The Idols and False Notions have Taken Deep Root

[shernren]

Come to think of it, I don't see any relevance at all in what we are discussing here to Origins Theology. Suppose we grant you a complete walkover in this and admit that Adam and Eve actually were our first parents, they actually did commit the first sin, and that their sinful nature has propagated biologically to us.

This would not have any relevance at all to the origin of Adam and Eve themselves. Adam and Eve could have been our first parents and the first sinners if they had been formed from clay and breathed into (as if God literally exhales!); Adam and Eve could have been our first parents and the first sinners if they had evolved over many millions of years to the point where God decided to have a relationship with them. The point of sin is that it is a rejection of relationship with God, and evolution says practically nothing about how that relationship came about. Hence, even were I to agree that Adam and Eve were the first sinners and that their sin is imputed to us, that would not shed even one ray of light on how they themselves came to exist and came to be sinners. Science is clear on the first, and Scripture is clear on the second:

... but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
(James 1:14-15 NIV)

and any misapplication of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 cannot overturn those testimonies.

Your unmerited hostility against professing brothers in the faith is apparent to all; I will pick my battles, to save your energy and to spare me from futile responses. On matters of science where fossils and genetics speak directly of the truth of evolution, I am still willing to engage you. But I don't consider Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 to be suitable indictments against evolution, for the reasons explained above; and you clearly are not interested in discussing them in any other context, which makes any further discussion on them pointless to you more than to me. So unless you answer to the points I made in the first two paragraphs above, and unless you are brave enough to comment on the hamartiological pin-drop silence the rest of the Bible displays concerning Adam, I don't see any more reason to continue to participate in this thread. I've had enough of your trying to toss me out of the Kingdom based on two chapters that don't even say what you want to make them say!

 

[mark kennedy]

Come to think of it, I don't see any relevance at all in what we are discussing here to Origins Theology. Suppose we grant you a complete walkover in this and admit that Adam and Eve actually were our first parents, they actually did commit the first sin, and that their sinful nature has propagated biologically to us.

You don't see the relevance of Adam and Eve as specially created and our first parents to Origins Theology? However, if you were to accept the proposition that Adam and Eve were our first parents then that would effectively dismiss the evolution of humans from apes. Adam and Eve is directly tied to original sin, that is not just my own interpretation but the concerted position of a lot of Christians for doctrinal reasons.

Without original sin you have no rational basis for the universal need for a Savior. The New Testament and traditional theology has affirmed this in no uncertain terms and this is something you are going to have to come to terms with.

This would not have any relevance at all to the origin of Adam and Eve themselves. Adam and Eve could have been our first parents and the first sinners if they had been formed from clay and breathed into (as if God literally exhales!);

Ok, mocking sacred text does not reflect well on your world view.

Adam and Eve could have been our first parents and the first sinners if they had evolved over many millions of years to the point where God decided to have a relationship with them. The point of sin is that it is a rejection of relationship with God, and evolution says practically nothing about how that relationship came about. Hence, even were I to agree that Adam and Eve were the first sinners and that their sin is imputed to us, that would not shed even one ray of light on how they themselves came to exist and came to be sinners. Science is clear on the first, and Scripture is clear on the second:

Not to get too semantical but sin is not imputed apart from the law, death as the result of sin is nonetheless a consequence of Adam and Eve's disobedience. Science is far from clear as to how we evolved from apes except that there is a gross a priori assumption that we did. The did indeed sin just as we are drawn by our own selfish desires:

... but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
(James 1:14-15 NIV)

Original sin in no way destroys free will but the central point still stands, in Adam all die.

and any misapplication of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 cannot overturn those testimonies.

I am not the only one who interprets these texts as a direct link of Adam as our first parent, specially created to the Gospel.

Your unmerited hostility against professing brothers in the faith is apparent to all; I will pick my battles, to save your energy and to spare me from futile responses. On matters of science where fossils and genetics speak directly of the truth of evolution, I am still willing to engage you. But I don't consider Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 to be suitable indictments against evolution, for the reasons explained above; and you clearly are not interested in discussing them in any other context, which makes any further discussion on them pointless to you more than to me. So unless you answer to the points I made in the first two paragraphs above, and unless you are brave enough to comment on the hamartiological pin-drop silence the rest of the Bible displays concerning Adam, I don't see any more reason to continue to participate in this thread. I've had enough of your trying to toss me out of the Kingdom based on two chapters that don't even say what you want to make them say!

I well again repeat that this is not my view alone and it is certainly not limited to Creationism. You don't understand why I would get hostile with a world view that rejects the supernatural and mocks Holy Scripture. You guys are right about one thing, Creationism is a religious doctrine and you obviously don't know how to handle this aspect of Creationism. Which leads me to wonder what your interest in Origins Theology is in the first place.

This is easily avoided, stop making these unprovoked attack on Creationism. So it's not very scientific, big deal! It is a Biblical and Theologically sound doctrine and I expect, in fact insist, that it be regarded as such. Otherwise I expect the debate will get heated and you know I have no intentions of shying away from a confrontation on essential doctrine.

If Theistic Evolutionists want to accept Creationism as a valid Christian doctrine I have no reason to confront them on their interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. If they stay out of the Creation subforum except for occasional chit chat we can all get along and focus on the Genetics and Molecular Biology topics I enjoy so much. If on the other hand you want me to subordinate my theology to secular philosophy you are going to be real frustrated with the response.

 

[shernren]

This is my final post on the matter.

You don't see the relevance of Adam and Eve as specially created and our first parents to Origins Theology? However, if you were to accept the proposition that Adam and Eve were our first parents then that would effectively dismiss the evolution of humans from apes. Adam and Eve is directly tied to original sin, that is not just my own interpretation but the concerted position of a lot of Christians for doctrinal reasons.

Without original sin you have no rational basis for the universal need for a Savior. The New Testament and traditional theology has affirmed this in no uncertain terms and this is something you are going to have to come to terms with.

Not at all. If you know my theology you will know that I have always accepted that there were first sinners in the human race, even if their names were not Adam and Eve. But their status as first sinners has never been negated by their status as evolved apes. An evolved ape still sins if he or she rejects the relationship God has chosen to start with them.

The scientific dogma that Adam and Eve were specially created (for do you not claim to prove it by science?) is distinctly separable from the truth that we have all sinned in Adam. Nobody here has ever denied that man sins and that he is in need of a Savior; it is merely your own bigoted need to prove somebody wrong insofar as they disagree with you that has clouded your judgment of this. Nobody here has ever denied that the Fall is very much real no matter how ahistorical its particular details may be; nobody here has denied that Jesus died and rose again for the sake of rescuing us from that real and present Fall. Nobody here is a heretic, and your pretentious claim that they are adds no credence to your position.

In passing I wonder why no other creationists have stood to help you. But I have wondered too long why you say such things, anyway. I'm dusting off my sandals. See you some other, better time.

I bring this up because a great deal of solemn nonsense has been bandied about on the subject. In the interest of making a hasty accommodation between a stale biblical chronology and a half-baked theory of universal evolution, all kinds of things were said by all kinds of people. On the one hand, biblical obscurantists made a frantic attempt to salvage the chronology by sweeping scientific knowledge under the rug. ... The first have, mercifully, met the fate they deserved ...

- Robert Farrar Capon, An Offering of Uncles

 

[mark kennedy]

Note: Shaking the dust off ones feet is a an act of judgment and condemnation against those who reject the Gospel.

"They shook off the dust of their feet against them - This was a very significant rite; by it, they in effect said: Ye are worse than the heathen: even your very land is accursed for your opposition to God, and we dare not permit even its dust to cleave to the soles of our feet; and we shake it off, in departing from your country, according to our Lord’s command, (Mat_10:14), for a testimony against you, that we offered you salvation, but ye rejected it and persecuted us. The Jews, when travelling in heathen countries, took care, when they came to the borders of their own, to shake off the dust of their feet, lest any of the unhallowed ground should defile the sacred land of Israel." (Clark Commentary, Esword)

This is my final post on the matter.

Good!

Not at all. If you know my theology you will know that I have always accepted that there were first sinners in the human race, even if their names were not Adam and Eve. But their status as first sinners has never been negated by their status as evolved apes. An evolved ape still sins if he or she rejects the relationship God has chosen to start with them.

That is a fine rationalization but it give no regard to the traditional interpretation of the Church that Adam and Ever were specially created. We are not evolved apes and that is the clear testimony of both Moses, Paul and Jesus himself spoke of Adam and Eve as being from the beginning.

The scientific dogma that Adam and Eve were specially created (for do you not claim to prove it by science?) is distinctly separable from the truth that we have all sinned in Adam. Nobody here has ever denied that man sins and that he is in need of a Savior; it is merely your own bigoted need to prove somebody wrong insofar as they disagree with you that has clouded your judgment of this. Nobody here has ever denied that the Fall is very much real no matter how ahistorical its particular details may be; nobody here has denied that Jesus died and rose again for the sake of rescuing us from that real and present Fall. Nobody here is a heretic, and your pretentious claim that they are adds no credence to your position.

I told you to stay out of this one but you wouldn't listen. I knew that Theistic Evolution did not have any basis for evolution as a formal doctrine and demonstrated that the Scriptures do not support Adam and Eve being the descendants of apes. You may well reconcile this belief to Scripture but not without doing a lot of academic gymnastics. You could of course drop the whole thing and ignore this issue but for whatever reason you didn't.

You thought it was a simple as rationalizing away a few verses, you were wrong.

In passing I wonder why no other creationists have stood to help you. But I have wondered too long why you say such things, anyway. I'm dusting off my sandals. See you some other, better time.

They shun divisive and contentious debates which is in keeping with normal Christian witnessing. I on the other hand embrace Christian apologetics especially with regards to doctrinal issues and appreciate Creationists standing clear of this kind of a debate.

So as a symbolic act of judgment you shake the dust off you feet because I reject the scientific dogma a human and ape common ancestor. Thus describes and characterizes the the danger and dogma of Darwinism translated into Christian language. You have sealed the matter making common descent a doctrinal issue and a basis for fellowship and now I have no choice but to consider philosophical Darwinism to be nothing more then a false doctrine.

] I bring this up because a great deal of solemn nonsense has been bandied about on the subject. In the interest of making a hasty accommodation between a stale biblical chronology and a half-baked theory of universal evolution, all kinds of things were said by all kinds of people. On the one hand, biblical obscurantists made a frantic attempt to salvage the chronology by sweeping scientific knowledge under the rug. ... The first have, mercifully, met the fate they deserved ...[/I] - Robert Farrar Capon, An Offering of Uncles

I've read the literature and seen the so called evidence and I am not impressed. Most of the se debates are meant to insult and belittle Creationists and this is a typical example of why most Creationists shun discussion along these lines. It poisons the well of science for them and it's superficial at best to make token references to doctrines without a genuine commitment to sound doctrine.

I am not impressed with the so called scientific arguments and deeply disturbed that the dogma of common descent would be argued as doctrine. This is not a doctrine, it's a philosophy put in loose Christian language and preach as if it were gospel.

See you on the boards.

 

[The Lady Kate]

That is a fine rationalization but it give no regard to the traditional interpretation of the Church that Adam and Ever were specially created.

Then it would seem that the "traditional interpretation" is not a factually accurate one. Why worship tradition... for tradition's sake?

We are not evolved apes and that is the clear testimony of both Moses, Paul and Jesus himself spoke of Adam and Eve as being from the beginning.

Well then, knowing what we now know, knowing what was not known 2,000+ years ago, we are left with a few possibilities... that Moses, Jesus, and Paul were not speaking literally, that they were mistaken (far more likely in the case of Paul), or that the people quoting them were mistaken (in the cases of Moses and Jesus... since Paul wrote for himself.)

I told you to stay out of this one but you wouldn't listen. I knew that Theistic Evolution did not have any basis for evolution as a formal doctrine and demonstrated that the Scriptures do not support Adam and Eve being the descendants of apes. You may well reconcile this belief to Scripture but not without doing a lot of academic gymnastics.

"The Scriptures" need to be reinterpreted if they do not jibe with what we see in front of our noses... which they do not.

Clearly, literalism is not the answer. Fundamentalist dogma, of course, says that to even suggest such a thing is blasphemy of the worst order. And yet, to ignore the possibility, and to persist in the belief in a literal Bible, meant for a plain factual reading and nothing more, is to invite academic, scientific, and theological gymnastics far worse than anything you could possibly be warning us against.

 

[mark kennedy]

Then it would seem that the "traditional interpretation" is not a factually accurate one. [Why worship tradition... for tradition's sake?

Sola Scriptura Lady, the Scriptures alone have the weight of canon on matters of doctrine. The modernist interpretation discards the traditional teaching of the Church across broad denominational lines and all periods of history. The sole reason for this change in doctrine is the modernist interpretation based on TOE.

Well then, knowing what we now know, knowing what was not known 2,000+ years ago, we are left with a few possibilities... that Moses, Jesus, and Paul were not speaking literally, that they were mistaken (far more likely in the case of Paul), or that the people quoting them were mistaken (in the cases of Moses and Jesus... since Paul wrote for himself.)

Moses, Jesus and Paul all were speaking literally and there isn't a shred of textual evidence of anything to the contrary. I do not base my doctrine on the arguments of knowledge, falsely so called from a Darwinian world view.

"The Scriptures" need to be reinterpreted if they do not jibe with what we see in front of our noses... which they do not.

Quoting a verse out of context does not make a rational basis for sound doctrine. I choose instead to reinterpret the evidence of science from a Christian world view instead of having my religious views dictated by atheistic academics.

Clearly, literalism is not the answer. Fundamentalist dogma, of course, says that to even suggest such a thing is blasphemy of the worst order. And yet, to ignore the possibility, and to persist in the belief in a literal Bible, meant for a plain factual reading and nothing more, is to invite academic, scientific, and theological gymnastics far worse than anything you could possibly be warning us against.

First of all there is no such thing as literalism. Second of all the dogma that is creating the division is this modernist false doctrine of a single common ancestor.You have the unmitigated gall to call a literal reading of Scripture blasphemy? You have embraced a false doctrine that tramples Holy Scripture under foot and is rightly considered a gross heresy. Why? Because sound doctrine does not line up with you world view so you sell out to the spirit of the age. Darwinian idols do not dictate doctrine in the Christian faith, only in the theater of the modernist mind.

"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. " FRANCIS BACON, "The Idols of the Mind"

 

[The Lady Kate]

Sola Scriptura Lady, the Scriptures alone have the weight of canon on matters of doctrine. The modernist interpretation discards the traditional teaching of the Church across broad denominational lines and all periods of history. The sole reason for this change in doctrine is the modernist interpretation based on TOE.

The sole reason? Are you suggesting that TOE is the first and only scientific, political, or cultural advancment which has ever run afoul of Sola Scriptura?

You might want to ask Galileo about that one... or perahaps some abolitionists back in the 1800s... or the Jews... maybe go back in the time machine to when women were fighting for the right to vote. Sola Scriptura has been used throughout history to justify some very outdated, absurd, and in some cases abominable ideas throughout history. A Bible that would happily condone geocentricism, slavery, antisemitism, and the oppression of women must necessarily be taken with a grain of historical salt.

Moses, Jesus and Paul all were speaking literally and there isn't a shred of textual evidence of anything to the contrary. I do not base my doctrine on the arguments of knowledge, falsely so called from a Darwinian world view.

You also don't base it on anything outside the Bible... I've noticed that people who do this don't make a regular habit of studying the Bible... warts and all.

Quoting a verse out of context does not make a rational basis for sound doctrine.

Then stop doing it.

I choose instead to reinterpret the evidence of science from a Christian world view instead of having my religious views dictated by atheistic academics.

No, you've interpreted science from a Sola Scriptura literalist world view... there are many Christians in science and academics who disprove your strawman.

First of all there is no such thing as literalism. Second of all the dogma that is creating the division is this modernist false doctrine of a single common ancestor.

No such thing as literalism? Are you feeling all right?

You have the unmitigated gall to call a literal reading of Scripture blasphemy?

That is not what I said at all... re-read my post. If you cannot even properly interpret and understand a post on a message board, how sound can your doctrine be?

You have embraced a false doctrine that tramples Holy Scripture under foot and is rightly considered a gross heresy.

First you misread my point, then you prove it correct.

Why? Because sound doctrine does not line up with you world view so you sell out to the spirit of the age. Darwinian idols do not dictate doctrine in the Christian faith, only in the theater of the modernist mind.

What is it about non-literalism that puts you in such a panic?

"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. " FRANCIS BACON, "The Idols of the Mind"

I see... you combat other people's idols with one of your own... all hail Francis Bacon.

 

[The Lady Kate]

As if anyone needed to see the problem with Sola Scriptura.

Clearly, literalism is not the answer. Fundamentalist dogma, of course, says that to even suggest such a thing is blasphemy of the worst order.

First of all there is no such thing as literalism. Second of all the dogma that is creating the division is this modernist false doctrine of a single common ancestor.You have the unmitigated gall to call a literal reading of Scripture blasphemy?

Now that everyone can clearly see how a "plain, ordinary" reading of my own clear 21st century words, with no thought at all to context, was either so easily botched or so effortlessly twisted, we have to ask if applying the same formula to Scripture is a recipe for anything but trouble?

 

[mark kennedy]

As if anyone needed to see the problem with Sola Scriptura.

If you have a problem with the authority of Scriptures then your problems are outside a Christian context.

Now that everyone can clarly see how a "plain, ordinary" reading of my own clear 21st century words, with no thought at all to context, was either so easily botched or so effortlessly twisted, we have to ask if applying the same formula to Scripture is a recipe for anything but trouble?

We don't need some super enlightened modernist interpretation to dispel the difficulties of trying to merge Christian doctrine with Darwinian philosophy. You may not want to believe the Scriptures or take them as authoritative but I do and Christianity at large always has and always will.

I don't mind the trouble, standing on the gospel has never been a popularity contest and it doesn't surprise that the world can't understand it.

"For it is a fact that the more unbelievers pour scorn on Him, so much the more does He make His Godhead evident. The things which they, as men, rule out as impossible, He plainly shows to be possible; that which they deride as unfitting, His goodness makes most fit; and things which these wiseacres laugh at as "human" He by His inherent might declares divine. Thus by what seems His utter poverty and weakness on the cross He overturns the pomp and parade of idols, and quietly and hiddenly wins over the mockers and unbelievers to recognize Him as God." Creation and the Fall Athanasius
On the Incarnation

 

[The Lady Kate]

If you have a problem with the authority of Scriptures then your problems are outside a Christian context.

That's the second time in as many of your posts that you've twisted my words... I'm having difficulty believing this is an accident.

We don't need some super enlightened modernist interpretation to dispel the difficulties of trying to merge Christian doctrine with Darwinian philosophy.

It's not only "Darwinian philosophy" that you're fighting here... it's every man, woman, child, and idea which ever contradicted a "plain, ordinary" literalist reading.

You may not want to believe the Scriptures

The third time you've twisted my ideas... now I know you're being deliberate.

Have you no shame?

I do believe in the Scriptures... I simply do not take them all literally.

or take them as authoritative but I do and Christianity at large always has and always will.

Wrong. Literalism is a minority doctrine within the Christian community.

I don't mind the trouble, standing on the gospel has never been a popularity contest and it doesn't surprise that the world can't understand it.

Intersting choice of words... I'd personally rather sit with the gospel than stand on it. I have no interest in elevating myself at its expense.

"For it is a fact that the more unbelievers pour scorn on Him, so much the more does He make His Godhead evident. The things which they, as men, rule out as impossible, He plainly shows to be possible; that which they deride as unfitting, His goodness makes most fit; and things which these wiseacres laugh at as "human" He by His inherent might declares divine. Thus by what seems His utter poverty and weakness on the cross He overturns the pomp and parade of idols, and quietly and hiddenly wins over the mockers and unbelievers to recognize Him as God." Creation and the Fall Athanasius
On the Incarnation

I see it doesn't take long before Sola Scriptura can't help you anymore.

 

[mark kennedy]

The formation of ideas and axioms by true induction is no doubt the proper remedy to be applied for the keeping off and clearing away of idols. To point them out, however, is of great use, for the doctrine of idols is to the interpretation of nature what the doctrine of the refutation of sophisms is to common logic. SIR FRANCIS BACON, "The Idols of the Mind"

That's the second time in as many of your posts that you've twisted my words... I'm having difficulty believing this is an accident.

I'm having trouble believing I miss read your meaning.

It's not only "Darwinian philosophy" that you're fighting here... it's every man, woman, child, and idea which ever contradicted a "plain, ordinary" literalist reading.

I'm fighting the naturalistic assumptions of the modernist interpretation seeping into the Scriptures and poisoning the well.

The third time you've twisted my ideas... now I know you're being deliberate.

You mock the Scriptures and call literalism blasphemy, what would you have me think?

Have you no shame?

I'm not intimated by sophisms.

I do believe in the Scriptures... I simply do not take them all literally.

Do you take these Scriptures literally?

Nicene Creed:
We believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)
Father (Matthew 6: 9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)
Son of God, (Mathew 14: 33; 16: 16)
Only-Begotten, (John 1: 18; 3: 16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)
Light from Light; (Psalm 27: 1; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
True God from True God; (John 17: 1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10: 30)
through whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1 Timothy 2: 4-5)
came down from heaven, (John 6: 33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35)
and became man. (John 1: 14)
And He was crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; 1 Corinthians 15: 3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19: 6)
suffered, (Mark 8: 31)
and was buried. (Luke 23: 53; 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
and ascended into heaven, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55)
and He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24: 27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10: 42; 2 Timothy 4: 1)
Whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1: 11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)
Lord, (Acts 5: 3-4)
Giver of Life, (Genesis 1: 2)
Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]*; (John 15: 26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3: 16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2: 5,9)
catholic**, (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins***. (Ephesians 4: 5; Acts 2: 38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11: 24; 1 Corinthians 15: 12-49; Hebrews 6: 2; Revelation 20: 5)
and the life in the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)

AMEN. (Psalm 106: 48)

Wrong. Literalism is a minority doctrine within the Christian community.

No it's not.

Intersting choice of words... I'd personally rather sit with the gospel than stand on it. I have no interest in elevating myself at its expense.

Eph 6:14 - Stand therefore - Resist every attack - as a soldier does in battle. In what way they were to do this, and how they were to be armed, the apostle proceeds to specify; and in doing it, gives a description of the ancient armor of a soldier. (Barnes, e-sword)

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: (Eph. 6:12-17)​

I see it doesn't take long before Sola Scriptura can't help you anymore.

What would you replace the Scriptures with as the canon of Christian doctrine, your opinions?

"But words plainly force and overrule the understanding, and throw all into confusion, and lead men away into numberless empty controversies and idle fancies." Idols of the Mind, Sir Francis Bacon.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I'm having trouble believing I miss read your meaning.

Then you're deliberately misrepresenting it... and I'm calling you out on it.

You mock the Scriptures and call literalism blasphemy, what would you have me think?

Show me where I called literalism "blasphemy," Mr. Kennedy, or else stop repeating this lie.

 

[Assyrian]

Sola Scriptura Lady, the Scriptures alone have the weight of canon on matters of doctrine. The modernist interpretation discards the traditional teaching of the Church across broad denominational lines and all periods of history. The sole reason for this change in doctrine is the modernist interpretation based on TOE.

Isn't it contradictory to appeal to Sola Scriptura and the authority of tradition?

It is even more ironic when the tradition grew out of the same misreading of scripture 'all sinned in Adam' that you keep quoting but have never been able to find in the bible.

Moses, Jesus and Paul all were speaking literally and there isn't a shred of textual evidence of anything to the contrary. I do not base my doctrine on the arguments of knowledge, falsely so called from a Darwinian world view.

How can you claim there isn't a shred of evidence when we keep pointing it out to you?

We have only looked at Paul so far, and it is clear that Romans 5 was comparing Adam and Christ figuratively. Adam was a type of the one who was to come. Paul seems to be doing the same thing in 1Cor 15, a comparison of Adam and Christ, a figurative comparison.

Jesus never even mentioned Adam and Eve and when he quotes from Gen 2, it is treating the story as an allegorical lesson on marriage.

How do you think Jesus interpreted the first prophecy of a redeemer in Gen 3 in those post resurrection appearances when, beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself Luke 24:27? Was Jesus the one who would bruise the snake's head and be bitten in his heel? Would Jesus have interpreted the passage literally, as he walked along with holes from Roman nails in his feet? Or did he just ignore the first messianic prophecy because he never literally fulfilled it?

It is hard to know what Moses thought about Adam and Eve, he didn't bother with them much outside of the Genesis narrative. What we do have on either side of the Adam and Eve story are verses telling us Adam is more than a single individual.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make the Adam in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion.
Gen 5:2 male and female he created them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Further on in chapter 6 we see 'Adam' or 'the Adam' (as Adam is usually referred to in Gen 1-3) being used to refer to the whole human race, sometimes even in language directly echoing the creation accounts.

Gen 6:1 When the Adam began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,
2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of the Adam were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.
3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in Adam forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years."
(Adam was going to live 120 years?)
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of the Adam and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of the Adam was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made [asah] the Adam on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out the Adam whom I have created [bara]from the face of the land, Adam and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."
Here we have a direct reference to the creation of Adam, which takes it Adam as the human race.

Quoting a verse out of context does not make a rational basis for sound doctrine. I choose instead to reinterpret the evidence of science from a Christian world view instead of having my religious views dictated by atheistic academics.

Are you views dictated by Eratosthenes and Copernicus?

First of all there is no such thing as literalism. Second of all the dogma that is creating the division is this modernist false doctrine of a single common ancestor.You have the unmitigated gall to call a literal reading of Scripture blasphemy? You have embraced a false doctrine that tramples Holy Scripture under foot and is rightly considered a gross heresy. Why? Because sound doctrine does not line up with you world view so you sell out to the spirit of the age. Darwinian idols do not dictate doctrine in the Christian faith, only in the theater of the modernist mind.

Flat earth anyone? Throw down the pagan Greek idol that the earth is a sphere.

Wouldn't it be so much better to stick to the Nicene Creed you quoted and insist that God is...

Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

rather than adding the new doctrine that the six days have to be taken literally and that it is heresy not to believe God literally made Adam out of mud?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Isn't it contradictory to appeal to Sola Scriptura and the authority of tradition?

It is even more ironic when the tradition grew out of the same misreading of scripture 'all sinned in Adam' that you keep quoting but have never been able to find in the bible.

Equally ironic that his defense of Scripture and his attacks on me are both based on misreadings or misrepresentations.

 

[mark kennedy]

Then you're deliberately misrepresenting it... and I'm calling you out on it.

"The Scriptures" need to be reinterpreted if they do not jibe with what we see in front of our noses... which they do not.

Clearly, literalism is not the answer. Fundamentalist dogma, of course, says that to even suggest such a thing is blasphemy of the worst order. And yet, to ignore the possibility, and to persist in the belief in a literal Bible, meant for a plain factual reading and nothing more, is to invite academic, scientific, and theological gymnastics far worse than anything you could possibly be warning us against

Show me where I called literalism "blasphemy," Mr. Kennedy, or else stop repeating this lie.

Did I miss the clear and factual meaning, I must have interpreted it wrong. Sorry about that.

 

[mark kennedy]

Equally ironic that his defense of Scripture and his attacks on me are both based on misreadings or misrepresentations.

Would you like to tell me how you read these verses?

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)

Then you can tell me what you take literally and figuratively in the Nicene Creed.

 

[mark kennedy]

Isn't it contradictory to appeal to Sola Scriptura and the authority of tradition?

Church Tradition does embrace Scripture as canon. It sometimes includes extra Biblical authority but Sola Scripture does not conflict with the Nicene Creed.

It is even more ironic when the tradition grew out of the same misreading of scripture 'all sinned in Adam' that you keep quoting but have never been able to find in the bible.

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)

"it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve" (1 Tim. 2:13-14)

How can you claim there isn't a shred of evidence when we keep pointing it out to you?

This should be good.

We have only looked at Paul so far, and it is clear that Romans 5 was comparing Adam and Christ figuratively. Adam was a type of the one who was to come. Paul seems to be doing the same thing in 1Cor 15, a comparison of Adam and Christ, a figurative comparison.

That is not what he said, He said Adam was a figure of Christ. You can no more make Adam a figure of speech then you can Christ.

Jesus never even mentioned Adam and Eve and when he quotes from Gen 2, it is treating the story as an allegorical lesson on marriage.

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (Mat 19:4)

'He which made them at the beginning' - When Adam and Eve were the first of human kind. There is not 'like' or 'as' or any indication in the context that this is an allegory. You are twisting the meaning to suit you own purposes.

How do you think Jesus interpreted the first prophecy of a redeemer in Gen 3 in those post resurrection appearances when, beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself Luke 24:27? Was Jesus the one who would bruise the snake's head and be bitten in his heel? Would Jesus have interpreted the passage literally, as he walked along with holes from Roman nails in his feet? Or did he just ignore the first messianic prophecy because he never literally fulfilled it?

The prophecy fulfilled and elaborated on by Jesus are evident in the Gospels. The Serpent is mentioned again in prophecy only when the serpents head is finally crushed.

Rev 12:9 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

It is hard to know what Moses thought about Adam and Eve, he didn't bother with them much outside of the Genesis narrative. What we do have on either side of the Adam and Eve story are verses telling us Adam is more than a single individual.

Adam is always at the top of the list when giving the annuls of the generations of mankind. (Gen. 5:1; 1 Chron. 1:1; Luke 2:38) to assume that they were not considered to be literal persons and our first parents is absurd.


Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make the Adam in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion. male and female he created them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam in the day when they were created.

Ever been married, did your wife take your name because mine did. Every wonder where Israel got it's name?

Further on in chapter 6 we see 'Adam' or 'the Adam' (as Adam is usually referred to in Gen 1-3) being used to refer to the whole human race, sometimes even in language directly echoing the creation accounts.

Adam is also of a place in Palestine, Israel is a proper name for Jacob and a name for the nation of Israel. It is common in Scripture to call descendants of one family by the name of their father, or a wife by the name of her husband.

Wouldn't it be so much better to stick to the Nicene Creed you quoted and insist that God is...

Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

rather than adding the new doctrine that the six days have to be taken literally and that it is heresy not to believe God literally made Adam out of mud?

The question was what do you take literally and what do you take figuratively. You do know that I Cor. 15 is quoted repeatedly right, are we going to take the resurrection literally and Adam figuratively, would Paul?

 

[The Lady Kate]

"The Scriptures" need to be reinterpreted if they do not jibe with what we see in front of our noses... which they do not.

Exactly as I've been saying... "The Scriptures," by which I mean a literalist reading of the scriptures, which is not the same thing... hence the quotation marks, does not go with what we see of God's creation. Therefore, in order for the Scriptures to be true, let alone authoritative, they cannot all be read literally.

If this is so for Genesis, as the evidence (never mind evolution... that's the least of your concerns) clearly shows, then we must be equally cautious when reading any of the Scriptures.

Clearly, literalism is not the answer. Fundamentalist dogma, of course, says that to even suggest such a thing is blasphemy of the worst order. And yet, to ignore the possibility, and to persist in the belief in a literal Bible, meant for a plain factual reading and nothing more, is to invite academic, scientific, and theological gymnastics far worse than anything you could possibly be warning us against



Did I miss the clear and factual meaning, I must have interpreted it wrong. Sorry about that.

Apology accepted. But at least you now see how a mistaken reading of anything, including Scripture, without thought to context, can lead people in entirely in the wrong direction.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Would you like to tell me how you read these verses?

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)

Paul putting his Rabbinical studies to good use... tying together the well-known and well-believed Creation story to illustrate a point.

But I see where you're going here, and it's tied up in the belief that Paul is writing the "Word of God." He isn't... Paul is writing the words of Paul, and if you read them closely, you'll see that Paul is writing in the voice of a deeply conflicted, troubled, even tormented soul.

If that conflicted, troubled, tormented soul is God's, speaking through Paul, then we're all in serious trouble. But if this is Paul talking, with all his issues, weaknesses, and emotional baggage intact, then we can take steps into a deeper understanding of both the man and his writings, and better understand what they mean to us today.

Then you can tell me what you take literally and figuratively in the Nicene Creed.

I see no need for such games... why not just tell me how much I can take figuratively and still officially be considered a Christian?

 

[KerrMetric]

"The Scriptures" need to be reinterpreted if they do not jibe with what we see in front of our noses... which they do not..

Aha - you mean like Global Flood nonsense and the Genesis Creation accounts.

Glad you're on board finally.