Theisitic Evolution

[Percivale]

BobRyan and Hoghead seem to be the two extremes, and as usual I am in between, with a balanced view I believe. Hoghead denies the virgin birth and the resurrection it seems (and both are basic Christian doctrines that you can't reinterpret without ignoring the Gospels), thus betraying his naturalistic presuppositions, and BobRyan shows his 'Bible=universal textbook' assumptions by denying clear science. I avoid all unfounded presuppositions.
Bob, TE is not relevant to whether the doctrine of imputed original sin is just. It is just as unjust that the children should suffer for the father's sin whether his IQ was 60 or 120. Rather, everyone needs salvation because everyone sins; it is only the propensity to sin that was inherited, not the guilt. As Paul says in Romans 5, death spread to men because ALL sinned.

Hoghead, I don't see any difference besides the state of one's emotions between deism and panentheism, as you hold it. If you don't believe in any actual physical miracles there is no practical difference from deism in your belief.

Bob, Augustine is used to support TE not because of any specific beliefs he advocated, but rather by the method of developing one's beliefs that he taught. There was no real scientific evidence for the age of the earth in his time, so its not wonder he didn't teach an old earth, but he did teach that one should be careful to avoid teaching doctrines that contradict clear science, but rather should accept truth wherever it is found.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan and Hoghead seem to be the two extremes, and as usual I am in between, with a balanced view I believe. Hoghead denies the virgin birth and the resurrection it seems (and both are basic Christian doctrines that you can't reinterpret without ignoring the Gospels), thus betraying his naturalistic presuppositions,

While I don't agree with tossing the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ out the window just because science cannot reproduce them in the lab... I do agree that tossing them out - does not violate anything in the T.E. paradigm and may have support it more consistently.

[quote
and BobRyan shows his 'Bible=universal textbook' assumptions by denying clear science.[/quote]

I have not said anything at all about science much less "denied clear science".

The idea that Augustine would prefer any science at all that might contradict the Bible - to the actual Bible .. is not necessarily objected to by me. I don't put a lot of stock in Augustine's various heretical views. He himself admits that his wrench for Genesis 1 - is not at all something in harmony with the text. And I agree with him on that much.

 

[Percivale]

While I don't agree with tossing the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ out the window just because science cannot reproduce them in the lab... I do agree that tossing them out - does not violate anything in the T.E. paradigm and may have support it more consistently.

[/QUOTE]
You mention 'the TE paradigm'. Do you believe that there is just one TE paradigm? Do you not see that there is a huge difference between my beliefs and those of Hoghead, for instance?

 

[Hoghead1]

Bob, Jer. 23:23 says that God fills heaven and earth. I don't know of a clearer statement of omnipresence than that. John clearly says all things are "in" Christ. I don't know of a clearer statement that all things are ontologically part of God and therefore in God. Also, Bob, you sure have a habit of calling anyone a heretic, from Augustine to myself, that dos not agree with your views. That's definitely uncalled for in a serious discussion group. And since we're on the subject of heresy, I'm curious how you as a Seventh Day Adventist, a member of a church that has been continually faulted for being anathema to Christianity, defend yourself as a Christian. Like I said, clean up the mess in your own house first.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, Jer. 23:23 says that God fills heaven and earth. I don't know of a clearer statement of omnipresence than that. John clearly says all things are "in" Christ. I don't know of a clearer statement that all things are ontologically part of God and therefore in God. Also, Bob, you sure have a habit of calling anyone a heretic, from Augustine to myself, that dos not agree with your views. That's definitely uncalled for in a serious discussion group. And since we're on the subject of heresy, I'm curious how you as a Seventh Day Adventist, a member of a church that has been continually faulted for being anathema to Christianity, defend yourself as a Christian. Like I said, clean up the mess in your own house first.

A lot of Christians accept that God is omni-present but that is very different from "God is IN the rock, God is in the dust". To see that God is present - is aware of what is going on at that very tree - is very different from "God is IN the rock, God is IN the tree".

Certainly T.E. does not refute such a false religion - but neither does it require it.

 

[BobRyan]

You mention 'the TE paradigm'. Do you believe that there is just one TE paradigm? Do you not see that there is a huge difference between my beliefs and those of Hoghead, for instance?

Recall that the "Simplistic T.E. response" often found on this thread is of the form "you don't know what T.E. is - since you are not promoting T.E."

I certainly don't say that all T.E.'s carry the underlying principle of T.E. to its logical conclusion and I don't say that all T.E.'s would go for the little "extras" that Hogshead shares.

But at least he is consistent when it comes to the question "how much bible do you bend so that you only believe what an atheist scientist can reproduce in the lab" when it comes to the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, miracles in the Bible, the 7 day creation week, the world wide flood.

If the goal is to never believe the Bible when it says something very unscientific like "yeah - that is because God DID IT" then the entire house of cards - not just "that one card" - falls. In T.E. "if it can't be observed or reproduced in the lab -- it didn't happen -no matter what God says to the contrary in the Bible"

 

[Percivale]

Recall that the "Simplistic T.E. response" often found on this thread is of the form "you don't know what T.E. is - since you are not promoting T.E."

I certainly don't say that all T.E.'s carry the underlying principle of T.E. to its logical conclusion and I don't say that all T.E.'s would go for the little "extras" that Hogshead shares.

But at least he is consistent when it comes to the question "how much bible do you bend so that you only believe what an atheist scientist can reproduce in the lab" when it comes to the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, miracles in the Bible, the 7 day creation week, the world wide flood.

If the goal is to never believe the Bible when it says something very unscientific like "yeah - that is because God DID IT" then the entire house of cards - not just "that one card" - falls. In T.E. "if it can't be observed or reproduced in the lab -- it didn't happen -no matter what God says to the contrary in the Bible"

I am consistent in my expectation that God's word and science must agree, when both are interpreted rightly; not forcing our modern uses of words on the Bible and doing science from the Christian assumptions that the universe is orderly and not deceitful. Our disagreement is really about the science--I believe that the YEC interpretation of the scientific data is untenable; that it ignores too many facts and is self-contradictory in some ways. If you are willing to discuss the scientific evidence let me know.

 

[Hoghead1]

Bob, omnipresence means "in" things. I have no idea what other meaning you are giving it. In one of t4eh finest statements of omnipresence, Meister Eckhart, Dominican and major medieval scholar, said that God is "more in things than they are in themselves," and that "God is in all things and is all things in all things everywhere all things everything." Again, if you are gong to label my views as "false religion," you need to make a case. Here you have none and your claim lies idle.

 

[Hoghead1]

Also, Bob, it is the the case that you do know little about TE and are often jumping the gun. For example. you spoke about the "little extras" I offer. Are you kidding? There is a whole metaphysic involved here. The later deals with complex issues such the status of substance metaphysics, the relationship of mind to matter, relativity, creativity, the question of meaning, proofs for God, etc. Some "little' extras.

 

[Hoghead1]

I also think, Bob, you need to be much more careful when you charge people with bending things, as you did above. That charge can easily backfire and land on you. One could say you are trying to bend science to suit your views, via Ellen White, on the Bible, religion, God, etc. As I mentioned earlier, the Seventh Day Adventist church is not beyond criticism from many Christian quarters on the basis it has done more than its share of bending and distorting of Scripture. For example, many conservative Christians might ask you how you can believe in the Virgin Birth when you claim that Jesus is the angel Michel and when the Bible says nothing about Mary giving birth to Michael. And thi9s touches on an important point you are overlooking: The Virgin Birth is controversial from a purely theological POV. Forget science here. One problem is that it is mentioned in only two Gospels, Matthew and Luke. It is not found in Mark or John. It is not mentioned by Paul. It is not mentioned in any of the extra-canonical literature of the early centuries. Next is the translation problem. How should almah be translated? Virgin or young woman? Many scholars point out it is best translated as "young woman," Hebrew having another specific word for virgin." Next is the problem of Christ's lineage. To be the Messiah, you have to be of the House of David, and that is impossible unless Joseph is Christ's natural father. Next is the issue of whether or not "pagan" influences were somehow incorporated here. Pagan religions were full of accounts of God or the gods being quite sexually promiscuous and impregnating, possibly raping, mortal women, giving birth to god-men. Critics, then, have scoffed at the Virgin Birth, saying it seem that God has simply raped another woman here.

You brought up miracles. Again, forget science. There are some major theological issues here. Laity often naively assume that the miracles are central and prove the Jesus was the Savior, that the Bible is the true religion, etc. This is absolutely not the case. Miracles were widely accepted and taken for granted in the ancient world. Any wisdom teacher worth his salt had to perform miracles. Pythagoras, for example, is credited with raising the dead. So the miracles are not at all what sets Christ and Christianity apart from other religions. The idea of a loving, forgiving God , yes. Miracles, no.
I have already discussed my view on the Resurrection, which you seem to ignore.
Often, in you posts, what you arbitrarily label as godless or atheistic is actually a major doctrine of another church, and then you so labeling it shows considerable disrespect for other Christians and lack of understanding of any belief system other than your own. Maybe in your church the inerrancy of Scripture is a fundamental tenet, but that definitely I snot the case in others. Many follow the "Confession of 1967." It states, "The Bible is to be interpreted in the light of its witness to God's work of reconciliation in Christ. The Scriptures , given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions if places and times at which they were written. They reflect views of life, history and the cosmos which were then current. The church, therefore, has the obligation to approach the Scriptures with literary and historical understanding."

 

[BobRyan]

Also, Bob, it is the the case that you do know little about TE and are often jumping the gun. For example. you spoke about the "little extras" I offer. Are you kidding? There is a whole metaphysic involved here.

Your own T.E. partners on this thread insist that I not claim they believe the same thing you do. That is just a fact of the thread - so I can't insert your ideas into their posts "carte blanche" - and we both know that.

Your repeat of the mantra "nobody knows what T.E. really is if they are not promoting it" is ... fluff. It has no basis in actual fact.

As I have stated repeatedly - your views are not in conflict with underlying principle that guides T.E. at all.

 

[Haasrecht]

@OP

I do not have a particular opinion on the matter. Evolution and my faith have never felt at odds to me. Maybe Adam and Eve are metaphorical, maybe the two people actually existed, I do not know. And I'm rather fine with not knowing that detail. It does not detract from anything.

 

[BobRyan]

I also think, Bob, you need to be much more careful when you charge people with bending things, as you did above. That charge can easily backfire and land on you. One could say you are trying to bend science to suit your views, via Ellen White, on the Bible, religion, God, etc. As I mentioned earlier, the Seventh Day Adventist church is not beyond criticism from many Christian quarters on the basis it has done more than its share of bending and distorting of Scripture. For example, many conservative Christians might ask you how you can believe in the Virgin Birth when you claim that Jesus is the angel Michel and when the Bible says nothing about Mary giving birth to Michael.

I hate to say that you don't know what you are talking about - but that appears to be the case in that last example.

1. There is no SDA doctrine claiming that Mary gave birth to an angel -- no not ever in all of time.
2. There is no SDA doctrine that Jesus is anything other than "God the Son" -- fully God -- 2nd member of the Triune Godhead consisting of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Gen 18
Then the LORD (YHWH) appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day. 2 So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground, 3 and said, “My Lord, if I have now found favor in Your sight, do not pass on by Your servant.

In the text - God - the highest form of the term - YHWH - appears to Abraham as a man and the two other "men" turn out to be angels according to Gen 18, and Gen 19. This does not mean that either angels or that YHWH are simply "men" - rather they choose in that instance to appear in that 'form' those they are not incarnate - they merely take on that appearance and act in that role - walking along as if they are fellow humans with Abraham. When clearly -as we know -they are not.

Seventh-day Adventists believe that God the Son - took on a similar role as Michael - warrior angel and commander of the hosts of heaven - not as an incarnation , but rather just the appearance as with Abraham He took on the appearance of a man and related to Abraham "at lunch" as if he were a man.

IN the Gen 18 case - appearing as a man - give Abraham a context to negotiate for, to mediate for the people of Sodom trying to spare the city.

However -- this is not helping you at all - because there is no Creationist doctrine that says that God the Son cannot "appear" as a man in Gen 18 or "appear" as the head of all Angels - to Angels.

By contrast there IS a "Christian doctrine" about the virgin birth - that many of your fellow T.E's have a hard to time "throwing under a bus". And your argument in that regard - makes MY POINT -- that giving up the Bible creation week, the Bible world wide flood - you might as well also give up the Bible virgin birth and the Bible bodily resurrection of Christ and ascension into heaven, because the same "rule" attacks all of them.

And thi9s touches on an important point you are overlooking: The Virgin Birth is controversial from a purely theological POV. Forget science here. One problem is that it is mentioned in only two Gospels, Matthew and Luke. It is not found in Mark or John. It is not mentioned by Paul.

I am not going to debate you on the Virgin birth - simply because I think it is one of the T.E. consistent directions you are taking and I think that many of your fellow T.E.'s are well advised to sit up and take notice from you as this is where it is all going.

It is hard for me to debate you when you are making my argument about where T.E. leads.

 

[BobRyan]

@OP

I do not have a particular opinion on the matter. Evolution and my faith have never felt at odds to me. Maybe Adam and Eve are metaphorical, maybe the two people actually existed, I do not know. And I'm rather fine with not knowing that detail. It does not detract from anything.

I find that post very useful.

 

[BobRyan]

You brought up miracles. Again, forget science. There are some major theological issues here. Laity often naively assume that the miracles are central and prove the Jesus was the Savior, that the Bible is the true religion, etc. This is absolutely not the case.

Until you read the actual Bible on that point. Christ himself says "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake" John 14:11

Time after time in the NT "and many believed on him" is the conclusion to a "miracle event" being described.

You even see this "miracle" based witness in John 4 with woman at the well as well as in Luke 24.

19 And He said to them, “What things?”
So they said to Him, “The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. 21 But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel.

Miracles were widely accepted and taken for granted in the ancient world. Any wisdom teacher worth his salt had to perform miracles.

utter nonsense. Christ repeatedly demonstrates miracles and the people argue that this is a sign of the Messiah -- rather the "sign of just being another guy from down the road".

I have already discussed my view on the Resurrection, which you seem to ignore.

I may have missed it - please give me a link or quote

Often, in you posts, what you arbitrarily label as godless or atheistic is actually a major doctrine of another church

Even you will admit that atheists reject the idea that the Bible is a trustworthy document when it comes to recording the historic events of the Gospel - the creation of the world, the fall of mankind, the flood, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the bodily ascension of Christ into heaven and the miracles reported in the Bible associated with many of the things done by Christians, by Moses, etc.

This is irrefutable.

Many follow the "Confession of 1967." It states, "The Bible is to be interpreted in the light of its witness to God's work of reconciliation in Christ. The Scriptures , given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions if places and times at which they were written. They reflect views of life, history and the cosmos which were then current. The church, therefore, has the obligation to approach the Scriptures with literary and historical understanding."

Where "you mean" - it is the "word of man" not the "Word of God" and it cannot be trusted any more than you would trust anyone from a pre-scientific age to know up from down about miracles, about creation, about a true world wide flood, about an actual virgin birth, about bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven.

Clearly that is the sort of "Christianity" that fits perfectly with T.E. but is not what I have chosen.

 

[BobRyan]

I am consistent in my expectation that God's word and science must agree, when both are interpreted rightly; not forcing our modern uses of words on the Bible and doing science from the Christian assumptions that the universe is orderly and not deceitful. Our disagreement is really about the science--I believe that the YEC interpretation of the scientific data is untenable; that it ignores too many facts and is self-contradictory in some ways. If you are willing to discuss the scientific evidence let me know.

This thread is started by someone asking about the way T.E. destroys the Gospel. That detail cannot be swept under the rug.

I love to discuss the science when it comes to the fact that rocks, dust, gas will never "acquire consciousness" -- nor will they ever "invent the epigenome" nor does the prokaryote ever turn into a eukaryote, nor is there any significance at all in the fact that 2% of our genome matches something like 76% with an Acorn Worm's coding genes for proteins -- and zillions of other points of that nature. But this thread is about the destruction T.E. does to the Christian Gospel, as asked by one who is T.E. in the OP.

 

[Hoghead1]

Bob, your church, in its teachings, specifically states that Jesus is the archangel Michael. Neither Ellen G. White nor her husband initially believed in the Trinity. They were definitely Arian. The literature solidly supports that notion. There is no doubt about that. Gradually, they moved into the notion of the Trinity, probably as a cosmetic to make themselves more appealing to traditional Christians. However , Mrs. White never used the term "Trinity." If anything, the "Trinity," as presented in SDA literature is essentially tritheistic or polytheistic. God is descried as a unity of three separate, unique personalities or gods. That is one major reason why Bible-believing evangelicals strongly reject SDA.
And you can argue with myself or conservative Christians all you want. There is no doubt about it. You are not Trinitarian. You are polytheistic and that is not true Trinitarian teaching at all.
Look, Bob, I appreciate the fact your faith and church represent a major alternative to Christianity, provide by the 19-century American spiritualism movement. I appreciate the fact your church accepts as inerrant and ultimate authority the teachings of Ellen G. White. I appreciate the fact that Mrs. White did accept a limited number of traditional Christian teachings. I realize your church holds as heretical any and all Christian teachings not approved of by Mrs. White. I respect the fact your and your church have held your head up high, despite the countless attacks from conservative Christian quarters that your church represents a deceitful anti-Christian cult. I appreciate the fact that part of the problem here is that your church introduces at least ten major teachings that are 180 from Christian tradition and the bible as well. In return, however, I would appreciate it if you would recognize that when I speak of omnipotence , I am doing so from the traditional Christian and biblical definition. Also, I would appreciate it that if f you wish to sit in judgment on myself and other Christians here, you would make it plain that you are speaking as one working wholly outside the faith.

 

[Hoghead1]

Let's examine the matter this way, Bob. What is the source of your rejection of God's omnipresence? It goes back to the conflict between Mrs. White and the eminent scientist, physician, and invertor of corn flakes, Dr. John Kellogg. He was a outspoken advocate of panentheism. Mrs. White was opposed to that. hence, she had him disfellowed (I think the term was) from the church. You are letting Ellen White dictate your theology to you; and that seems dangerous, as the way she dealt with Kellogg hardly seems fair or rational.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, Jer. 23:23 says that God fills heaven and earth. I don't know of a clearer statement of omnipresence than that. John clearly says all things are "in" Christ. I don't know of a clearer statement that all things are ontologically part of God and therefore in God. Also, Bob, you sure have a habit of calling anyone a heretic, from Augustine to myself, that dos not agree with your views. That's definitely uncalled for in a serious discussion group. And since we're on the subject of heresy, I'm curious how you as a Seventh Day Adventist, a member of a church that has been continually faulted for being anathema to Christianity, defend yourself as a Christian. Like I said, clean up the mess in your own house first.

A lot of Christians accept that God is omni-present but that is very different from "God is IN the rock, God is in the dust". To see that God is present - is aware of what is going on at that very tree - is very different from "God is IN the rock, God is IN the tree".

Certainly T.E. does not refute such a false religion - but neither does it require it.

Omnipresence or ubiquity is the property of being present everywhere. This property is most commonly used in a religious context as an attribute of a deity or supreme being. The omnipresence of a supreme being is conceived differently by different religious systems.

It does not require that God be "IN the rock" or "IN the dust".

Nothing about this statement is unique to Seventh-day Adventists rejection of panentheism and pantheism. Many non-SDA Christians take this same position. (Including more than one of your fellow T.E's)

Let's examine the matter this way, Bob. What is the source of your rejection of God's omnipresence? It goes back to the conflict between Mrs. White and the eminent scientist, physician, and invertor of corn flakes, Dr. John Kellogg.

Nice try.

But you have an entire CF board filled with both T.E. and non-T.E. Christians who are not SDAs who do not "believe in" either panetheism or panentheism. We believe God is omnipresent - but not that God is "IN the rock" - rather He is the "Creator" of the rock.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, your church, in its teachings, specifically states that Jesus is the archangel Michael. Neither Ellen G. White nor her husband initially believed in the Trinity. They were definitely Arian. The literature solidly supports that notion. .

You must be joking!!

Ellen White was raised as a Trinitarian - a Unite Methodist.
Ellen White stated that the "Holy Spirit is the THIRD PERSON of the Godhead"

"There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ."—Evangelism, p. 615.

"Those who proclaim the third angel's message must put on the whole armor of God, that they may stand boldly at their post, in the face of detraction and falsehood, fighting the good fight of faith, resisting the enemy with the word, 'It is written.' Keep yourselves where the three great powers of heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, can be your efficiency. These powers work with the one who gives himself unreservedly to God. The strength of heaven is at the command of God's believing ones. The man who takes God as his trust is barricaded by an impregnable wall."—The Southern Watchman, Feb. 23, 1904, p. 122.

"Our sanctification is the work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is the fulfillment of the covenant that God has made with those who bind themselves up with Him, to stand with Him, with His Son, and with His Spirit in holy fellowship. Have you been born again? Have you become a new being in Christ Jesus? Then co-operate with the three great powers of heaven who are working in your behalf. Doing this you will reveal to the world the principles of righteousness." —The Signs of the Times, June 19, 1901.

"The eternal heavenly dignitaries—God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit—arming them [the disciples] with more than mortal energy, . . . would advance with them to the work and convince the world of sin."—Evangelism, p. 616.

"We are to co-operate with the three highest powers in heaven,—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,—and these powers will work through us, making us workers together with God."—Ibid., p. 617.




The Holy Spirit was the highest of all gifts that He {Jesus} could solicit from His Father for the exaltation of His people. The Spirit was to be given as a regenerating agent, and without this the sacrifice of Christ would have been of no avail. The power of evil had been strengthening for centuries, and the submission of men to this satanic captivity was amazing. Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the third person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power. {FLB 52.6}

"well documented" - indeed.

What you are missing is that it would do me no good to refute a doctrine that I am trying to teach. If your denial of the Virgin Birth was to be proclaimed by your acceptance and affirmation of it - -your entire effort would be total failure. You have to promote something you want to teach. That is just the way it works in real life. I think we both know that.

Ellen White promoted the triune Godhead - the "Three PERSONS of the Godhead" and names them.

I don't know how this entire line of argument helps you at all since not only do we not teach against the trinity - we also do not claim that accepting the Bible statement on the 7 day creation week would mean that one must also deny the Trinity to be consistent.

This seems to be coming out of 'thin air' in your post. What leads you to this subject??