Theisitic Evolution

[BobRyan]

your church represents a deceitful anti-Christian cult.

That's a violation of board rules.

You have sunk to a pretty low level in your posting content recently. Might want to recover - join the conversation on the actual topic.

At the very least - say things that are "actually true"

 

[Hoghead1]

That is not at all a violation of any rules. That is exactly what many Bible-believing Christians have said about the SDA. YO have only to look online to find countless examples of that. Remember, I did not say that or necessarily claim it was true; I simply said that it is a common criticism thrown against the SDA. Not all Christians are convinced that the SDA is a basically Christian approach. Question is: Why is that? How do you address the issue?

 

[Hoghead1]

Bob, one of my points is that you need to address matters in your own house first. Here and elsewhere, you keep saying that TE is a "false religion," etc. But ,truth is, many are convinced SDA is a false religion or at least not compatible with Christianity. You should focus more on that, rather than doing all this finger-pointing at others. Omnipresence, as you noted, means being present everywhere and that also means being "in" things; otherwise, there would be a place where God is not present and therefore not truly omnipresent. I sent you a quote from Meister Eckhart on that. I understand that persons other than yourself might have trouble with panentheism, and that is because they, too, have difficulty understanding how God can be omnipresent. However, I am not immediately concerned with them. I am talking to you, not them. And the fact of the matter is, you reject omnipresence on the grounds that Mrs. White said that was not the case. But just how valid is her claim? What was her rationale? See, you didn't address those matters.
Regarding the Trinity, it is a well-established fact that Mrs. White and her husband were initially Arians, Later, true, they did come to accept the Trinity. However, I appears to be something more or less forced on them to win respectability in Christian circles, rather than as something they themselves deeply believe in. Hence, it is no surprise when Trinitarian statements are made, they are not really that Trinitarian. Hence, the frequent criticism that the SDA is promoting polytheism, not traditional Christian Trinitarian thinking.

 

[BobRyan]

That is not at all a violation of any rules. That is exactly what many Bible-believing Christians have said about the SDA. YO have only to look online to find countless examples of that. Remember, I did not say that or necessarily claim it was true; I simply said that it is a common criticism thrown against the SDA. Not all Christians are convinced that the SDA is a basically Christian approach. Question is: Why is that? How do you address the issue?

Jan 22, 2015 --- Christianity Today (not an SDA publication)

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...ts-can-ben-carson-church-stay-separatist.html

One of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s most famous sons, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, is seeking evangelical support for a likely 2016 presidential bid. But the global leader of his church worries that the thriving denomination is becoming too mainstream.

In 2014, for the 10th year in a row, more than 1 million people became Adventists, hitting a record 18.1 million members. Adventism is now the fifth-largest Christian communion worldwide, after Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and the Assemblies of God.

===============================

In his book "Kingdom of the Cults" - Walter Martin spent over 100 pages in the appendix of the book -- on the subject of Seventy-day Adventism and the fact that this is a Christian denomination in every respect. Essentially refuting Robert Hoekema's entire (outdated and poorly thought through) argument to the contrary.

------------------------------------------

Even so this has nothing to do with the Bible 7 day creation week or T.E. so not sure a lot of people will have an interest -- but if they do ... I certainly enjoy the topic!

 

[BobRyan]

... what is good about your denomination. Is there any good in it or you can't do anything else but post verses.

As Noah brought the final end-time message to the pre-flood world so the Seventh-day Adventist church explains God's final end-time message in Rev 14 given to humanity - just before the 2nd coming.



Here is a short list of positive contributions to our understanding of key events in the life of Christ -- posted on the GT discussion area not long ago -
Dec 27, 2015 #8

1. Christ and the post resurrection sequence of events. -- Apr 5, 2015 #1
2. Christ's crucifixion - Apr 3, 2015 #1
3. Christ in Gethsemane - Mar 31, 2015 #1
4. The Resurrection of Christ - Apr 1, 2015 #1
5. Events at the Birth of Christ - Thursday at 12:58 PM #1
6. Compare different examples on the life of Christ - the Pope, and also "Desire of Ages" Thursday at 12:43 PM #130

That doesn't tell anyone what is good about your denomination. Is there any good in it or you can't do anything else but post verses.

Why should someone look at your denomination over say Baptist, what good things are there about your denomination? Do you know?

OK - an Ad it is. (An Ad that I am assembling on the spot - from my own inquiry into this question0


Religion Facts - http://www.religionfacts.com/seventh-day-adventism

one of the largest education systems in the world. They operate some 5,700 pre-schools, primary and secondary schools, as well as colleges, universities, seminaries and medical schools in about 145 countries worldwide.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is one of the world's fastest-growing organizations, primarily due to increases in Third World membership. It now operates in 203 out of 228 countries recognized by the United Nations. -



From: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-03-18-Adventists_17_ST_N.htm

Adventists' back-to-basics faith is fastest growing U.S. church
Newly released data show Seventh-day Adventism growing by 2.5% in North America, a rapid clip for this part of the world, where Southern Baptists and mainline denominations, as well as other church groups are declining. Adventists are even growing 75% faster than Mormons (1.4 percent), who prioritize numeric growth.

=================
one of the world's Fastest growing Christian denomination - and from 1980 to this day - over 400% growth.
5Th largest Christian church in the world. (Christianity Today - 2015 - Feb)
One of the world's largest private Christian Healthcare system.
One of the world's largest private Christian educational system
Contains one of only 5 "Blue Zones" on planet earth - long-lived people groups/cities. Loma Linda

One of the most effective denominations at reaching the unchurched – according to Barna research.

A church that has published the most comprehensive commentary in terms of intimate details in life of Christ – bar none.



Like Seventh-day Baptists Adventists believe in

The Triune Godhead – God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit,
66 books of the Bible
saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-10),
literal creation week (Ex 20:11, Gen 2:1-3),
literal resurrection of Christ (after the cross) and of the saints (in the future),
literal 2nd coming that is future.
Sabbath remains on Saturday


Like Protestants Adventists believe
· Sola Scriptura testing of all doctrine and tradition,
· Historicist model of prophetic interpretation
· Ten Commandments included in the Moral Law of God binding on all mankind as stated in Eph 6:2, 1Cor 7:10, Mark 7:6-13, “Baptist Confession of Faith” sectn 19, and “Westminster Confession of Faith Sectn 19” – and Dies Domini
· Commandments of God are not editable Mark 7:6-13



Like Calvinists Adventists believe
Sinful nature – depravity of man Romans 3:9-18
Only the supernatural drawing of God can overcome it. John 6:44
God fully knows the future


Like Arminians Adventist believe
Free will – obtained via supernatural drawing of all mankind by God John 12:32
A person can lose salvation (Romans 11:17-23, Matt 18:32-33)
Christ died for the sins of all mankind (1 John 2:2)


Like New Testament saints Adventist believe
Spiritual gifts – 1Cor 12:27-31
Prophetic messages – 2Peter 1:19-21 1Thess 5:19-22, 1Cor 14:1




Distinctives in Seventh-day Adventist Doctrine
Emphasis on pre-advent judgment Daniel 7:9-10, Daniel 7:13-14, 2Cor 5:10
Consistent Prophetic day-year for Daniel 9, Daniel 8, Daniel 7
Consistent - Contiguous timeline for any/all given Bible prophetic timelines including Dan 9.
Ellen White is an example of one person in modern times who had the 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy 1Cor 14:1
Health message – including dietary laws of Acts 15 and Lev 11
Commandments of God are not editable Mark 7:6-13
Christ is our High Priest in Heaven Heb 8:1-6
And the earthly two phase ministry in OT is reflective of the Heavenly Sanctuary service with the most Holy Place phase in heaven having started in 1844.


No Halloween Ghosts, or praying to the dead
So then taking Matt 10:28 as it reads,
Taking 1Thess 4;13-18 as it reads
Taking John 11:7-14 as it reads
Ezek 18:4 – as it reads


End Time Events

Post-Trib Rapture in Matt 24:29-31 “Immediately after the tribulation..gathers His elect”
Pre-Millennial 2nd coming in Rev 19:1 – Rev 20:5
Close of Probation before 7 last plagues – Rev 15:8, Rev 22:10-11

United States becomes World Superpower and has Christ like “Lamb Like” government/principles – Rev 13

All the world becomes more chaotic and sinful over time - and religious-freedom will be revoked in all nations before the end of time. Rev 13.

========================

I am sure a missed about a million things that could be added as a list of positive things we know about God's Seventh-day Adventist Church - feel free to add.

 

[Hoghead1]

The issue here isn't whether or not atheists agree tithe Flood, etc. The issue here is understanding that the while the Bible may be divinely inspirited, it is also very much the product of an ancients prescientific culture and therefore may no be fully trustworthy on natters of creation, etc. However, the Bible need not be inerrant to be a source of inspiration in the church. That is precisely what t"he Confession of 1967" is saying. In your view, the Christian has to believe the Bible is inerrant. But that is not at all the case in other major Christian circles. And you should respect that decision. If you don't agree, that is OK, too. But you should be making a case, not blasting sway other Christians as some sort of heretics because they do not agree with your definition of the Bible.
As I pointed out in detail, the Virgin Birth is not just a problem scientifically. It is also a problem theologically. If you disagree, then you should go through the points I presented and address each one of them, showing how you would cope with them.
Regarding the Resurrection, this is a completely different matter from the Virgin Birth. While it may seem scientifically impossible to have children without intercourse, science really ahs no idea what happens when we die. So we are not really dealing with a scientific issue at all. My view is th gGod is the guarantor of the meaningfulness of our laves. That is bedaub God preserves and enjoys all our feelings and experiences, in his or her everlasting imagination. And since it is impossible to separate the experiencer from his or her experiences, then we, too, all live on in God. The Resurrection is a powerful raising into consciousness of this fact.
Regarding the miracles, I did not say anyone could do them. I said they were expected of all wisdom s teachers in the ancient world. If all you focused in on were the miracles of Christ, you would not be able to differentiate him from any other wisdom teacher. However, what dos separate out Christ is his emphasis on god's love and forgiveness.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, one of my points is that you need to address matters in your own house first. Here and elsewhere,

What is the connection between "every doctrine Seventh-day Adventists believe" and the argument for T.E. that is presented here - or specifically the OP question about the chasm in logic and the Gospel between T.E. and the Christian Gospel?

you keep saying that TE is a "false religion," etc. But ,truth is, many are convinced SDA is a false religion

That does not matter because it would not help or hurt T.E. either way if the SDA denomination turned out to be false in some regard.

or at least not compatible with Christianity. You should focus more on that,

A. I love talking about SDA doctrines on this board - I do it every day.
B. I don't see how that helps this thread to - focus more on "what do you think of the SDA set of beliefs" than the focus on T.E. and the Gospel as pointed out in the OP -- by one of your own T.E. members no less.

Omnipresence, as you noted, means being present everywhere

Indeed. I am present in my office - but I am not "in the desk".

This is not an issue between SDAs and T.E. -- your own T.E.'s are arguing for this point. My only comment on that is that your decision to go with atheist models of science over the Bible when it comes to the Virgin Birth and incarnation of God the Son as Jesus , the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ into heaven, the miracles of the Bible, the 7 day creation week, and world-wide flood - show a certain "logical consistency" regarding where the T.E. path leads - that all of your fellow T.E.'s would be wise to take note of - as it is the boat they have chosen over faith in the trustworthy statements of the Bible.

I understand that persons other than yourself might have trouble with panentheism, and that is because they, too, have difficulty understanding how God can be omnipresent. However, I am not immediately concerned with them. I am talking to you, not them.

And they are your fellow T.E.s!!

Fine but you are not going to get much of an argument from me saying that one who believes in T.E. would not also (logically) accept all sorts of non-Christian points of view against the Virgin birth, against the resurrection and bodily ascension of Christ into heaven, against the nature of God and in favor of panentheism , against the bible 7 day creation week, against the Bible statements on the world wide flood.

And the fact of the matter is, you reject omnipresence on the grounds that Mrs. White said that was not the case.

Ellen White - like most other christians argued that God is omnipresent but that pantheism and panentheism are error.

This is the same position many of your fellow T.E.'s also take - and we both know it. And we both know they are not taking that opposition because they "read something God told Ellen White".

Regarding the Trinity, it is a well-established fact that Mrs. White and her husband were initially Arians, Later, true, they did come to accept the Trinity. However, I appears to be something more or less forced on them

You appear to be ok with just 'making stuff up'

James White join Adventism from the "Christian Connexion" and was not Trinitarian - ever. Although some say a few statements he made just before he died indicate that he might have been re-thinking that position toward the end of his life.

Ellen White was raised Trinitarian as a United Methodist - and never changed her view on that point. The SDA church first organized in 1863 when Ellen White was about 35 years old. She did not write one word against the Triune Godhead with the Holy Spirit as the "Third Person of the Godhead" in her entire life.

What is more the first statement of doctrinal beliefs was published for the SDA denomination in the 1870's -- not one word in it NOR in ANY published list of denominational doctrines since then - attacking the Triunce Godhead with the Holy Spirit as the "Third Person of the Godhead".

This is irrefutable - but also has nothing to do with this thread from what I can tell. (Unless you are arguing that accepting the Bible statement on a 7 day creation week means Christains must also reject the Triune Godhead with the Holy Spirit as "the Third Person of the Godhead")

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The issue here isn't whether or not atheists agree tithe Flood, etc. The issue here is understanding that the while the Bible may be divinely inspirited, it is also very much the product of an ancients prescientific culture and therefore may no be fully trustworthy on natters of creation, etc.

So then you can't have it BOTH ways. Either you are arguing that the Bible authors intended to convey a literal 7 day creation week -- and were wrong (in your imagination)... or they did not. It cannot be that they refused to talk about a literal 7 day creation week to protect Darwinism - but "were wrong" -- at least from a T.E. POV.

What is more -- 'not being trustworthy' means that the "Virgin Birth" and the "Bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ into heaven" the "raising of Lazarus from the dead" all the miracles of the Bible - are all "untrustworthy accounts from men in prescientific cultures" -- and to the guy writing the OP on this thread - we would say "Caveat Emptor!"

However, the Bible need not be inerrant

or even "trustworthy" as you just stated.

As I pointed out in detail, the Virgin Birth is not just a problem scientifically. It is also a problem theologically. If you disagree, then you should go through the points I presented and address each one of them, showing how you would cope with them.

On the contrary - Mary gives her own witness and so does Joseph that they consider this to be a "virgin birth" - and so also does the Angel state that this is a case of a virgin birth. All you have to refute them is atheism's arguments against God and in favor of naturalism.

What is so difficult about that? For any of your arguments to work you have to start with the flawed premise of "There is no God" or else "God does not actually do anything no matter what the Bible says to the contrary"

Regarding the Resurrection, this is a completely different matter from the Virgin Birth.

In the Bible it is - resurrection and bodily assumption of Christ into heaven. And this is Christ who was flogged almost to death - and then endured the spear thrust in the side with both water and blood coming out -

"Prior to death, the sustained rapid heartbeat caused by hypovolemic shock also causes fluid to gather in the sack around the heart and around the lungs. This gathering of fluid in the membrane around the heart is called pericardial effusion, and the fluid gathering around the lungs is called pleural effusion. This explains why, after Jesus died and a Roman soldier thrust a spear through Jesus’ side (probably His right side, piercing both the lungs and the heart), blood and water came from His side just as John recorded"

While it may seem scientifically impossible to have children without intercourse, science really ahs no idea what happens when we die.

On the contrary - science has the benefit of observing the death process - by the millions and millions with individual cases dotted across long ages of time. Dead people simply don't get up after 3 days of no food and water having suffered a violent death involving such pronounced pleural effusion and both lungs and heart pierced while hanging from the cross.


So we are not really dealing with a scientifically reproducible issue at all when we talk about people getting up after a few days of being in their tomb - because that is not what science predicts. The dead do not "raise themselves" roll away their own tombstone - slay all the Roman soldiers (or zap them into paralysis) walk around preaching - appearing and vanishing for 40 days then float bodily up into heaven.

we, too, all live on in God. The Resurrection is a powerful raising into consciousness of this fact.

If you are trying to say that God powerful enough to raise someone from the dead - there is no doubt of it. But it does not fit the T.E. model that says nothing happened that does not also happen in the lab for every atheist scientists that gives a whirl.

If all you focused in on were the miracles of Christ, you would not be able to differentiate him from any other wisdom teacher.

Except that he cast out demons, healed those who were born blind, raised the dead after they had been 3 days in the tomb. Walked on water, stilled the storm, fed 5000 with a few bits of bread, raised HIMSELF from the dead and floated up into heaven.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Hoghead1]

Bob, I don't think you quite grasped the points I was making. First, you do tend to invalidate as unchristian anyone or church who does not agree with the SDA. You did that many times before I spoke to you about this. One issue here is that you should not have been doing this in a serious theological discussion. The other is that it is a very controversial issue whether or not the SDA does represent Christianity or not. That issue continually surfaces among born-again evangelicals and other conservative Christian groups. Hence, the web contains many repudiations of the SDA by such conservative Christian groups. I mention this to you, because you shod stick to specific points on which disagree, rather than simply writing them off as unchristian. Remember, you are not a major spokesperson for teh Christian religion or for the SDA.
Secondly, I am not sure we are on the same wavelength as to what omnipresence means. In the example you gave about the desk, this simply demonstrated you are omnipresent in a very inferior way. Only God is omnipresent in the fullest sense of the word; and that means, using your example, God is both present in the office and also in your desk.
Thirdly, if you are interested in addressing certain theological objections to the Virgin Birth, then you have to explain why it is only found in two gospels, why you feel virgin is the correct translation, and how you feel this allows Jesus to be of teh line of David.
Fourthly, you need to show why you believe that what holds for the Virgin Birth should also hold with the Resurrection. As I said, we have no solid science to tell us what happens when we die. That kind of question is totally beyond silence, although the literature on NDE is helpful here. Much depends here on the metaphysical system you are working from. I am working from the premise that God is the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles. Loosely, put, that means what creatures have, God has, but to the nth degree. In turn that means while we can understand the past as living on in our memories, God can do this in a far more complete way then we can, in a way such that absolutely nothing is lost, so that we, in every detail of ourselves, live on. Hence, the revelatory power of teh Resurrection event.
Fifthly, you are completely overlook the claims made for other wisdom teachers. As I said, Pythagoras was also credited with raising the dead. In the OT, the priests were honored as also having magical powers, which is why Moses had to fight hard against them. Indeed, accounts from all the ancient religions speak of wonder-workeers. And, as far as raising the dead goes, modern medicine can be well-credited with doing the same thing, hence, the NDE accounts.
Sixthly, the TE model dos not say that everything has to go as teh way it dos in the lab. There is more than one TE view, a point which you seem to ignore. Certainly, in mine, it is not the case that everything has to go as what we can observe in the lab or as what science may say.
Sixthly, I have no idea where you got the idea that the author of Gen. 1 was trying somehow to protect Darwinism. Furthermore, there is more than one version of evolution. Darwin, then, is not the only game in town. And even if it were, it would not necessarily eliminate God. t to be ordained when he went on the Beagle and he does speak of god in his works. In fact, in the second edition (I think), he speaks of God as necessary to start the evolutionary process, bring about life.

 

[Percivale]

Bob, I don't think you quite grasped the points I was making. First, you do tend to invalidate as unchristian anyone or church who does not agree with the SDA. You did that many times before I spoke to you about this. One issue here is that you should not have been doing this in a serious theological discussion. The other is that it is a very controversial issue whether or not the SDA does represent Christianity or not. That issue continually surfaces among born-again evangelicals and other conservative Christian groups. Hence, the web contains many repudiations of the SDA by such conservative Christian groups. I mention this to you, because you shod stick to specific points on which disagree, rather than simply writing them off as unchristian. Remember, you are not a major spokesperson for teh Christian religion or for the SDA.
Secondly, I am not sure we are on the same wavelength as to what omnipresence means. In the example you gave about the desk, this simply demonstrated you are omnipresent in a very inferior way. Only God is omnipresent in the fullest sense of the word; and that means, using your example, God is both present in the office and also in your desk.
Thirdly, if you are interested in addressing certain theological objections to the Virgin Birth, then you have to explain why it is only found in two gospels, why you feel virgin is the correct translation, and how you feel this allows Jesus to be of teh line of David.
Fourthly, you need to show why you believe that what holds for the Virgin Birth should also hold with the Resurrection. As I said, we have no solid science to tell us what happens when we die. That kind of question is totally beyond silence, although the literature on NDE is helpful here. Much depends here on the metaphysical system you are working from. I am working from the premise that God is the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles. Loosely, put, that means what creatures have, God has, but to the nth degree. In turn that means while we can understand the past as living on in our memories, God can do this in a far more complete way then we can, in a way such that absolutely nothing is lost, so that we, in every detail of ourselves, live on. Hence, the revelatory power of teh Resurrection event.
Fifthly, you are completely overlook the claims made for other wisdom teachers. As I said, Pythagoras was also credited with raising the dead. In the OT, the priests were honored as also having magical powers, which is why Moses had to fight hard against them. Indeed, accounts from all the ancient religions speak of wonder-workeers. And, as far as raising the dead goes, modern medicine can be well-credited with doing the same thing, hence, the NDE accounts.
Sixthly, the TE model dos not say that everything has to go as teh way it dos in the lab. There is more than one TE view, a point which you seem to ignore. Certainly, in mine, it is not the case that everything has to go as what we can observe in the lab or as what science may say.
Sixthly, I have no idea where you got the idea that the author of Gen. 1 was trying somehow to protect Darwinism. Furthermore, there is more than one version of evolution. Darwin, then, is not the only game in town. And even if it were, it would not necessarily eliminate God. t to be ordained when he went on the Beagle and he does speak of god in his works. In fact, in the second edition (I think), he speaks of God as necessary to start the evolutionary process, bring about life.

About the virgin birth, why would all four gospels have to say it for it to be true? All that shows is that Jesus' death and resurrection are more important than his birth. The meaning of the word almah (and you're thinking of the Isaiah prophecy here, not the NT) is irrelevant. When Mary asked, "How can this be, since I don't know a man?" its pretty clear she's saying she's a virgin at the time she conceived.

You don't believe in the Resurrection simply by believing that Jesus' spirit lived on somewhere. The Gospels are emphatic that Jesus was physically alive, not just a spirit or ghost. Most people did believe in an afterlife at the time anyway, so it wouldn't have been anything new if the resurrection was not physical.

Other people may have done miracles too, but they still were valuable in demonstrating that Jesus was more than an average man. Also you need to distinguish between miracle accounts written multiple centuries after the fact, which are about sure to be made up, from miracles recorded in the same century they happened, which are more possibly true. You seem not to believe any physical miracles can happen; why is that?

I know some SDAs, I believe they are true Christians, the only major doctrinal disagreement I've had with them is over the Sabbath. I doubt all of them believe everything the early ones did anyway.

 

[Willtor]

It's also worth noting that the concept of the resurrection, in the first century, was very much about the body returning to life. Authors of that era would not have meant a purely spiritual thing. It's one thing to believe that this is what happened, but it's quite another to say that this is what they intended to communicate and draw it from the story.

 

[Hoghead1]

If it is not in all four gospels, and certainly not in the earliest, it may have been a later spin-doctoring entered into Christianity. I do not accept hat the gospels are eyewitness accounts or without considerable later spin-doctoring of events. Moreover. Matthew and Luke do not give the same account. In Math., it is Joseph to whom teh Angel speaks; in Lk., it is Mary. Also, the problem is how Jesus could be of the line of David, as he has to be, if Joseph is not his natural father. And then, as I indicated, there is an issue over how to translate Almah and also the Greek.

I didn't say I didn't believe in miracles. Some, I may be open to, as they may represent deeper operations of the natural order than we ordinarily encounter. It depends on the specific case.
I did not say that the Resurrection was an immaterial event. I don not believe in wholly immaterial beings to start with. But that is another story. I view the universe as the body of God, as this is the best metaphor I can find to illustrate God's radical sensitivity and omnipresence. It is therefore possible that God can place himself in and completely out of the universe, as I can place my finger in and ten completely out of a particular part of my body.
I, too, have had positive relationships with the SDA. Matter of fact, one of my articles was published in an SDA magazine. Nevertheless, there are definite issues about the status of Trinity and a number of other traditional Christina and biblical teachings within the doctrines of teh SDA. As you may have noted, the trinity appears more polytheistic than Trinitarian, which is why Mrs. While speaks of it as a "trio, and never uses the term "Trinity." There are also a number of other differences, such as the notion that the Atonement was not complete on teh Cross but had to be continued in Heaven. There are any one of a number of conservative Christian web sites that address these tension points.
\

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, I don't think you quite grasped the points I was making. First, you do tend to invalidate as unchristian anyone or church who does not agree with the SDA.

There are some basic Christian doctrines that SDAs and non-SDA Christians agree to - when it comes to the Word of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ and ascension into heaven, the Bible miracles, the 7 day creation week, the world wide flood. In the case of the last two - there are Christians that reject what the Bible says while claiming that the Bible authors did not intend to write what they wrote if it is not in favor of blind faith evolutionism.

But even then - they have a hard to time going to the extent of saying "Yes they intended to write it just as it reads - a literal 7 day creation week - they were simply wrong". So then the "Bible writers were wrong" argument is one that SDAs don't make and also one that many Christians on this board -- even the T.E.'s have a hard time making.

But to be fair to you - that whole "Bible writers got it wrong" argument fits perfectly with the T.E. paradigm for atheist-observations-in-nature over the Bible.

The other is that it is a very controversial issue whether or not the SDA does represent Christianity or not.

Not on this board. Not for Christianity Today, not for Walter Martin and Eternity
Magazine's Donald Barnhouse - but be that as it may - what has that got to do with your T.E. beliefs or the consistency that can be shown between T.E. and your own rejection of the non-science miracle events such as the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven of Christ, the miracles of the Bible etc?

SDAs do not believe in eternal hell -- but rather a literal lake of fire - that results in finite suffering for the wicked before their eternal death where "both body and soul are destroyed in fiery hell' Matt 10:28 --- what does your T.E. view tell you about eternal hell?

SDAs do not believe in the idea of an immortal soul - but we do say that the soul survives the first death in a "sleep" or "dormant" state described by Christ in John 11. What does your T.E. paradigm tell you about spirits zipping around the cosmos? How does this doctrine in any way affect T.E.?


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I mention this to you, because you shod stick to specific points on which disagree, rather than simply writing them off as unchristian. Remember, you are not a major spokesperson for teh Christian religion or for the SDA.

If you are a world-class representative for T.E. -- please state your case. otherwise what in the world does that statement above have to do with anything at all??

Secondly, I am not sure we are on the same wavelength as to what omnipresence means.

It is a given that you and I view it differently - it is not a given that I and the rest of Christianity view it differently. I say that it is God being present but not IN the rock, not IN the dust, not IN the desk. You appear to differ, you have free will, you can do that - but it has nothing to do with the T.E. discussion when it comes to "science".

In the example you gave about the desk, this simply demonstrated you are omnipresent in a very inferior way.

Inferior to what??

Only God is omnipresent in the fullest sense of the word; and that means, using your example, God is both present in the office and also in your desk.

That is the sort of panentheism that I and most Christians reject. I think we already see that point.

Thirdly, if you are interested in addressing certain theological objections to the Virgin Birth, then you have to explain why it is only found in two gospels

That is backwards. I and most Christians on this board believe in the literal, physical virgin birth of Christ - God the Son incarnate into human flesh. No Earthly father at all - not even Mary as His earthly Father.

Your argument that Bible history recorded in two gospels must not be true - since it is not in all four - is a faulty apriori assumption on your part - a "fact not in evidence".

Having said that - your rejection of the Christian statement on that doctrine is fully consistent with the T.E. paradigm that argues "if science can't observe or reproduce it -- it did not happen"

Fourthly, you need to show why you believe that what holds for the Virgin Birth should also hold with the Resurrection. As I said, we have no solid science to tell us what happens when we die.

No such thing as "no science on what happens when humans die" and we all know it.

That kind of question is totally beyond silence, although the literature on NDE is helpful here. Much depends here on the metaphysical system you are working from.

Science does not work on "metaphysical systems" when it comes to the point of death - ask any anesthesiologist.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I am working from the premise that God is the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles.

I am working from the Premise that God tells the truth, that the Bible is what HE said it is in 2 Peter 1:19-21 and 2Tim 3:16 - it is the Word of God -- it is inspired by God - and that what the authors were inspired to write - as they intended it - is "Truth".

I am also working from the Premise that God is the primary cause of all life in the universe and that even the devil knows this to be true - as in Matt 4 the first thing he does is temp Christ to "turn stone into bread" as proof of his deity. Apprently even the devil knows that nobody can do that - but God alone.

 

[BobRyan]

Loosely, put, that means what creatures have, God has, but to the nth degree. In turn that means while we can understand the past as living on in our memories, God can do this in a far more complete way then we can, in a way such that absolutely nothing is lost, so that we, in every detail of ourselves, live on. Hence, the revelatory power of teh Resurrection event.

Nonsense - the Bible does not say "And then -- God remembered it well" --

There is no such "resurrection" text in all of the Bible. And we both know it.


As for my claim that T.E. falls on its sword over the idea that "if science cannot observe it or reproduce it or ' imagine it happening without God' - then it never happened no matter what the Bible says to the contrary" - fits a great many T.E.'s many of whom are not even Christian.

Sixthly, the TE model dos not say that everything has to go as teh way it dos in the lab. There is more than one TE view, a point which you seem to ignore. Certainly, in mine, it is not the case that everything has to go as what we can observe in the lab or as what science may say.

Is the part where you accept the Bible teaching on the 7 day creation week??


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Sixthly, I have no idea where you got the idea that the author of Gen. 1 was trying somehow to protect Darwinism.

Far be it from me to claim that Genesis 1:2-2:3 and its literal 7 day creation week are an attempt to "protect Darwinism".

Maybe you have me confused with one of your fellow T.E.'s

Furthermore, there is more than one version of evolution. Darwin, then, is not the only game in town.

Evolutionism is a many-storied mythology. I have no doubt about that. But Darwin's story is a popular one nevertheless.

And even if it were, it would not necessarily eliminate God. t to be ordained when he went on the Beagle and he does speak of god in his works. In fact, in the second edition (I think), he speaks of God as necessary to start the evolutionary process, bring about life.

Darwin's "scientific concept' of the first cell rose to a level no higher than "a blob of protoplasm" -- he himself admits that if that first (eukaryote) step turns out to be infinitely complex (which we now know that it is ) then his entire "story" falls apart.

Darwin's religion was "naturalism" he himself admits that his darwinism drove Christianity right out of his life.

 

[Hoghead1]

Bob, many of your comments seem to border on the polemical and a kind of flaming, rather than an accurate assessment of what I am saying. For example, you wrote that TE people claim that the biblical writers did not intend to write what they wrote if it doesn't agree with blind-faith evolutionary thinking. Terms like "blind-faith" are polemical, prerogative, and should be avoided. Also, I have no idea how you came up with this idea in the first place. You also equate belief in evolution with atheism, which is definitely not true. And you also tend to equate doubting miracles as atheistic, which is also not true. Then you introduce Darwin as an atheist, which is also very suspect. Another problem is assuming TE people all say the same things. That is not the case, as I have informed you about in several emails. So you need to make it clear whether or not you are talking to me or to everyone.
Ok, now, if you are purely talking to me, to where I stand on TE, then let's start with miracles. NO, I don't think God created the world in seven days. That doesn't fit at all with modern science, anymore than the biblical concept of a flat earth and a sun revolving around the earth fits either. I do assume the Bible is divinely inspired, but still is covered with human fingerprints, so to speak. It is not inerrant and I have no problem with that. I am inclined to think that the Virgin Birth is a much later addition to Christianity. However, I am not sure abut the accuracy of the translation here. I have trouble with the whole concept of a virgin birth, as that is clearly not the way children are born. And I am aware many ancient religions went on the notion that God or the gods could have and did have intercourse with humans, a concept I reject. If anything, it puts God on a par with raping women. See, for example, accounts of Wotan. Other biblical miracles, I am very suspicious of as largely mythic, unless you can show some rational explanation. Also, you would need to explain why God ordains laws of nature, only to have to violate them in order to get anything done. I like to think of God as working in and through nature, not over and against it. I am open to the possibility that we don't fully understand how the universe operates and that there may be operations in the natural order that we have yet to encounter that are responsible for many seemingly paranormal events.
The Resurrection is a different story. This is essentially an inquiry into what happens after death. Do we live on? This is really not a scientific area, to start with. It is true, however, that modern science, with its capacity to bring back the dead, has yielded some interesting NDE material to discuss, however. I have spoken about God's memory, since I am dealing here with the question of meaningfulness. If God is truly salvific, then God has to deliver us from the evil of all evils--that the past fades. We acquire a value or satisfaction, only to lose it. What, then, is the point of doing anything if it is all going to go up in smoke soon enough anyway? My answer is that we can pass our olives over into God. God empathically shares in all our experiences. Hence, they are all preserved in God's eternal memory for ever and hence they have everlasting significance. Now, if all our experiences are preserved, then so, too, are we. That's what I see as the central meaning of the Resurrection and why I consider it important. That's what I think Paul meant when he said y our lives are hid in God.

I appreciate the fact you view Mrs. White as a true prophet and then follow her concept of omnipresence. With all due respect to Mrs. White, however, she was not a student of metaphysics, let alone contemporary metaphysics. Traditional Western metaphysics was heavily based on the notion of a substance, an idea inherited from Aristotle. Accordingly, reality consists of wholly independent events or substances, monads, all enclosed within themselves. "A substance may not be present in a subject," says Aristotle. In modern times, this substance metaphysic has been seriously challenged. We have come to see reality as a web of interconnected events, not a collection of monads. Every being is an item in the real internal constitution of every other. We are all omnipresent in one another, though to a very inferior degree. God's transcendence lies in the fact God is the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles, not their negation. Hence, God is omnipresent in the fullest degree of the term. God enjoys an unsurpassably immediate empathic reaction to any and all creaturely feeling. We are total strangers to sensitivity on that grand of a scale. God's transcendence is God's immanence.
You asked about Hell. I view God is loving; and when you love someone, you do not threaten or coerce them with drastic eternal punishments and pain. This is not cheap grace, however. Nothing humbles us as much as being in the fact of great beauty. If you stand before God, then yes, you are going to be immediately humbled by God's beauty; you are going to immediately feel sense of deep self-chastisement for your lack of beauty. Also, once free of the need for survival, your defenses are unnecessary and go away. You are then open to a deeper empathy with the feelings of others. The victimizer begins to deeply empathize with the victim, feel the pain and hurt he or she has inflicted. This is a very difficult ,painful experience, not aeasy way out. It is also one of deepening love and harmony, as empathy is the basis of all love. That is how I see the afterlife.

 

[Hoghead1]

Bob, I think to help clarify matters, you should address these questions:
1. What are the essential claims of panentheism? How does Mrs. White specifically repudiate them?
2. How do you interpret teh following biblical passages? Jer. 23:23, I Cor. 15:28, Jn. 1:1-6, and Saint Paul's claim that our lives are hid it God?
3. Why do you affirm omnipresence and then restrict God's presence to a certain place, as you appear to be doing in your previous desk example?
4. How do you address the problem of meaningfulness?
5. Why do you assume Christians have to believe the Bible is inerrant?
6. How can you make such selective use of both science and Scripture, so that you agree with science that key aspects of the biblical cosmology are wrong, such as the flat earth, and yet turn around and argue that God created in seven days?
7. What is your metaphysics? How do you view the basic structure of reality? How would you describe God as he is in his own nature?
As long as you are focusing on answering these questions, I'm all ears. However, if not, then I world be compelled to assume you are simply being argumentative and a disruptive influence here. Now, I'm sure you don't want to be doing that, so I await your answers.

 

[stevevw]

One common TE position (and the one I hold, along with literally millions of others, including whole churches) is that there WAS a literal, first person, Adam. He was a member of a community, and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change. After all, there had to be a first, if there weren't humans 5 million years ago, and there are humans today – he was the first to whom God divinely gave a soul. Understanding how populations interbreed makes it obvious that all humans today are descended from him. Original sin did enter the human race though him, because he was the first to be divinely given a soul by God, and perhaps to be developed to the point of being able to conceptualize God, and hence to be able to rebel against God at that time. The idea of Adam as a real, single, historical person, who brought about original sin, and who is the literal ancestor of all humans alive today, is fully compatible with modern science, and an important part, for some, of theistic evolution.



"human beings" can be defined a number of ways, especially with the gradual change of a whole population from ape to a human like today.
Remember that there is variation, and that mutations are in individuals before they spread to the rest of the tribe. So as the whole community gradually evolves from ape to human, whatever arbitrary characteristic is used to define "being human", one individual will be the first to cross that line – and at that time God could divinely create a soul. Of course, all humans will be descended from him, just as they are all descended from others as well. Think of that mayflower club, which only allows members who are descended from the few people who came over from Europe on the mayflower. That club today has thousands of members, and in a few thousand years or so, literally everyone on earth will be descended from those on the mayflower. The same holds true for an individual, so long as they have a few kids. Thus, if you have a few kids, it is very likely that in a few thousand years, literally everyone on earth will be descended from you as well. It's all a mix. So, coupling that with the thing above about the literal Adam, it all works well.

I find this hard to understand and accept. Because I dont think there was just one transition from ape to human that can be classified enough to be classed as human to have a soul. As far as I understand it isn't a single mutation that is going to push that being across the line. That mutation may be a step in one aspect of a change that needed many mutations to happen. When you learn to speak you dont just do it over night. You verbalize little bits of language which gradually becomes speech.

Is it the first little transition that begins the process or is it the final mutations that complete the process that make an ape human. The first lot of mutations may still make a creature an ape even though they may have some very human characteristics. The line is very blurred. I also understand that it wasn't just one human either. That it was simultaneous evolution of many ape to humans across vast areas. There were even different species of humans that were around at the same time.

While I hold to the literal conception described above, a figurative one works fine too. Specifically, if the story of the fall is an allegorical story about how humans have a real, evolved tendency to sin, acquired from Satan - who is a figurative representation of those forces that gave us the tendency to sin, then the verse in Romans is simply a figurative reference to that. I know many TE's who hold such a position, and it's a solid position to hold.

It could be that God instilled in humans a spiritual awakening for which they never had before. In this sense though there may have been many who had this awareness it only took one to take that step to defy God. Just as the awakening of God in humans was introduced into human thought, the thought of sin was also introduced.

Even though I am not sure about the role of Adam and Eve in the genesis story I find it hard to believe some half ape and human was classed in the image of God. I would like to think that humans had been around and developed complete human qualities before they were made in the image of God and could be classed as an Adam. But this still doesn't explain how humans were living in harmony with nature before sin and there wasn't any sin and death.

Sorry to interject into this conversation but I felt the need to clarify some points..