, 1877. The Various Contrivances by Which Orchids Are Fertilized by Insects.]

Removing the theology from Darwin's argument for the common descent of the Orchideae would eviscerate it. Darwin provides no fossil evidence that orchids evolved from ordinary flowers, nor indeed any experimental evidence that such a transformation is even possible. [61] Rather, in the chapter leading to the passage cited above, Darwin describes patterns of similarity among orchids -- which patterns might, on a creationist reading of the evidence, indicate the purposeful workings of a designer. If one accepts however the premise that it is unfitting to ascribe variations on an "ideal type" to the direct artifice of an omnipotent creator, the same patterns become evidence of common descent. The theology in the passage is thus far more than a rhetorical device. It is the logical pivot of Darwin's entire argument.Jettison the Arguments, or the Rule? The Place of Darwinian Theological Themata in Evolutionary Reasoning​

That is the definition of science, and theology does not fit that definition.

It depends on how you define them. You can't have it both ways, you can't define science as exclusively naturalistic and then include arguments against against special creation at the heart of the emphasis. You cannot claim that Creationism is based on the Bible and then claim it is contrary to Biblical theism.

You are not and never have been a scientist, mark. So who are you to tell trained scientists what does and doesn't work as far as the scientific methodology goes? What credibility or experience do you have with respect to this subject? Because as it stands right now, it's you vs. the entire scientific community. What makes you right and all of them so wrong?

I'm not a theologian or a professional clergy, does that make me any less able to study the Scriptures? I read the scientific literature and pursue this topic of Creation vs Evolution on that basis for vast majority of the time. What makes you think that with my views on origins that the academic and scientific community would tolerate me for a minute?

You can pursue this line of ad hominem and arguments from authority but it's not a logical progression. The point being that I am not sloppy in my use of terms when I call theology science and Darwinism mythology. I choose those terms deliberately and a firm conviction what those terms mean.

I can argue that man and ape do not have a common ancestor based on science based on exclusively scientific sources and they have no answers. There is neither the time nor the means for the evolution of the human brain from that of apes. There is also no rational basis for rejecting Creationism based on the Scriptures. If evolutionists will stay out of my theology then I will stay out of their science but they won't and never have.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, ignoring the fact that figurative and mystical interpretations of Genesis have been around for thousands of years...

So there's no logical reason to mandate this, only your assumptions.

I was not aware that Orthodox Lutherans embraced Christian mysticism.

“Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is but the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way. Nevertheless, the scripture uses proverbs, similitudes, riddles, or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.” (William Tyndal, Works)​

I hold it for a most infallible rule in the exposition of Scripture, that when a literal construction will stand, the furthest from the literal is commonly the worst” (Richard Hooker, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, V. lix. 2)​

Luther rejected allegory. ... interpretation “dirt,” “scum,” and “obsolete loose rags.” Calvin also rejected allegorical interpretation, saying it led men away from the truth of Scripture. (Edited by Mal Couch)​

Literal interpretations have a long history as well and I do not feel that a figurative, mystical or allegorical interpretation is mandated either.

 

[Mallon]

Theology is also an organized body of research into the character and works of God from the world around us.

But it doesn't follow the scientific method. Thus, it is not science.
Believe it or not, there was a scientific revolution, termed the "Enlightenment", a few hundred years ago. During this time, the scientific method was crystalized, and the definition of science came to encompass that which we could study in an objective, methodologically natural manner. Again, theology does not fit this bill. It strikes me that trying to squeeze theology into the realm of science in order to give it some credibility to your mind is nothing short of scientism. There's nothing wrong with theology being a field in its own right. It doesn't need to be science in order to be useful.

Now if you choose to reject theology as science you have to reject Darwinism for the same reason since the focus has at it's foundation a theological theme

Nice quote mine. But while Darwin may have felt there was a creator involved at some point, the theory of evolution is not inherently theological in nature, because, like every other scientific theory, it does not require divine providence to work. If you think otherwise, please show me where the theory posits "God is required for X to happen". Now, I have faith that God does work through evolution (as did Darwin for some time), but this belief does not stem from the theory itself. I subscribe to the same theory of evolution that atheists do, so obviously the theory holds regardless of God's existence. Thus, evolution is not a theology, but a science. Your source is in error.

It depends on how you define them. You can't have it both ways, you can't define science as exclusively naturalistic and then include arguments against against special creation at the heart of the emphasis.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you please explain?

You cannot claim that Creationism is based on the Bible and then claim it is contrary to Biblical theism.

Your version of creationism (YECism) is a concordist approach to the Bible that I think lacks consistency and merit. An accomodationalist approach embraces biblical creationism in the same way, while acknowledging the timely nature of story through which God delivered His truths (much like the geocentric passages). We've gone over this before, so I don't know why you keep acting like we haven't. Again, the fact that the Bible speaks of the earth being created in six days really does not address the question whether this framework is incidental or not.

You can pursue this line of ad hominem and arguments from authority but it's not a logical progression.

I didn't attack your character, so I resent your accusation of making ad hom statements. What I said was a fact: you are not a scientist. And you never were a scientist. As such, you are not in a position to tell real scientists how to do their work. They know what makes for testable science, and "God did it" just isn't a falsifiable explanation. End of story. We settled this debate hundreds of years ago. And unless you're going to say something new and revolutionary, there's no point to flogging that dead horse anymore. You can scream until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't mean the scientific community has to listen to you.

The point being that I am not sloppy in my use of terms when I call theology science and Darwinism mythology. I choose those terms deliberately and a firm conviction what those terms mean.

Being convinced of your convictions doesn't make them right.

If evolutionists will stay out of my theology then I will stay out of their science but they won't and never have.

The shoe's on the other foot. YECs are the ones trying to have evolution removed from schools/young earth creationism taught in the science classrooms. Evolutionists are not trying to have the theory taught in Sunday school. So please don't make a martyr of your yourself and your cause by pretending you're the one under siege. Because reality shows the exact opposite is true.

 

[crawfish]

There is "literal" in the historical/scientific sense, and there is "literal" in the sense of the meaning we take from scripture. I absolutely believe in the latter, and accepting the latter does not automatically presume the former.

I absolutely reject taking meaning from scripture that was not intended in the first place.

 

[mark kennedy]

But it doesn't follow the scientific method. Thus, it is not science.
Believe it or not, there was a scientific revolution, termed the "Enlightenment", a few hundred years ago. During this time, the scientific method was crystalized, and the definition of science came to encompass that which we could study in an objective, methodologically natural manner. Again, theology does not fit this bill. It strikes me that trying to squeeze theology into the realm of science in order to give it some credibility to your mind is nothing short of scientism. There's nothing wrong with theology being a field in its own right. It doesn't need to be science in order to be useful.

When I address Creationism as science I focus on human ancestry and they have no genetic basis for the most important adaptation that would have had to occur. When I defend it as doctrine the obvious basis of Adam and Eve being literal, historical and essentially the first parents is irrefutable. Theology is a science in every sense of the word minus the naturalistic assumptions of Darwin and company.

Nice quote mine. But while Darwin may have felt there was a creator involved at some point, the theory of evolution is not inherently theological in nature, because, like every other scientific theory, it does not require divine providence to work. If you think otherwise, please show me where the theory posits "God is required for X to happen". Now, I have faith that God does work through evolution (as did Darwin for some time), but this belief does not stem from the theory itself. I subscribe to the same theory of evolution that atheists do, so obviously the theory holds regardless of God's existence. Thus, evolution is not a theology, but a science. Your source is in error.

For one thing Darwin was an atheist and never made a genuine profession of faith. Evolution as science is the change of the frequency of alleles in populations over time not universal common ancestry. Natural science with regards to Biology and Genetics is neutral in these debates, that's not my opinion, it's an obvious fact. It is Darwinism and the assumption of a common ancestor and it's unsubstantiated claims against special creation.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you please explain?

It depends on how you define them. You can't have it both ways, you can't define science as exclusively naturalistic and then include arguments against against special creation at the heart of the emphasis. Which means, if you make an argument against special creation then you are in the realm of theology which you have made clear is outside of science. I substantiate that claim and you dismiss it without a hearing.

Your version of creationism (YECism) is a concordist approach to the Bible that I think lacks consistency and merit. An accomodationalist approach embraces biblical creationism in the same way, while acknowledging the timely nature of story through which God delivered His truths (much like the geocentric passages). We've gone over this before, so I don't know why you keep acting like we haven't. Again, the fact that the Bible speaks of the earth being created in six days really does not address the question whether this framework is incidental or not.

My focus is on human ancestry, the earth is dated in the thousands not the billions of years by default. I don't really care about the age of the earth but I trust the clear testimony of Scripture over secular academics and science that is in opposition to the Christian faith as history.

I didn't attack your character, so I resent your accusation of making ad hom statements.

I was saying that your argument that I'm not a scientist is an ad hominem attack and an argument from authority. You have done nothing but reinforce this statement.

What I said was a fact: you are not a scientist. And you never were a scientist. As such, you are not in a position to tell real scientists how to do their work.

I'm not, I'm basing my view of origins almost exclusively on their work. When it comes to the Scriptures I take a very different approach.

They know what makes for testable science, and "God did it" just isn't a falsifiable explanation. End of story. We settled this debate hundreds of years ago. And unless you're going to say something new and revolutionary, there's no point to flogging that dead horse anymore. You can scream until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't mean the scientific community has to listen to you.

They don't listen to me or the many reputable scientists in the ID movement. By the way, I don't scream about it, evidential apologetics is by the evidence despite the opposing view of what the evidence really means.

Being convinced of your convictions doesn't make them right.

I didn't pull it out of my hat and I don't respond to you with pedantic one liners.

The shoe's on the other foot. YECs are the ones trying to have evolution removed from schools/young earth creationism taught in the science classrooms. Evolutionists are not trying to have the theory taught in Sunday school. So please don't make a martyr of your yourself and your cause by pretending you're the one under siege. Because reality shows the exact opposite is true.

I don't advocate teaching any form of natural history in the public schools. I advocate teaching Biology, Genetics and the scientific understanding of how things adapt and evolve. I do not approve of people forcing their a priori assumptions on impressionable children. I am deeply committed to having this view Christianized and will never accept it as a valid doctrinal position. They are in our seminaries and they are in our pulpits. Darwinians have a social agenda and I am permanently opposed to it.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I was not aware that Orthodox Lutherans embraced Christian mysticism.

“Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is but the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way. Nevertheless, the scripture uses proverbs, similitudes, riddles, or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.” (William Tyndal, Works)​

I hold it for a most infallible rule in the exposition of Scripture, that when a literal construction will stand, the furthest from the literal is commonly the worst” (Richard Hooker, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, V. lix. 2)​

Luther rejected allegory. ... interpretation “dirt,” “scum,” and “obsolete loose rags.” Calvin also rejected allegorical interpretation, saying it led men away from the truth of Scripture. (Edited by Mal Couch)​

Literal interpretations have a long history as well and I do not feel that a figurative, mystical or allegorical interpretation is mandated either.

Yeah, well, we do. We love the writings of medieval mystic Meister Eckhart, and throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth period called Lutheran Orthodoxy we had a strong mystical tradition. It continues today in the form of the high church movement.

P.S., none of those quotes are from Lutherans, and the last quote is a severe misrepresentation of Luther and his piety.

 

[Melethiel]

Yeah, well, we do. We love the writings of medieval mystic Meister Eckhart, and throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth period called Lutheran Orthodoxy we had a strong mystical tradition. It continues today in the form of the high church movement.

P.S., none of those quotes are from Lutherans, and the last quote is a severe misrepresentation of Luther and his piety.

Johann Gerhard being extremely prominent in Lutheran Orthodoxy. J.S. Bach as well.

 

[Melethiel]

Mallon is using the modern definition of science. mark is using the classical definition of science.
You're both right, and talking past each other.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Johann Gerhard being extremely prominent in Lutheran Orthodoxy. J.S. Bach as well.

And yay for both of them.

Mark, to spell out what I meant to say in more detail:

Luther reacted against the canons of medieval exegesis, which held that every part of Scripture had four senses: the plain (not literal, but the actual intended meaning in its original context) sense, the analogical sense (how it relates to Christ's work), the ethical sense, and the anagogical sense (how it relates to eschatology).

Luther and the other reformers held that only the plain sense existed. But they did not reject, under any circumstances, that passages of Scripture, as plainly interpreted according to the intentions of their authors and the context of their times, could be metaphysical, analogical, or figurative sense.

Or do you suppose that Luther and Calvin believed in a future earthly millennium? Ha!

 

[Mallon]

When I address Creationism as science I focus on human ancestry and they have no genetic basis for the most important adaptation that would have had to occur.

Argument from incredulity. I have provided you with articles in the past that go into some detail about the genetic basis for the evolution of the human brain. You've obviously ignored them, so here they are again:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2006-08-16-brain-evolution-gene_x.htm
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030050&ct=1

Theology is a science in every sense of the word minus the naturalistic assumptions of Darwin and company.

Theology was decidedly non-scientific long before Darwin came along. History shows as much.

For one thing Darwin was an atheist and never made a genuine profession of faith.

And yet you just quoted him making reference to an "omnipotent Creator".
Darwin certainly lost his faith in God after the death of his daughter, but his theory of evolution was formulated well before then.

It is Darwinism and the assumption of a common ancestor and it's unsubstantiated claims against special creation.

Common ancestry is well substantiated by the pattern of nested hierarchies into which all life falls. Common ancestry is an unavoidable outcome of this organization. If you want to say that common ancestry is unsubstantiated, you would have to show that life does not fit within nested hierarchies, thereby doing away with taxonomy as we know it (from Linnaeus on).

I don't really care about the age of the earth but I trust the clear testimony of Scripture over secular academics and science that is in opposition to the Christian faith as history.

I think you mean to say you trust your fallible human interpretation of Scripture over scientific consensus.

I was saying that your argument that I'm not a scientist is an ad hominem attack and an argument from authority. You have done nothing but reinforce this statement.

Acknowleding that you are not a scientist is not an attack on your character. It is a fact.
You might have a point with reference to my appealing to the work of hundreds of thousands of scholars over the centuries who have agreed that "God did it" is not a scientific explanation. But, then again, I respect their formal education and qualifications, and would never be so brazen as to think I could overthrow the entire scientific paradigm without first becoming intimately familiar with it, myself. Sitting in front of one's computer reading Wikipedia articles and AiG newsletters all day is no substitute for hard-earned experience and credibility. Maybe it's time for you to consider that perhaps the world's scientists agree for a valid reason?

I do not approve of people forcing their a priori assumptions on impressionable children.

So much for Sunday school.

Darwinians have a social agenda and I am permanently opposed to it.

Best of luck in life fighting a monster that doesn't exist. Hopefully you'll be able to look back on your life and feel that you've accomplished something. I just don't buy into those conspiracy theories.

Anyhow, I suspect this will be my last post before Christmas, so Merry Christmas to everyone, and I'll see you in the New Year!

 

[Calminian]

There are only two things a person really has to understand in order to make sense of the Bible, Adam sinned and Christ arose, everything hinges on those two defining events. Scoffers and skeptics have abandoned their seemingly endless barrage of attacks on the resurrection, the only reason I can find for it being, that the New Testament is invulnerable as history given the standards of internal, external and bibliographical testing. The only other way for the skeptic and the scoffer to go is further back into the dimmer and darker past, as far as their vain imaginations can take them and logic will allow. The pagan clerics did not evolve out of, and certainly did not repent of their dark mysticism and secret arts; their mythographers simply changed the story. In pagan mythology it is the elementals that gave rise to the gods, in modern times the blind naturalistic elements are seen as the artificer of order out of chaos with progressive complexity guided by pragmatic survivability it's only guide, whether elements or elementals the principle remains the same. In Genesis one there is a hymn of praise to the Almighty who formed the worlds from nothing, brought light from the darkness and ordered the natural world by the counsel of His will. Light and darkness are divided, land and water are separated, the expanse of the water below is raised into the heavens above and everything is created in a week and it didn't take all week. Each of the six stages of creation was complete in a day and not one of them took all day. By sunset of the seventh day, all life and the first man was formed by divine fiat, complete in all it's vast array.

There is only one theory of evolution that has any relevance to me as a Christian and there is not one but a multitude of speculative scenarios their mythographers write endlessly. The only one that it has any bearing on my theology, apart from sin there is no need for a Savior and apart from Adam and Eve, our first parents, there is no original sin. It would appear that there is no need for me to look long and hard for ways to discount and discredit common ancestry with regards to human evolution from prehistoric apes, if anything modern science has made that all too easy. In their zeal to produce the evidence for our transitional common ancestor they failed to provide the fossil evidence of the common ancestors of our chimpanzee and gorilla cousins to compare hominid fossils to. All of the evidence, they will tell you, points to a transitional ape giving rise to the Homo lineage but they have failed to produce a single one for the apes of Asia and Africa during the same time period. That is simply because all the ape fossils are in natural history museums marked Homo XXX. The fact that all the evidence is our ancestor should be telling us something, no other alternative was ever entertained, every ape fossil turned up in Asia and Africa was automatically declared the missing link. If they couldn't find a suitable candidate from genuine fossil finds a fraud would suffice as evidence until they could dig up enough ape bones to become the idols of the theater of the mind, as Sir Francis Bacon called it." The idols and false notions which are now in possession of the human understanding, and have taken deep root therein, not only so beset men's minds that truth can hardly find entrance, but even after entrance is obtained, they will again in the very instauration of the sciences meet and trouble us, unless men being forewarned of the danger fortify themselves as far as may be against their assaults." (Aphorisms Concerning the Interpretation of Nature and the Kingdom of Man, "The Idols of the Mind" From Novum Organum)

The beginning of the annuls of the generations of mankind have been chronicled, the times and dates preserved within the limits of the language and calendars available in antiquity. Meticulously preserved and miraculously confirmed the Holy Bible has emerged from history to inform the candid and serious inquirer with regards to the genuine history of mankind:

"In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind in those who would investigate the truth of our religion, Christianity demands nothing more than is readily conceded to every branch of human science. All these have their data, and their axioms; and Christianity, too, has her first principles, the admission of which is essential to any real progress in knowledge. "Christianity," says Bishop Wilson, "inscribes on the portal of her dominion 'Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in nowise enter therein.' Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer." (Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf)

It's not complicated; you don't have to unravel the riddle of the worldly wise, it's so simple a child could understand. Do you as a Creationist believe in Christ because of Moses or do you believe in Creation because of Christ?

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (ICor.15:21,22)

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Romans 5:12)

Grab your Bible, put your theology brain cap on and let's compare TE to YEC as Christian doctrine. I have some good news for my fellow Creationists, the Bible is evidence, theology is science and if you have to choose between empirical knowledge and faith you are capable of grasping neither.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Yeah, well, we do. We love the writings of medieval mystic Meister Eckhart, and throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth period called Lutheran Orthodoxy we had a strong mystical tradition. It continues today in the form of the high church movement.

Personally I shy away from mystics since I am not initiated. A mystical interpretation of Scripture is not something that appeals to me and I expect Martin Luther had some serious issues with it.

P.S., none of those quotes are from Lutherans, and the last quote is a severe misrepresentation of Luther and his piety.

Martin Luther was not a Lutheran...that just kills me.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mallon is using the modern definition of science. mark is using the classical definition of science.
You're both right, and talking past each other.

I am using a literal definition based on what the words mean. He is working on the secular definition where the naturalistic assumptions go without saying, I want him to say it so we are talking past one another.