What is the main reason for you to Oppose evolutionary theory?

[Late_Cretaceous]

According to NCLS.org only 64% of Pentecostals and 24% of Catholics are biblical literalists .

So are those 24% of Catholics who are literalists more correct then the 36% of Pentecostals who don't take the bible literally?

 

[KingZzub]

Obviously.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

How much of Genesis is literal?
How about the other books of the bible?

 

[KingZzub]

How much of the Bible is myth?

How much simply isn't true?

 

[Willtor]

How much of the Bible is myth?

How much simply isn't true?

I think Genesis is (at least) largely mythical. I think of apocalyptic literature as a sort of myth (of the future). Gluadys will, no doubt, correct this (mis?) use of the term, but as far as a non-technical use of the word goes, I think you get my semantics.

As far as whether the Bible is true: I think Jesus Christ is the truth. Insofar as he is found in the Scriptures, as he actually is (and not as he is, perhaps, thought to be), the Scriptures are true. As it is my theology that it pleases him to reside in the Scriptures and be found in them, I think that there is no passage in Scripture for which it can be said that fellowship with Christ is impossible. As such, the whole of the Bible is true. But an individual or group may be mistaken as to what is to be gleaned from Scripture and conclude something that is decidedly untrue.

 

[gluadys]

Yes it does; it affects the individuals in a population via mutations.



According to evolulution, mutations causes evolution to happen; without mutations there is no evolution. What you've said is in error.

You are misinformed on both counts. See more detailed answer on the What's Your Problem thread. No need to repeat that whole conversation here.

 

[gluadys]

By denying the fall of Adam. By denying that death comes from sin, by having millions of creatures die before sin entered the world. By denying that there was a literal Adam and Eve and a perfect world without sin. What was God saying "It is very good" while Adam and Eve are standing in the midst of vicious creatures and sickness and disease? Come on!

You were asked for an actual statement where TE postulates that humans are not sinful or in need of a saviour. Not for your opinion of what TEs believe.

Can you back up your claim with a post where a TE actually says humans are not sinful and in need of a saviour?

 

[gluadys]

I think Genesis is (at least) largely mythical. I think of apocalyptic literature as a sort of myth (of the future). Gluadys will, no doubt, correct this (mis?) use of the term, but as far as a non-technical use of the word goes, I think you get my semantics.

I have more problem with your timeline than your genre this time.

I would describe apocalypse as a mystical allegory of the present. The writer's present that is, not ours.

It always amuses me to see notices of "Prophetical Conferences" that turn out to be all about apocalypses and never study Amos 5, Micah 6 or Isaiah 58. Those are truly great prophetical texts.

 

[Willtor]

I have more problem with your timeline than your genre this time.

I would describe apocalypse as a mystical allegory of the present. The writer's present that is, not ours.

It always amuses me to see notices of "Prophetical Conferences" that turn out to be all about apocalypses and never study Amos 5, Micah 6 or Isaiah 58. Those are truly great prophetical texts.

Surely the return of Christ, new Heaven, and new Earth are future events (both for the author and for us). They contain something of the promise that as awful as things are and may become, there is hope in the sovereignty of God.

 

[shernren]

How much of the Bible is myth?

How much simply isn't true?

I'd say the majority of the Bible is myth, excluding didactic and poetic passages such as Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Epistles. (And if you know what the word "myth" means to me, you should not be scandalized or shocked by such an answer. See The Scientific Myth of Creationism.)

And the entire Bible is true.

 

[gluadys]

Surely the return of Christ, new Heaven, and new Earth are future events (both for the author and for us). They contain something of the promise that as awful as things are and may become, there is hope in the sovereignty of God.

True, but they were expecting it fairly immediately. They didn't expect that it would still be in our future.

However, that is why Revelation is useful to us. Since the eschatalogical parousia is still to come, Revelation provides an example of how to stand faithful in times of persecution, whether in ancient Rome or today's Islamic nations, where conversion to Christianity is a capital crime.

 

[Willtor]

True, but they were expecting it fairly immediately. They didn't expect that it would still be in our future.

However, that is why Revelation is useful to us. Since the eschatalogical parousia is still to come, Revelation provides an example of how to stand faithful in times of persecution, whether in ancient Rome or today's Islamic nations, where conversion to Christianity is a capital crime.

To be sure, to be sure. But no matter whether they thought the second coming of Christ was imminent, it was still a future event. I tend to think Revelation is to the future as Genesis is to the past. Now, I could be wrong in this assessment, and feel free to tell me I'm way off base. But it seems to me that we read the truth of the future in the same way we read the truth of the past. All this Dispensationalist silliness (I hope Dispensationalists who read this post will pardon me) is sort of akin to YEC. It is trying to pull facts out of the text and fit them to individual events as they transpire. This is as foolish as trying to infer the RGB value of the eyes of the object of a poet's affections.

On the other hand, there is the truth of the matter. There seems to be quite a lot of material in Revelation that indicates more than just an appropriate reaction to persecution. It seems to indicate that the Church should expect persecution, insofar as it is fulfilling its mission.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Deistic and Pelegian implications.
Also, I don't accept neo-orthodoxy's distinction between historical and theological truth.

 

[Willtor]

Why not?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I'd say the majority of the Bible is myth, excluding didactic and poetic passages such as Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Epistles. (And if you know what the word "myth" means to me, you should not be scandalized or shocked by such an answer. See The Scientific Myth of Creationism.)

And the entire Bible is true.

Agreed

 

[shernren]

Deistic and Pelegian implications.

Fear not, none of us here are deistic or Pelagian.

To be sure, to be sure. But no matter whether they thought the second coming of Christ was imminent, it was still a future event. I tend to think Revelation is to the future as Genesis is to the past. Now, I could be wrong in this assessment, and feel free to tell me I'm way off base.

I think that there is in Revelations and in the general doctrine of the Kingdom of God a tension between
future: "He will come again!" and
present: "He is coming again!"

One interesting aspect of the doctrine of the Kingdom of God in the gospels is the recognition that (unlike in Judaism) the coming of the Kingdom of God was / is not an instantaneous event. There is the inauguration of the Kingdom (in the Gospels), the progressive revealing of the children of God (Romans 8) and the consummation of the Kingdom (Revelations, etc.). Therefore it is possible for us to be citizens of the Kingdom of God already, and yet still waiting for its fulfillment in an unsaved world. And again I find that a lot of evangelical prophetic interpretation is geared towards recognizing the consummation of the Kingdom at a fixed-point in space time - the future, far or near - drowning out the present message of the inaugurated Kingdom with its demands of citizenship. Another "scientific" myth?

 

[Willtor]

. . .

I think that there is in Revelations and in the general doctrine of the Kingdom of God a tension between
future: "He will come again!" and
present: "He is coming again!"

One interesting aspect of the doctrine of the Kingdom of God in the gospels is the recognition that (unlike in Judaism) the coming of the Kingdom of God was / is not an instantaneous event. There is the inauguration of the Kingdom (in the Gospels), the progressive revealing of the children of God (Romans 8) and the consummation of the Kingdom (Revelations, etc.). Therefore it is possible for us to be citizens of the Kingdom of God already, and yet still waiting for its fulfillment in an unsaved world. And again I find that a lot of evangelical prophetic interpretation is geared towards recognizing the consummation of the Kingdom at a fixed-point in space time - the future, far or near - drowning out the present message of the inaugurated Kingdom with its demands of citizenship. Another "scientific" myth?

I agree. This is sort of like what rmwilliamsll says about the Fall. Yes, it did happen, but we find that we affirm its presentness every time we sin.

 

[AngCath]

I'm not "against" evolution, I accept it as an incomplete theory and that this theory like so many others in the world of science will be modified, amended, and corrected over time.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Why not?

Because Christianity is not Platonic philosophy, concerned with a spiritual reality seperate from the physical. The crucifiction as a historical event is not diiferent from the atonement. The atonement was accomplished on the cross. (Collossians 1:20)

 

[Willtor]

Because Christianity is not Platonic philosophy, concerned with a spiritual reality seperate from the physical. The crucifiction as a historical event is not diiferent from the atonement. The atonement was accomplished on the cross. (Collossians 1:20)

No, they are not isolated from each other, as they are in Platonic philosophy. But they are not the same thing. God took on flesh in the Incarnation, but before that, He was not physical.

That said, why does the story have to be factual to be true?