The Idols and False Notions have Taken Deep Root

shernren · Dec 12, 2007

busterdog said:
Candidly, I don't use "making sense" or "makes more sense" primarly as a standard. So "edifies more" is to me a limited basis in any event. They are relevant, but not primary.

busterdog said:
Well, "the point" I raised was whether Mark was "judging" anyone and being contentious.

Is the doctrine of original sin necessary to the doctrine of atonement?

The latter makes more sense by including the former. But, even a partial Gospel is still the Gospel. So, the atonement can probably be taught without it. Do recall, however, that teachers are judged more harshly for their mistakes. But, the Word will not return void, even if taught partially.

Is this doctrine necessary for that atonement to suffice for us individually? No.

Let's put it this way, there is no final mending of what we have before us until the Lord comes and does it. So, we are still dealing with consequences here that have to do with how we do our walk. In paradise, the final fruit of THE Atonement, there are no more consequences. If you can't pray for release from the consequences of sin, will there be consequences in this life? Most likely there will be. The point being, screwing up original sin as a doctrine will have bad consequences in this life. Perhaps people that fall away, that are never convinced, that suffer like Job despite righteousness. One can imangine many things flowing from error.

(emphases added)

Hmm.

In any case, I don't see how the doctrine of original sin makes sense as mark has described it.

I think it is both my experience, and the experience of the writers of the Bible, that I sin, that we sin as individuals and as a society, all people dead set against God. By the Holy Spirit's help we recognize that we are sinners; by God the Father's justice we are guilty and deserve eternal separation from Him; by Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the cross we are reconciled to God both now and hereafter.

I think that is an adequate doctrine of sin and atonement. We are, of course, led to wonder how sin came about in the first place. If man was created with the capacity to enjoy perfect relationship with God, and created by God, he was certainly created in that perfect relationship, would he not? God would not create His masterpiece starting out "on the wrong foot", so to speak. So there must have been a first sinner. And then his/her/their sin must have spread through the entire human race, corrupting us indelibly, leaving us incapable of returning to God on our own.

If that is the doctrine of original sin, then I believe quite firmly in it (though not without reservation altogether). Indeed, in some sense I can, and do, call my sin Adam's sin: I swim in the river of which he is the headspring. But at the same time, both I and the writers of the Bible are painfully aware that it is I who sin when I sin, not Adam; that is to say, I can trace my own sin back to the temptations I face, back to the sinful society I live in, and ultimately back to my own terrifyingly wilful will. In the face of my terrifying, and terrifyingly consistent, inclination to disobey God, the notion that Adam made me sin becomes, to me as a believer, extremely academic; while the idea that I fall, that I succumb, is the basis of every exhortation to repent and reform.

And that is where I disagree with mark. Mark seems to suggest that my sin is in some way ontologically indistinct from Adam's sin to the extent that to deny that Adam sinned - indeed, to deny the historically factual existence of an Adam and Eve in a historically factual Garden of Eden chomping down on a historically factual lump of carbohydrates - is to deny that I sin. His essential thoughts are really that we are either with him, tracing our sin back to contraband carbohydrates and a real slithering talking snake, or we are with the humanists - saying that sin is not the problem and that we are basically decent. I find that ridiculous. My sin is obvious. My fallenness is obvious. Whether the Adam in the Bible really lived in a garden naming a few dozen animals per second and undergoing rib extraction before chowing down on bad fruit, or is a picture of an actual historical origin for sin even if different in the details, or is a poster child for the "everyman" who has sinned everywhere at every time, is really secondary to that personal recognition of personal and societal sin. I need Jesus, whether or not Adam ate fruit, because I have sinned.

All die, because all sinned.

mark kennedy · Dec 12, 2007

shernren said:
I'm sorry, but in my books and as far as I've ever seen in the Bible sin is precisely "anything that falls short of the perfect righteousness of God", and that is about as monolithic as you could ever ask for. I don't think you have a Biblical understanding in what you call "eternal sin". For look at the passage you cite, actually John 8:42-47, where Jesus calls the Jews "children of your father the devil". Actually, even I was surprised reading that passage - Jesus addresses this to the Jews who believe! (John 8:31) But anyway.

Believed and fell away is an important distinction but press on.

This is clearly not the "unpardonable sin", whatever you believe about that, and some of the Jews were clearly forgiven for it. Look at the context: from John 7 to 8, Jesus has been speaking at the Feast of Tabernacles, and one of the things He condemns them for is wanting to kill Him (8:40). Now turn to Acts, and what do we see? Peter preaches repentance to the Jews at Pentecost, and three thousand were saved that day!

You leap frog through enormous amounts of narrative and theology. Slow down and maybe you won't miss the important progression.

Now both the Feast of Tabernacles and Pentecost were feasts mandated over the entire Jewish diaspora (if memory serves), and thus it beggars imagination to believe that of all the Jews called "children of the devil" by Jesus, not one of them was present and converted at the Pentecost when Peter preached. Furthermore, the converted Jews at Pentecost were "cut to the heart" after Peter accused them of plotting Jesus' death, and why would they have felt so if not because they had actually wanted to kill Jesus - in other words, if they had not actually been under the category of "children of the Devil" in John?

They were not there dude, that is obvious. They were from all points of the compass and the narrative makes that clear. They were being told that their Messiah had been killed and were pricked in the heart. Paul's letter to the Romans may well have been addressed to them. Keep working, your doing better then I would have guessed.

What about the rest of Scripture? What does it say?

Sorry, that was lost in the mix. Care to restate?

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?
(Hebrews 10:26-29 NIV)

The Old Covenant did not offer a sacrifice for willing sin, only ignorant ones. Once you actually know who Jesus is and the promise of the Gospel you have two choices, life or death and I do mean eternal. That is one of the reasons I can't compromise on doctrine in these discussions, stakes are high.

Whatever you believe about the perseverance of the saints you will agree with me that no one sin is singled out for naming in this warning - or rather, no one sin is excluded from the possibility of leading to perdition. Any sin leads ultimately to death if not stemmed by the sacrifice of Christ.

Sure, you are actually more interested in theology then I gave you credit for, my apologies. At any rate, it is the unrepentant sinner that goes on to perdition and only for willful sin, that much we agree on. You even managed to invoke the Christ alone doctrine and to that I can only say

Or what about Revelations?

I was just starting to warm up to you and you bring this can of worms up but ok, let's hear it.

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
(Revelation 21:8 NIV)

Note that the list here of what you might call "eternal sins" includes cowardice and "vileness" (however you'd define that) along with the "heavyweights" like unbelief and idolatry. Again, there are no safe sins! There are no "temporal sins" that, by virtue of being milder than other sins, will not ultimately lead to hell.

Anything short of the righteousness of God, which includes any sin you will not repent of. I stand by that and wait patiently for your point.

I was recently leading a study on 1 John and we looked at a verse that seems to contradict that:

If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that.
(1 John 5:16 NIV)

That 'sin' that leads to death is perdition. There is nothing you can do about that. There is nothing that God Himself can do about that, there is no repentance. It's perdition dude, I don't know what to tell you.

Of course, our Biblical senses should be tingling because what does Paul say in Romans? For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23 NIV) - no ifs, no buts. Our conclusion was that the difference between sins that lead to death and sins that don't is not a matter of "degree" - it is not as if there is a "death list" of sins that God can never forgive and an "okay list" of sins that God can overlook. (sorry, had to edit out for length)

There is no death list, come on, please tell me you are not wandering down that dead end. Look, sin is anything unlike God's righteousness and we are all guilty, that much we agree on. Repentance is the only way out, we go from being slaves to sin and become slave to righteousness. The sin [offense] can be anything but the actual cause comes from the thoughts and inclinations of the heart.

Do you have any idea how bad some of the people in Scripture actually were? Do you have any idea how bad you and I actually are? Don't rush to judgment on this one, carefully consider and no matter how you answer me, cherish and carefully consider the question.

So that's my hamartiology for you. And quite frankly, I see plenty of biblical support for my views, but not for your idea of "eternal sin".

How many in the Scriptures sinned and were saved? Abraham, David...I mean do you need me to write you a list? Eternal sin is permenant but temporal sin is something you are born with and commit on occasion. The difference is 'room for repentance'.

Honestly, I don't get why that bugs mark so much. As Mallon has pointed out, this is not a private or one-on-one conversation. In fact, in every debate I've been to, my job as a debater has never been to convince my opponents but to convince the judges - hence, we refer to the opposition as "they" and not "you".

Because you are supposed to be talking to me and you address the theater. I see the root of the error, if that does not bother you in the slightest then shrug it off, I know Mallon does.

What? Who did I attack?

Me for one.

I see an attack, and it looks for all the world like you've declared me the enemy.

I deeply despise liberal theology, way more then atheistic materialism.

One last time.

Firstly, Busterdog said himself that 'I don't use "making sense" or "makes more sense" primarly as a standard'. When I said '"sense" is not really a criterion for you in ordering your mind.' I was really just paraphrasing what he himself said - albeit extremely harshly.

That 'extremely' was associated with my name and I found it extremely insulting. Mostly because it was in the third person and partly because you failed to support it. Let me stop here because I don't like where I am about to go with this.

Secondly, what exactly did I say in my post?

(emphases added) Now, this thread ran its course around the beginning of this year; a few days ago it was resuscitated with post #82, and I made this comment in post #111, implicitly referring to the posts you made between #82 and #111 as "recent" (March '07 is hardly "recent", is it?) The only Scriptural citation I saw you using in that stretch of posts was the Romans citation I saw in #100, and that was what I was referring to. I certainly didn't mean to say that you have never ever referred to any other passages of Scripture in any form to bolster your arguments; just that you hadn't done so recently in this thread.

I hope that makes things clear.

I hope it is clear that not a single Scriptural reference is included and if you know anything about Creationism that is all important. The New Testament wittiness does not give credence to the notion that Moses got the historicity of his facts wrong. I have ample Scriptural support for my doctrinal and theological position and you have absolutely nothing. I keep the door open but I don't compromise at this level buddy, trust me buddy, I have done a lot more ways then one.

Thanks mark, you really made my day with this. I can't think of a better way to encourage a brother than to act surprised when he says that he cares about what he believes.

It would not be so surprising were it not so rare.

Quite frankly, mark, you have no idea how much thought and effort goes into my long posts. For every idea I state there are probably two or three that I have personally mused over, considered, and rejected based on the Bible's evidence. For every verse I quote I can name a few more which I thought might support my case, then looked up, considered the context, and decided after all that they might not be suitable. I take pains to emphasize what comes clearly from Scripture and what I personally believe; I adduce support from multiple authors and cultural backgrounds within Scripture. I make it a point to read even authors I don't agree with to see what I can learn; right now I'm digesting two books, both talking about the Bible but from diametrically opposite viewpoints - one as conservative as can be, one fully siding with higher criticism.

Be careful, all things are lawful but not all things edify.

And you don't know how many nights I've stayed up, not over an assignment or project, but over a thought about science-religion relations that occurred to me the other day. It's been three years now since I first considered that creationism might not be the right way to go; three years of hard work and thought. Every day at university I keep my eyes peeled for some seminar, or conference, or talk that might stand the remote chance of bringing me closer to a better understanding of it. I've picked up from scratch the rudiments of paleontology and geology - as well, of course, as quite a fair bit of evolutionary biology. Through all of this I believe that I have kept my heart open to the prompting of the Holy Spirit which may well convince me that I am wrong above and over everything I have constructed up to now.

Wow, I stand amazed...

Are you surprised that I care about whether I'm believing in heresy or not? Wow. I'm pleasantly surprised that you even noticed.

I'd like to say I'm embarrassed but that would be an understatement.

Can I ask you a question in return? Before the posts I made in this thread, had you honestly ever considered what Ezekiel, Hebrews, James and 1 John had to say about sin?

I am a sinner saved by grace, with an appetite for Bible study, of course I have considered.

And I have already pointed out that in fact my personal view on hamartiology is in fact perfectly compatible with a creationist viewpoint on human origins. Strangely, that doesn't prevent it from being incompatible with you - but who am I to judge about that?

Our differences come down to a single lack of discernment between temporal and eternal. That's it, it's not that big of a deal and well worth working out if you care to dispense with the drama.

Whoa - when did I "brand creationism pseudo-science because it's religious"? The most I have really ever said about it is that it doesn't work. That's a far cry from what you imply.

Come on dude...seriously...do you have a shred of hope that it is the genuine article of science? I really don't care because I consider theology to be well above natural science but if you ever regarded it as science, or even potentially, then by all means rebuke me without restraint.

Of course not. That's why (in case it's escaped your notice) I happen to quote the Bible a lot in my theological posts ...

And he took great pains to say that all died because all sinned.

That's not a consensus but it's a start.

I'm sorry, but you're now the one who's initiated talk about church splits

Did my point escape you entirely?

You've had many months now to read my explicit statement about the formal debate proposal. I turned it down precisely because I was not going to formally defend something I could no longer believe, i.e. that creationists are the new geocentrists. I was mistaken to claim that. And I have said so since the time I turned down the debate.

Then trust me when I tell you that I am happy but this is the first I have heard of it. You said the last time that we were actually worse. Your new position interests me but this is the first I have heard of it.

(Hey look - shernren actually cares about what he believes! And he will actually back down from something that he is convinced he was wrong about!)

Grace and peace to you too.

Alright, you got me. My entire adult life I have believed in turning the other check, going the extra mile and giving asking nothing in return. Now, I am faced with a philosophy I deeply oppose that is embraced by someone who claims to share my faith that makes be believe in grace in the first place.

So I'll give you this, I don't care if you believe if we came from apes or not. I can easily reconcile a strictly Genesis one account to a literal, historical New Testament with no conflict. I do care about the supernatural element of the New Testament and I mean to tell you, I won't bend there.

Other then that I think we can begin to work on some of our differences if your interested.

Grace and peace,
Mark

shernren · Dec 13, 2007

Someone's finally listening.

Let me just elaborate on three points.

mark kennedy said:
Come on dude...seriously...do you have a shred of hope that it is the genuine article of science? I really don't care because I consider theology to be well above natural science but if you ever regarded it as science, or even potentially, then by all means rebuke me without restraint.

There's a thin little book that's feeling rather lonely and intimidated on my shelf right now. It's surrounded by a row of science-fiction books, but it really knows it should be afraid of what it sees a few shelves away - The Creationists by Numbers and Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller, among others. That's because it's Starlight and Time, by Russell Humphreys, hot off the AiG press when I bought it.

What is a creationist book doing in my house on my bookshelf? I used to be one. When I was 15, I and a friend looked up evolution vs. creation online. We found lots of material. We found creationists claiming that there was too little helium on the earth for it to be old (or too much?), that bombardier beetles couldn't evolve because the chemicals they contain explode upon contact, that all hominids were either fully ape or fully human. We were told about Haeckel's embryos and Piltdown man, and that the Second Law of Thermodynamics rendered the whole thing moot.

Long story short, I grew up and stepped on the path to being a real scientist. I learned the hard way that creationists had lied to me over and over again about things they barely had expertise in. Things come full circle: one thing I am aiming to do this holiday and next is to read Starlight and Time again minutely, go over the mathematics, and see what's actually happening in it.

Do I think creationism is pseudo-scientific because it is religious? No. If creationism worked, I wouldn't care one bit about the theology of the people promoting it. While we're at it, if Muslim creationism, or Hindu creationism, or Native American creationism, or indeed SpaghettiMonsterism, made any sort of contribution at all to the physical and biological sciences, I would agree wholeheartedly with their scientific conclusions even if I could not agree in the tiniest bit with their theologies.

But creationism never has worked. And it still doesn't. And that is why I am not a creationist. Give me creationism that works, scientifically, and I will drop evolution faster than a hot potato. But not a moment beforehand.

mark kennedy said:
Then trust me when I tell you that I am happy but this is the first I have heard of it. You said the last time that we were actually worse. Your new position interests me but this is the first I have heard of it.

You're right about what I've believed all along. After I had researched the geocentrists my position was that creationists are far worse than the geocentrists ever were. The topic of the formal debate was that "Creationism is the New Geocentrism". And to me, if creationists are worse than geocentrists, how can they be the new geocentrists? When I debate I am precise about what I am debating on. I wasn't out to bash creationism as hard as I could, I was out to make a point, which I then discovered I couldn't make because it was formally and logically wrong. I had intended to make parallels between the geocentrists and the creationists which I found that I couldn't make, precisely because I thought the creationists were worse than the geocentrists ever were.

If the debate had been "Creationism is worse than geocentrism" I would have gladly gone ahead. But the title was what it was and frankly I was lazy to change it - plus I wanted to take time (and lots of deep breaths) to assimilate the information I'd laid my hands on.

So yes, creationists are not the new geocentrists.

But only because they are worse.

But still, they are not the new geocentrists.

I hope you understand why I did what I did.

mark kennedy said:
Alright, you got me. My entire adult life I have believed in turning the other check, going the extra mile and giving asking nothing in return. Now, I am faced with a philosophy I deeply oppose that is embraced by someone who claims to share my faith that makes be believe in grace in the first place.

So I'll give you this, I don't care if you believe if we came from apes or not. I can easily reconcile a strictly Genesis one account to a literal, historical New Testament with no conflict. I do care about the supernatural element of the New Testament and I mean to tell you, I won't bend there.

Other then that I think we can begin to work on some of our differences if your interested.

I wonder if you've ever known what I really believed. I'm the same person who posted this six months ago:

shernren said:
But I'm frustrated by the inherently anti-supernaturalist attitude that Peacocke (and others, I suspect) bring to the table. I am not willing to accept a priori that miracles are off-limits from the start - to abandon the horse-sense of the Scripture simply to look good to the elite.

Have any other recent theologians looked at it this way? Is there anyone who has been able to pull together a synthesis of science and spirituality without abandoning the miracles? Surely there must be some smarter than me who agree with me!

I wish you could sit in on the classes in church I used to give on Luke and Acts. I'm fiercely proud of Luke's attention to historical detail - right down to noting that Jesus' genealogy was supposed.

Tell me where, in any of my posts, have I ever been anti-supernaturalist. Indeed, I have made myself explicitly clear on my position towards miracles and science here.

shernren said:
... I will say, however, that when a TE denies the recent six-day creation "on the basis of scientific evidence", often (probably not always) s/he may not be referring to the actual scientific impossibility of a miracle. Instead, what is being referred to is the complete lack of support for, and even case against, the recent six-day creation which the TE finds in the current physical state of the universe. ... What is really being protested is not the physical impossibility of six-day creation at the miraculous moment itself, but the philosophical impossibility of a miracle to cover the physical trail of six-day creation combined with the inconsistency between the current state of the universe and the projected state of the universe had it been subject to natural forces for six thousand years of existence after a six-day creation.

(emphasis added)

Yes, I consider myself theologically liberal. That has never prevented me from agreeing substantially with you in regards to your beliefs about supernaturalism in the New Testament, in statements which I've been making over a year and a half ago. I hope that you can see that.

shernren · Dec 13, 2007

shernren said:
There's a thin little book that's feeling rather lonely and intimidated on my shelf right now. It's surrounded by a row of science-fiction books, but it really knows it should be afraid of what it sees a few shelves away - The Creationists by Numbers and Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller, among others. That's because it's Starlight and Time, by Russell Humphreys, hot off the AiG press when I bought it.

I'd been wondering about a sneaky little fellow I bought around the same time as Starlight and Time. I'd remembered it as the book which had started me on this whole creationism thing (as a creationist), with an innocuous title Science and the Bible. Back when I was 15, the name Henry M. Morris didn't ring a bell.

Now it does ring a bell, an alarm at that - a freaking loud one. And the acknowledgements included some illustrious creationist names - David Menton, John Meyer, John Morris, John Whitcomb.

Wow. I was much more a creationist than I thought I was ...

mark kennedy · Dec 13, 2007

shernren said:
Someone's finally listening.

Let me just elaborate on three points.

Ok, this should be good...

There's a thin little book that's feeling rather lonely and intimidated on my shelf right now. It's surrounded by a row of science-fiction books, but it really knows it should be afraid of what it sees a few shelves away - The Creationists by Numbers and Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller, among others. That's because it's Starlight and Time, by Russell Humphreys, hot off the AiG press when I bought it.

Surrounded by science fiction, that should tell me something but go ahead.

What is a creationist book doing in my house on my bookshelf? I used to be one. When I was 15, I and a friend looked up evolution vs. creation online. We found lots of material. We found creationists claiming that there was too little helium on the earth for it to be old (or too much?), that bombardier beetles couldn't evolve because the chemicals they contain explode upon contact, that all hominids were either fully ape or fully human. We were told about Haeckel's embryos and Piltdown man, and that the Second Law of Thermodynamics rendered the whole thing moot.

I'm confused, you are faced with this fraud and fallacy and the whole thing is moot, I'm not really feeling you here.

Long story short, I grew up and stepped on the path to being a real scientist.

Which can only mean you discarded the supernatural elements of your faith.

I learned the hard way that creationists had lied to me over and over again about things they barely had expertise in.

Hardly objective since you had already reached a conclusion without any specifics why...but continue.

Things come full circle: one thing I am aiming to do this holiday and next is to read Starlight and Time again minutely, go over the mathematics, and see what's actually happening in it.

Ok, great, what's next? By the way I am reading Ancestral Passion about the Leakey's if that is of interest to you.

Do I think creationism is pseudo-scientific because it is religious? No.

That separates you from every legal and academic thinker in the free world...you know that right?

If creationism worked, I wouldn't care one bit about the theology of the people promoting it. While we're at it, if Muslim creationism, or Hindu creationism, or Native American creationism, or indeed SpaghettiMonsterism, made any sort of contribution at all to the physical and biological sciences, I would agree wholeheartedly with their scientific conclusions even if I could not agree in the tiniest bit with their theologies.

Like creationism ever had a fighting chance, let's hear it.

But creationism never has worked. And it still doesn't. And that is why I am not a creationist. Give me creationism that works, scientifically, and I will drop evolution faster than a hot potato. But not a moment beforehand.

First of all it's not Creationism against evolution, Creationism is an alternative scenario for evolution that starts with special creation, that is the only real difference. Secondly, I think you chose the path you are on for more then one reason, I'm not saying what the other choices were but you are not new to these discussions.

You're right about what I've believed all along. After I had researched the geocentrists my position was that creationists are far worse than the geocentrists ever were. The topic of the formal debate was that "Creationism is the New Geocentrism". And to me, if creationists are worse than geocentrists, how can they be the new geocentrists? When I debate I am precise about what I am debating on. I wasn't out to bash creationism as hard as I could, I was out to make a point, which I then discovered I couldn't make because it was formally and logically wrong. I had intended to make parallels between the geocentrists and the creationists which I found that I couldn't make, precisely because I thought the creationists were worse than the geocentrists ever were.

What if I told you that the evolutionist is actually the new geocentricism? Think about that and we can talk some more.

If the debate had been "Creationism is worse than geocentrism" I would have gladly gone ahead. But the title was what it was and frankly I was lazy to change it - plus I wanted to take time (and lots of deep breaths) to assimilate the information I'd laid my hands on.

Dude, there is nothing from stopping you from changing the topic now since I am the only one wanting to debate the topic.

So yes, creationists are not the new geocentrists.

Would you buy into a topic where a creationist said that evolutionists are?

But only because they are worse.

And you defend that with no courage of your convictions.

But still, they are not the new geocentrists.

You are, how blunt do I have to be?

I hope you understand why I did what I did.

Because you want to spout off without backing it up?

I wonder if you've ever known what I really believed. I'm the same person who posted this six months ago:

But I'm frustrated by the inherently anti-supernaturalist attitude that Peacocke (and others, I suspect) bring to the table. I am not willing to accept a priori that miracles are off-limits from the start - to abandon the horse-sense of the Scripture simply to look good to the elite.

Have any other recent theologians looked at it this way? Is there anyone who has been able to pull together a synthesis of science and spirituality without abandoning the miracles? Surely there must be some smarter than me who agree with me!

There is not one because of the definition based on a naturalistic assumption of a common ancestor. They won't because they dare not, just as I am sure many Jesuits feared Rome.

I wish you could sit in on the classes in church I used to give on Luke and Acts. I'm fiercely proud of Luke's attention to historical detail - right down to noting that Jesus' genealogy was supposed.

It's nice that you believe Luke but his genealogy being supposed raises some red flags for me.

Tell me where, in any of my posts, have I ever been anti-supernaturalist. Indeed, I have made myself explicitly clear on my position towards miracles and science here.

Then come off of it, the supernatural mentions in the New Testament are history. Right or wrong?

(emphasis added)

Believe that!

Yes, I consider myself theologically liberal.

No kidding?

That has never prevented me from agreeing substantially with you in regards to your beliefs about supernaturalism in the New Testament, in statements which I've been making over a year and a half ago. I hope that you can see that.

I can wait and see because you have been ambiguous at best. One time I remember you just saying, 'I believe, so what'? Is that someone I am going to break bread with and offer the right hand of fellowship? Only reluctantly and with reservations. You cannot be hostile or oblivious to core convictions and then expect me to embrace you as a Christian. I still believe that TEs mask themselves as Christians just to see how far they can go.

I'll give you some time but I'm not impressed with the last post you made, in fact, you missed the real points.

Let me ask you this, if I asked you what was required to be a Christian, what would you say?

Have a nice day
Mark

Melethiel · Dec 13, 2007

C'mon guys, our game is up. We're all just faking it. The fact that some of us may be in church most days of the week, own more theology books than science books, pray often and know the Bible better than any other book, and fully believe in and defend the supernatural aspects of Scripture and Christian orthodoxy is just a smokescreen. We're really all out to topple Christianity from inside with our evil, Satanic, heretical doctrines. That or we're fooling ourselves into thinking we're Christian when we're really materialistic liberal idolaters who worship Darwin instead of Christ.

I have now seen the light.

crawfish · Dec 14, 2007

Melethiel said:
C'mon guys, our game is up. We're all just faking it. The fact that some of us may be in church most days of the week, own more theology books than science books, pray often and know the Bible better than any other book, and fully believe in and defend the supernatural aspects of Scripture and Christian orthodoxy is just a smokescreen. We're really all out to topple Christianity from inside with our evil, Satanic, heretical doctrines. That or we're fooling ourselves into thinking we're Christian when we're really materialistic liberal idolaters who worship Darwin instead of Christ.

I have now seen the light.

Heh.

p.s. I apologize for this in advance.

PaladinValer · Dec 14, 2007

Melethiel said:
C'mon guys, our game is up. We're all just faking it. The fact that some of us may be in church most days of the week, own more theology books than science books, pray often and know the Bible better than any other book, and fully believe in and defend the supernatural aspects of Scripture and Christian orthodoxy is just a smokescreen. We're really all out to topple Christianity from inside with our evil, Satanic, heretical doctrines. That or we're fooling ourselves into thinking we're Christian when we're really materialistic liberal idolaters who worship Darwin instead of Christ.

I have now seen the light.

**Gives her a cosmic swirly**

Traitor!

mark kennedy · Dec 14, 2007

Melethiel said:
C'mon guys, our game is up. We're all just faking it. The fact that some of us may be in church most days of the week, own more theology books than science books, pray often and know the Bible better than any other book, and fully believe in and defend the supernatural aspects of Scripture and Christian orthodoxy is just a smokescreen. We're really all out to topple Christianity from inside with our evil, Satanic, heretical doctrines. That or we're fooling ourselves into thinking we're Christian when we're really materialistic liberal idolaters who worship Darwin instead of Christ.

I have now seen the light.

Let's cut to the chase, just tell me what you believe about God. Is he a personal God or does the God of the New Testament compare to the pagan elemental? The fact of the matter is that you can't have it both ways, get off the fence.

I love you but you have to decide which way you want to go.

Melethiel · Dec 14, 2007

mark kennedy said:
Let's cut to the chase, just tell me what you believe about God. Is he a personal God or does the God of the New Testament compare to the pagan elemental? The fact of the matter is that you can't have it both ways, get off the fence.

I love you but you have to decide which way you want to go.

What pagan elemental?

But since you asked, I believe in the God that is the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth.
And I believe in his only Son, Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father before all ages, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God. For us and for our salvation he was incarnate, born of the Virgin, was crucified under Pilate, died, and was buried, and who rose again on the third day. I believe in him who will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the God that is the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, the Spirit of truth.

Which god do you believe in, mark?
I'm interested in knowing which fence you think I'm on.

busterdog · Dec 15, 2007

shernren said:
(emphases added)

Hmm.

In any case, I don't see how the doctrine of original sin makes sense as mark has described it.

I think it is both my experience, and the experience of the writers of the Bible, that I sin, that we sin as individuals and as a society, all people dead set against God. By the Holy Spirit's help we recognize that we are sinners; by God the Father's justice we are guilty and deserve eternal separation from Him; by Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the cross we are reconciled to God both now and hereafter.

I think that is an adequate doctrine of sin and atonement. We are, of course, led to wonder how sin came about in the first place. If man was created with the capacity to enjoy perfect relationship with God, and created by God, he was certainly created in that perfect relationship, would he not? God would not create His masterpiece starting out "on the wrong foot", so to speak. So there must have been a first sinner. And then his/her/their sin must have spread through the entire human race, corrupting us indelibly, leaving us incapable of returning to God on our own.

If that is the doctrine of original sin, then I believe quite firmly in it (though not without reservation altogether). Indeed, in some sense I can, and do, call my sin Adam's sin: I swim in the river of which he is the headspring. But at the same time, both I and the writers of the Bible are painfully aware that it is I who sin when I sin, not Adam; that is to say, I can trace my own sin back to the temptations I face, back to the sinful society I live in, and ultimately back to my own terrifyingly wilful will. In the face of my terrifying, and terrifyingly consistent, inclination to disobey God, the notion that Adam made me sin becomes, to me as a believer, extremely academic; while the idea that I fall, that I succumb, is the basis of every exhortation to repent and reform.

And that is where I disagree with mark. Mark seems to suggest that my sin is in some way ontologically indistinct from Adam's sin to the extent that to deny that Adam sinned - indeed, to deny the historically factual existence of an Adam and Eve in a historically factual Garden of Eden chomping down on a historically factual lump of carbohydrates - is to deny that I sin. His essential thoughts are really that we are either with him, tracing our sin back to contraband carbohydrates and a real slithering talking snake, or we are with the humanists - saying that sin is not the problem and that we are basically decent. I find that ridiculous. My sin is obvious. My fallenness is obvious. Whether the Adam in the Bible really lived in a garden naming a few dozen animals per second and undergoing rib extraction before chowing down on bad fruit, or is a picture of an actual historical origin for sin even if different in the details, or is a poster child for the "everyman" who has sinned everywhere at every time, is really secondary to that personal recognition of personal and societal sin. I need Jesus, whether or not Adam ate fruit, because I have sinned.

All die, because all sinned.

This is the inerrancy debate.

busterdog · Dec 15, 2007

mark kennedy said:
Let's cut to the chase, just tell me what you believe about God. Is he a personal God or does the God of the New Testament compare to the pagan elemental? The fact of the matter is that you can't have it both ways, get off the fence.

I love you but you have to decide which way you want to go.

If you go with Shernren, you reconstruct a doctrine of sin based upon how that allows your world to make sense for you. It just seems that reasoning out what God must be like would follow suit. There is just so little to offer there. Other than comprehending the historical Jesus, I see very little content in how the evolutionists view heaven or God the Father. Maybe that means most think its just mysterious and leave it at that. I do get the willies, like you, however, with so little to say, I worry about the following:

Aqualung

© Ian Anderson 1971

In the beginning Man created God;
and in the image of Man
created he him.

mark kennedy · Dec 15, 2007

busterdog said:
If you go with Shernren, you reconstruct a doctrine of sin based upon how that allows your world to make sense for you. It just seems that reasoning out what God must be like would follow suit. There is just so little to offer there. Other than comprehending the historical Jesus, I see very little content in how the evolutionists view heaven or God the Father. Maybe that means most think its just mysterious and leave it at that. I do get the willies, like you, however, with so little to say, I worry about the following:

I cannot understand why Theisitic Evolutionists never want to talk about it. What this issue really comes down to is not theology and certainly not science, the heart of the issue is historicity. Is TOE or the Scriptures the human history book because they can't both be right and one of them must be right.

I have been telling people for a couple of years now that there is a difference between TOE as natural science and TOE as natural history. Despite that, not a single evolutionist has concede that point or even acknowledged it. As a new Christian over 20 years ago I searched high and low for tangible evidence of the New Testament as factual history. When I bring up things like the historicity of the New Testament it's very difficult to get a straight answer. The best I can get is a short...'yea I believe it, so what?'

The historicity of Scripture vs. the historicity of Evolution. That sounds to me like a right promising topic, one worth pursuing.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Assyrian · Dec 15, 2007

busterdog said:
This is the inerrancy debate.

What has inerrancy got to do with it?

The issue we have been discussing is whether Mark's view of Original Sin, which he gets from Augustine and Catholic tradition is supported by scripture or not and even if it is possible to interpret scripture that way, whether it is the only interpretation.

Mark is trying to use traditional Catholic doctrine to argue against evolution, though the Catholic church does not see the problem. To make his case he would have to show, first that this doctrine is scriptural, which is pretty difficult to do when it originally arose from a Latin mistranslation of Romans 5 which said that in Adam all sinned, Rom 5:12 (Douay Rheims) Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned (Latin: in quo omnes peccaverunt).

Claiming it is an argument about inerrancy is assuming you can justify the doctrine from the rest of scripture without the mistranslation that gave rise to it. So far all Mark has done is claim to have given this exegesis.

Then you have to show that not only is this doctrine scriptural but that all other alternative interpretations are wrong, including many traditional interpretations outside Catholicism.

gluadys · Dec 15, 2007

mark kennedy said:
I have been telling people for a couple of years now that there is a difference between TOE as natural science and TOE as natural history.

The historicity of Scripture vs. the historicity of Evolution. That sounds to me like a right promising topic, one worth pursuing.

I have to confess, I don't see much in it. I have not found any creationist who disputes the historicity of evolution where it is contemporaneous with the historicity of scripture.

We know evolution is happening in the present day. We can see it in nature and examine it in the lab. Creationists subsume all this under "micro-evolution" or "adaptation" and have no problem with it.

So the only problem creationists have is with the history of evolution prior to and including the origin of humanity. The vast bulk of evolutionary history that is disputed simply does not connect with history in scripture at all, since the history in scripture falls entirely within human history and the history of evolution falls almost entirely prior to human history.

The only point of dispute is whether or not humanity has a biological relation to the rest of life, and we have been over that ground many times.

Melethiel · Dec 15, 2007

I find it rather amusing how the only time my posts are ever acknowledged is to question whether I believe - otherwise completely ignored. Is it so hard for YECs (mark) to acknowledge that TEs might just be Christian - traditional and orthodox at that? I'm sorry I don't fit into the little box of "TE pseudo-Christian" that seems to have been developed here.

I'm sick and tired of being told that I believe the opposite of what I truly believe.

crawfish · Dec 15, 2007

Melethiel said:
I believe in the God that is the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth.
And I believe in his only Son, Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father before all ages, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God. For us and for our salvation he was incarnate, born of the Virgin, was crucified under Pilate, died, and was buried, and who rose again on the third day. I believe in him who will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the God that is the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, the Spirit of truth.

Which god do you believe in, mark?
I'm interested in knowing which fence you think I'm on.

For brevity's sake, I'm going to use Melethial's statement as my own.

And I'm also going to sit in wonder if the statement continues to be ignored. If you don't accept it, Mark, then just tell us.

mark kennedy · Dec 15, 2007

Assyrian said:
The issue we have been discussing is whether Mark's view of Original Sin, which he gets from Augustine and Catholic tradition is supported by scripture or not and even if it is possible to interpret scripture that way, whether it is the only interpretation.

I am sick to death of having my words twisted, that is not what I am doing. My position is based on Paul, Moses and the traditional theology of the Christian faith that is uniformly Creationist. This modernist, so called 'interpretation' exists no where in the Scriptures.

Mark is trying to use traditional Catholic doctrine to argue against evolution, though the Catholic church does not see the problem. To make his case he would have to show, first that this doctrine is scriptural, which is pretty difficult to do when it originally arose from a Latin mistranslation of Romans 5 which said that in Adam all sinned, Rom 5:12 (Douay Rheims) Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned (Latin: in quo omnes peccaverunt).

Again you are twisting my words, I did quote from New Advent but I have based my views exclusively on the testimony of the Scriptures. Something, I might add, no TE ever does.

Claiming it is an argument about inerrancy is assuming you can justify the doctrine from the rest of scripture without the mistranslation that gave rise to it. So far all Mark has done is claim to have given this exegesis.

And you countered with what? Absolutely nothing. The Scriptures speak clearly on Creation, not just in Genesis but Luke and Paul both make it crystal clear that Adam was the first man, without human ancestry, specially created. I have done in depth expositions of the Scriptures as I have done with scientific literature.

Then you have to show that not only is this doctrine scriptural but that all other alternative interpretations are wrong, including many traditional interpretations outside Catholicism.

What traditions? You are talking in generalities and making sweeping judgments based on your statements alone. I quote Augustine because he cites 11 Church fathers.

It is not true that the doctrine of original sin does not appear in the works of the pre-Augustinian Fathers. On the contrary, their testimony is found in special works on the subject. Nor can it be said, as Harnack maintains, thatSt. Augustine himself acknowledges the absence of this doctrine in the writings of the Fathers. St. Augustine invokes the testimony of eleven Fathers, Greek as well as Latin (Contra Jul., II, x, 33). Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul. It is found in the fourth Book of Esdras, a work written by a Jew in the first century after Christ and widely read by the Christians. This book represents Adam as the author of the fall of the human race (vii, 48), as having transmitted to all his posterity the permanent infirmity, the malignity, the bad seed of sin (iii, 21, 22; iv, 30). Protestants themselves admit the doctrine of original sin in this book and others of the same period (see Sanday, "The International Critical Commentary: Romans", 134, 137; Hastings, "A Dictionary of the Bible", I, 841). It is therefore impossible to makeSt. Augustine, who is of a much later date, the inventor of original sin.New Advent 'Original Sin'

According to Christian tradition, original sin is the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born (Psalm 51:5). Original sin is also called hereditary sin, birth sin, or person sin. Used with the definite article ("the original sin"), it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve succumbed to the serpent's temptation. (Original Sin from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Original sin. "Our first parents being the root of all mankind, the guilt of their sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature were conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation." Adam was constituted by God the federal head and representative of all his posterity, as he was also their natural head, and therefore when he fell they fell with him (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22-45). His probation was their probation, and his fall their fall. Because of Adam's first sin all his posterity came into the world in a state of sin and condemnation, i.e.,
(1) a state of moral corruption, and
(2) of guilt, as having judicially imputed to them the guilt of Adam's first sin. (Sin, Bakers Dictionary of the Bible)

Original sin and the special creation of Adam is not a Catholic or Augustine doctrine, it's a Christian doctrine and represents the traditional view of the Church for 2,000 years. This so called theistic evolution can substantiate itself neither by the Scriptures nor any Christian doctrine that I am aware of.

If you want to take Genesis 1 figuratively that's your business. You can reject Creationism based on religion or secular science and I could care less. But don't come on here and tell people that I based by doctrinal position on Catholic theology, that's a lie. I have posted extensive expositions, quoted from numerous commentaries and several Bible dictionaries.

If you are going to relate my position to someone then get your facts straight. I do not take kindly to having my words twisted.

mark kennedy · Dec 15, 2007

Melethiel said:
I find it rather amusing how the only time my posts are ever acknowledged is to question whether I believe - otherwise completely ignored. Is it so hard for YECs (mark) to acknowledge that TEs might just be Christian - traditional and orthodox at that? I'm sorry I don't fit into the little box of "TE pseudo-Christian" that seems to have been developed here.

I'm sick and tired of being told that I believe the opposite of what I truly believe.

Welcome to the club, I just responded to a poster who wanted to misrepresent what I based my doctrinal position on. The trouble with Theistic Evolution is that it doesn't represent a theology at all. Creationism on the other hand can be directly tied to Paul's doctrinal treatise in Romans. The only thing that TEs are clear about is that they despise creationism. All I ever asked is that Creationisms doctrinal support be recognized and received highly critical, insulting and condescending responses from the vast majority of TEs in this forum including you.

I really don't know anything about your religion but I do know the Scriptures. You can't have it both ways, you can't say that Creationism is pseudoscience because it's theological and then ignore it as doctrine.

My opinion of TE is that it's not theologically based or doctrinally coherent. The historicity of Scripture is something I have studied for over 20 years. Creationism is just one aspect of a far larger field of apologetics and the question of origins in this area is largely insignificant. What Theistic Evolutionists need to understand is that the factual historicity of Scripture is not based on interpretations, it is based on the gospel. It's not an interpretation of the Genesis 1 that is at the heart of Creationism, it's the historicity of the Scriptures. In other words we don't base New Testament theology on Genesis, we understand the Old Testament by examining in the light of the gospel. The gospel makes it clear that Adam was the first man without any ancestors. Arguments to the contrary do not exist, that is the clear testimony of Scripture. If you have a point of doctrine or theology then do tell but other then that I will not accept that Theistic Evolution is anything other then secular philosophy with no bearing on Christian doctrine.

mark kennedy · Dec 15, 2007

crawfish said:
And I'm also going to sit in wonder if the statement continues to be ignored. If you don't accept it, Mark, then just tell us.

Why do you guys incessantly respond to me in the third person? I really hate that, it would be so bad were it not so common. It's like a theater performance which is why I am so taken with the analogy of Francis Bacon:

Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world. (Novum Organum (the new instrumentality for the acquisition of knowledge, Francis Bacon)

False superstructures raised on false foundations, yea, that fits. Systems barren of merit, yea, that's evolution as natural history. But what really describes this whole Creavo controversy is, 'their grandeur on the stage of the world', that's what evolutionists do on here. They perform for one another and for lurkers which is why they so often want to refer to me rather then respond to me.

The Idols and False Notions have Taken Deep Root

Is Adam being specially created and our first parent essential doctrine?

Yes, directly tied to the Gospel and original sin.

No, Adam is just a mythical symbol for humanity

Yes and No (elaborate at will)

Neither yes or not (suggest another alternative)

you are not reading this.

Natura non facit saltum

you are not reading this.

you are not reading this.

Natura non facit saltum

Miserere mei, Domine

Veteran

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Natura non facit saltum

Miserere mei, Domine

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Legend

Miserere mei, Domine

Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency