Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Vance said:When you start off with "it's clear" then I know we will disagree. For example, your church may teach that Song of Solomon is an allegory for Christ and the Church. Other Christians believe it should be read literally, as a sensual (sometimes erotic) love poem.
To me, it is very clear and plain that the Creation accounts were not meant to be read as literal history. In fact, I have a hard time seeing how any reads them literally. But I understand that we are all just fallible humans, so would never say that it must be so. I think my interpretation is right, as well as being plain to me, and I have evidence to back it up, but in the end, the point is that we should not be dogmatic. Presenting "seems to me" as "must be" is where the pride, hubris, and even worse, comes in.
And that is all I truly object to: dogmatic presentations. Saying that if a literal reading of Genesis is not true, then you can't trust Scripture. How can anyone NOT see the danger in that.
While it is good to debate the issues in all these areas, ultimately, the point is that we should not be doing that.
Remember what Augustine says about it, as quoted in my signature line. Remember what the Westminster Confession says about it: that much of Scripture is unclear, other than what is necessary for salvation.
jasperbound said:Poems aren't necessarily literal accounts of history. A poem is not, by definition, literal. I'd be surprised if anybody actually interpreted the Song of Solomon to be a literal account of history. Sure, some will interpret it as a love poem, while others will interpret it as an allegory, but both will agree that it's not a literal account of history.
jasperbound said:Of course, perhaps the right interpretation is that the entire Bible, including Christ's sacrifice, is figurative. We are not infallible, so we cannot judge their interpretation as invalid.
jasperbound said:And if we shouldn't be debating these issues, then why create this thread in the first place? Why did TEs respond by criticizing the beliefs of YECs? One even implied that American Christians are insane! Is this how Christians are supposed to be? I wouldn't know, because as a YEC, I have such weak faith and I'm such a lower Christian than TEs.
gluadys said:I disagree that TEs want YECs to not be dogmatic about scripture. Of course we should be dogmatic about scripture. What we should not be dogmatic about is our fallible human interpretations of scripture.
gluadys said:Dogmatism is foreign to science, because it is never based on belief. Science is based on evidence--objective evidence--which, in principle, anyone can check out for themselves. Practically, of course, the lay person cannot always do this. I can't go out and check up on what physicists say about particle physics because I can't go out an pick up a particle accerelerator for personal use. But I can be sure that one physicist will be checking out the work of other physicists and so have some confidence in the conclusions shared by the majority of the scientific community.
gluadys said:In point of fact, that is how most of us do theology too. We almost never study scripture without a theology we have been taught influencing how we read it. We leave it to the professional theologians to actually debate the theological issues, just as we leave it to the professional scientists to do the actual scientific work.
gluadys said:So it behoves us to treat both alike, as works in progress, whose conclusions may one day change, just as both theology and science have changed in the past.
I believe TEs have a very pragmatic outlook. They take what the world says is right and conform their beliefs and the Word of God around it, continually adjusting and fine tuning their beliefs in order to comply with or not offend people. This way they can justify their beliefs without having to take a firm stand on them. All it takes to verify this is to look at the conversations that take place in the C&E forum, TEs are seen as people who commiserate with non-believers. There doesn't appear to be much of a line as to where one is the and the other isn't. I think if one looks at the history of the church, specifically Paul, you will find that he was incredibly dogmatic. TEs, IMO, like to tell people you can have your cake and eat it too. Certainly not a very dogmatic approach and in the end, I believe, not a productive one either.Vance said:The reason for this thread is to show YEC's the damage that a dogmatic presentation of Young Earth'ism can do. And to remind non-Christians that they need not abandon the idea of Christianity due to hearing the YEC message.
Vance said:The reason for this thread is to show YEC's the damage that a dogmatic presentation of Young Earth'ism can do. And to remind non-Christians that they need not abandon the idea of Christianity due to hearing the YEC message. I am not sure whether it is too late for those that responded, but I count on many lurkers reading these threads. I have had many PM's asking me more about TE'ism, saying that they were either about ready to abandon their faith due to the origins issue, but were just now hearing the TE alternative. And from non-Christians who had not heard that many Christians did not hold Young Earth views, and wanting to know more.
SBG said:Is it not your interpretation of the Bible that says Jesus Christ rose from the dead? Is it not your interpretation of the Bible that says the Blood of Christ was shed for the Salvation of mankind?
So, if it is your interpretation, then you are dogmatic about Jesus Christ being the Son of God, God Himself, that He died and rose again in three days and that He sits at the right hand of the Father.
To have billions of years, one has to ignore parts of the Bible. Take Exodus 20:11, it says that God made the heavens and the Earth, the sea and all that in them and He rested on the seventh day - this can only be taken one way. One has to ignore this if one is to believe in billions of years.
this is not true and has reach the frequency of a PRATT here.One also has to ignore, maybe reject is a better way of putting it, the fact that man and the animals were originally created to be vegetarian and not meat eaters!
- but evolution puts forward that there is nothing wrong.
It really stuns me how TEs say that they still believe the Bible when they have to reject half of it (including the basis for Jesus' Earthly life) just to 'accomodate' for evolutionism!
????when you have to reject half of the Bible, not to mention the the ethical issues and theological issues that arise out of this.
not in Gen 1 which is where YECists get all there young earth principles. i think gen2-5 are historical and happened 6-8K years ago, i am a providential evolutionist as well. you are simply unaware of the diversity of opinion on the issues and paint everyone with the same wide brush.why we wear clothes in also based ina literal reading of Genesis; why mankind is in rebellion against God is also based on a literal reading of Genesis! Basically, if you destroy Genesis, which one must if they are to believe in evolution, you have essentially annihilated the basis and origin as well as meaning of the entire Christian doctrine and belief!
How you can claim that a literal reading of Genesis is not 'truth' while believing a religious belief from outside the Bible that destroys the very foundations that the whole Gospel message is based on is beyond me and I'd really, really like to see you try and justify your religious view by using the Bible.
TheBear said:Yet, some Christians believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation, other Christians don't. Some Christians believe OSAS, other Christians don't. There are Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Evangelicals, Lutherans, Orthodox, and a whole slew of different Christian denominations. All having some doctrinal disagreement with the others, all using the same Bible.
What you've basically stated here is that everyone's beliefs, in all teachings and doctrines of scripture, has to be in lock-step with yours, on all Biblical teachings.
SBG said:I would expect that all Christians recognize Jesus Christ as the Son of God, God Himself who died on the cross, rose from the dead three days later and now sits at the right hand of the Father.
And if you take issue with me because I expect that from all Christians, then you leave me speechless.
TheBear said:What you're doing then, by inference, is including a specific interpretation of God's creation process, with the message of the Gospel and salvation.
TheBear said:If you're going to include this, what other teachings are to be lumped in with core Christian beliefs? What about water baptism? What about speaking in tongues? What about OSAS?
TheBear said:I suspect that your own expectations of Christians, involves agreeing wholeheartedly, with just about everything you believe, and not just limited to this short-list example you used. Of course, I could be wrong. But in this case, I'd love to be wrong.
Not quite; that's blind faith (the kind that, incidentally, turns off people from coming to Christianity). Abraham laughed when God told him that he would have a son, and, to his amazement, I'm sure, he later did. But he didn't question God when he was told to sacrifice Isaac because he knew by that point that God would provide. What was he doing? Basing his opinion off of past experiences. Tell me, was his belief because of past evidences wrong?The Lady Kate said:
Faith is supposed to be belief without evidence, not belief in spite of evidence.
SBG said:Is it not your interpretation of the Bible that says Jesus Christ rose from the dead? Is it not your interpretation of the Bible that says the Blood of Christ was shed for the Salvation of mankind?
So, if it is your interpretation, then you are dogmatic about Jesus Christ being the Son of God, God Himself, that He died and rose again in three days and that He sits at the right hand of the Father.
TEs are the ones who are very good at reminding YECs all readings of Scripture is interpreted when read. So, when you read about Jesus Christ and who He claimed to be, it is your interpretation. And you are dogmatic about your interpretation. It would be expected as a Christian.
I disagree with the fact the science is never based on belief. Scientific discoveries can start with a belief. I have yet to see any evidence for black matter, it is simply a belief that is put forth to see if it is accurate.
I too can read the Bible and have confidence that when it says six days, it means six days.
We then have the six day creation within the Ten Commandments.
These are the actual Words God wrote.
When comes to Words directly from God that the author recorded as they were written, I have no choice but to believe God exactly as He says.
I am very much aware we are in disagreeance with this. That you feel your interpretation is superior to mine. I am ok with this. Personally, I have no choice but to believe it, exactly how it is written, and that is my interpretation.
SBG said:No, what I was doing was commenting on the fact that Gluadys said we should not be dogmatic about our interpretation of Scripture.
Scripture to me is the Bible as a whole. Paul was rather dogmatic about Jesus Christ dying and resurrecting. Jesus was rather dogmatic about Him being the only way to Salvation. I think I can follow their lead and be dogmatic about those teachings as well.
I never said anything about creation. Maybe I should have so that you wouldn't have been lead into confusion. I think it is possible to have different interpretations of Genesis. I do think it is wrong to allow your interpretation of Genesis say something against what is actually written. An example would be to say that God created in billions/millions of years, when God said He created in six days.
Why this automatic assumption without asking me a thing? We have never even discussed anything prior to this before and you have already made assumptions about me without taking any time to know what I believe. It would be nice if all of us here could stop this.
What would I include into the core Christian beliefs? I would follow Paul's teachings, everyone of them as the core Christian belief. Paul references Genesis 1-3 often. I believe Paul set the standard for what we need to teach.
Paul speaks specifically on speaking in tongues, so I would follow what he teaches. I would also follow his teachings on water baptism.
I am sure you have more specific questions on these, so please elaborate, here or in another thread and I would be happy to discuss them with you.
Sigh... I would expect that all Christians believe in Jesus Christ and who He is and what He has done. I think it is rather presumptuous to assume that I expect everyone to agree wholeheartedly with every thing I believe. That is completely false and rather offending.
vossler said:I believe TEs have a very pragmatic outlook. They take what the world says is right and conform their beliefs and the Word of God around it, continually adjusting and fine tuning their beliefs in order to comply with or not offend people. This way they can justify their beliefs without having to take a firm stand on them.
vossler said:I think if one looks at the history of the church, specifically Paul, you will find that he was incredibly dogmatic. TEs, IMO, like to tell people you can have your cake and eat it too. Certainly not a very dogmatic approach and in the end, I believe, not a productive one either.
vossler said:1 Corinthians 9:21 states: "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe."
Acts 19 said:35The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: "Men of Ephesus, doesn't all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven? 36Therefore, since these facts are undeniable, you ought to be quiet and not do anything rash. 37You have brought these men here, though they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess.
vossler said:It is Scripture and the Holy Spirit that convicts people. All the "scientific evidence" in the world won't be enough to bring people to Christ. God's Word and the Holy Spirit are all we have and need.
vossler said:Everything else is foolishness. I believe God calls us to be dogmatic when it comes to Scripture and not to accept statements such as "Scripture is true either way, and none of it is a salvation issue, and should not be a stumbling block to anyone."
gluadys said:Is there any controversy among Christians over what the bible says about the resurrestion, the atonement, the aascension of Christ? You and I can be dogmatic about these teachings because denying them would take us outside the bounds of Christianity altogether. John Polkinghorne speaks of these basics (as summarized in the Nicene Creed) as the theological equivalent of a scientific theory. This is what we, as the Church of Jesus Christ, hold to be essential. Because on these matters we all share the same consensus on interpretation, we can be dogmatic.
gluadys said:But where there is controversy, whether it is over evolution or baptism predestination, then we are theologically in the same boat as scientists who have not been able to agree on a theory, but are struggling with several different hypotheses, as in the case of abiogenesis or gravity. In this case we cannot be dogmatic about an interpretation which does not have a Christian consensus behind it, any more than a scientist can be dogmatic about a preferred version of abiogenesis when there is no scientific consensus on the question.
gluadys said:There is a difference between a scientist having confidence in her theory and having that theory accepted by the scientific community. Wegener believed in the soundness of his continental plate theory long before there was a scientific consensus that he was right. So while a scientific discovery may begin as a belief, it only becomes an accepted theory when the evidence is there to support it in a convincing way without needing to rely on faith.
gluadys said:I've seen evidence for black matter. We used to heat our house with coal, and that is black matter. You intended, I expect, to refer to dark matter. The evidence for dark matter is its measured gravitational impact. The Law of Gravity would be violated if dark matter were not taken into account.
gluadys said:I quite agree. It means six days. I just don't think they were days in any calendar.
Of course we do. The same writer wrote the Exodus version of the Ten Commandments and the 1st chapter of Genesis. As far as I know the only other writer to refer to them is the author of Deuteronomy who was likely the last of the writers of the Torah and so was familiar with both Genesis and Exodus and probably took the idea from there.
gluadys said:The six days does not really have a lot of presence in scripture. What you do find again and again are the references to Sabbath. That is why it makes sense that these writers linked creation and exodus to the Sabbath: as a basis for keeping the sabbath holy. The primary concept is the Sabbath. The use of a six-day framework for creation is to support the sabbath. This was probably far more important to the writer than an accurate chronology.
gluadys said:I reject this entirely. God inspired scripture; humans wrote it. Inspiration is not dictation, so the words of the bible are the words of the writers, not of God.
gluadys said:This, of course, is an entirely different issue than the bible being in some sense the Word of God, a concept I do agree with, as long as it does not usurp the primary place of Christ who is the only eternal Word of God.
Again, inspiration is not dictation, so the words did not come from God but from the inspired imagination of the human writer. They are, of course, agreeable to the Word of God (which is always singular, never plural) or we would not consider them inspired. But it misrepresents the case to say the words are God's words. The bible is the Word of God, not the words of God.
gluadys said:No, I don't think my interpretation is superior to yours. If we were dealing solely with scripture, as if anything outside it did not exist, there would be ample reason to go with either interpretation. But we and the bible do not exist in a vacuum. We live in God's world, and God's world has something to say on the matter too. All the dateable evidence we have tells us the process by which heaven and earth came into being was much longer than six days and much longer ago than a few thousand years. Since I reject the notion that faith requires believing against the evidence, I cannot regard an interpretation of the scripture that necessitates this.
What you say here may very well be true. However, the important point, at least for me, is that AiG and others of their ilk place God's Word first and then attempt to have science support God's Word. TEs, IMO, do the opposite! Now, do AiG and others use only "good" science or selective science in order to bolster their positions? Probably so, but then again I think TEs do the same.shernren said:Now it's ironic that in my books it's the creation science movement (not YECism - there's a difference) that is the pragmatic accommodation of science. Why do I say that? Well, just look at ministries like AiG and ICR. Admittedly their beliefs for a young earth come first and foremost from Scriptural justifications, right? So why don't they just ignore modern evidence? Why don't they just stick their fingers in their ears and go "Lalala, all you heathen scientists are dead wrong!"? After all, they're supposed to practice Christian faith, right?
Because if they did so, they would have nothing left to say - more precisely, all they had to say (i.e theological arguments) would have nobody to listen to them. So that's why they fumble around with outdated figures and misquoted celebrities trying to make it sound like science agrees with them. But why should they care about science agreeing with them? If AiG dares to say that all contrary evidence is invalid why don't they be consistent and say all science is invalid? Because, they know they won't be convincing anyone.
I'm not a scientist. I can't and won't even attempt to get into scientific discussions to a level such as someone like yourself.shernren said:Actually, it's the creation science people who want to have their cake (young earth belief) and eat it too (scientific evidence). Why don't they just say "Screw science, the earth is young!"? After all this fits in perfectly with:
Or maybe it's a little too embarrassing for them to outright preach folly?
Good points about Paul, couldn't agree more. If I was in any way disrespectful please accept my humble apology. I pray I'll do better.shernren said:As for Paul being dogmatic, I think you would be surprised to hear this summary of his ministry in Ephesus that lasted nearly two years...Paul was neither sacrilegious nor blasphemous towards the goddess Artemis throughout all his years of ministry! I have no idea how that is possible - and yet, like you YECs like to say, it's what the passage says "at face value". I think that his approach was not to focus on what was wrong with the goddess Artemis but to focus on what was right in Our Lord Jesus. Did he avoid confrontation with this erotic religion? Did he support what little value it had? We don't know, but we can see that Paul was able to preach without being accused of being disrespectful or doing injustice to current paradigms while he tried to bring new ones to the people.
Ahhh, but the Holy Spirit is also the source of wisdom and knowledge. He brought the nourishment they so desperately needed: The Truth!shernren said:Then what do all those testimonies quoted by Delta One mean? After all, it is only the Spirit and the Scriptures that bring one to repentance in Jesus. So if someone is being brought by "evidence of a young earth", exactly what is he being brought to?
I'll give you that, at least to a certain degree.shernren said:It depends: you have to quantify the bolded part. If someone says "Whatever you believe about Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection, Scripture is true ...." then my response is anathema! But if someone says "whatever you believe about creation, within the bounds that God is the ultimate creator, Scripture is true ..." I would consider at least open dialogue to be an option.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?