Who are we dealing with?

[Buho]

I am just coming from a discussion on TE and YEC and I am litterally horrified at what I am reading coming out of TE's fingers.

This is the thread in question (scroll up a few posts, I posted 3 in a row).

Am I off-base to accuse of heresy, blasphemy, and them being non-Christians? I probably could have cooled it a little, but am I justified in my accusations anyway?

Case in point:

Tell me, when new knowledge arises that conflicts with Christ's ressurection, such as, say, the discovery of Christ's body in a Jeruselem catecomb, will this force you to revise your beliefs?

Obviously. This would show conclusively that the resurrection was not physical. Of course, a lot of Christians already believe the resurrection was not physical even without a body as evidence. So it would settle that controversy, but not likely do away with belief in the resurrection or Christianity as a whole.

The problem is that God's word has already been changed long before evolutionists got to it. How arrogant to believe that we and only we can restore it to its "pure" form!

I am really scared by this. What is the Church turning in to?

This quote makes me wonder if the enemy is speaking and not the Christian:

The core of the issue here is:

TE: Interpret Genesis 1 according to current beliefs held by man.

YEC: Interpret Genesis 1 according to the rest of the Bible.

I'm deeply disturbed that TEs are departing from the Word of God. What kind of Gospel can you give when it's based on a Book with pieces cut out? What kind of beacon on a hill can you be if you don't show commitment to the FULL Word of God. How salty can you be if you cannot show that you are able to lean completely on scripture but must rather tiptoe?

Actually it's more like this:

YECs interpret Genesis 1 according to a humanist materialist modernist philosopphy where fact is the only form of truth available

TEs interpret Genesis 1 according to the kind of literature it is.

I'm deeply disturbed that YECs are departing from the Word of God by interpreting the Bible as if it were a modernist scientific text. What kind of Gospel can you give when it's based on such a modernistic materialist reading of an ancient text that was put together to emphasise the glory and poetry of God's creation?

 

[Dannager]

All of those quotations by TEs seem like pretty reasonable things to say. I think you're probably off-base.

 

[mark kennedy]

The reality of the ressurection is essential to redemptive history past present and future and you should push for clarification. It is the height of heresy to deny the bodily ressurection and it would be impossible to reconcile to the promise of the Gospel if not true.

Personally, I get really tired of seeing the Word of God watered down. Right now I am not dealing with a who, I am dealing with a single premise I call naturalistic assumptions. Genesis 1 being taken figurativly does not really cause much concern for me but it does not stop there. It doesn't stop and Genesis 11 and I'm still not all that alarmed. When it comes to the deity, prophetic death, bodily ressurection, ascension and soon return of Christ I get indignant.

I'm starting a thread that focuses on crucial historical narratives. My real focus will be on nailing down whether
God performing miracles down through human history is essential.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[jabechler]

I am just coming from a discussion on TE and YEC and I am litterally horrified at what I am reading coming out of TE's fingers.

This is the thread in question (scroll up a few posts, I posted 3 in a row).

Am I off-base to accuse of heresy, blasphemy, and them being non-Christians? I probably could have cooled it a little, but am I justified in my accusations anyway?

Case in point:




I am really scared by this. What is the Church turning in to?

This quote makes me wonder if the enemy is speaking and not the Christian:

I believe and see that in most cases these qoutes on yec and te are accurate. This is to say in sorrow. For God will judge based on His law and truth not mans.

 

[Buho]

More baffling quotes:

I mentioned postmodernism and I didn't follow up on it. It's actually a kind of confusing topic, but for our purposes here, I'll state that postmodernists affirm "we cannot know the truth" . . .

One wrote: "No we don't. Not all of us, anyway."

Another wrote: "You are one of these black and white people to whom truth is truth, whatever that means. Well, you people just give me a headache."

A Christian does not know Truth. Can the Christian be a Christian?

This leads me to believe that it's not about evolution or creation at all, but rather the concept of the Bible being able to provide absolute truth or not. I'm reading through a book right now, "Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace" which is picking apart all of the problems the author sees in the Church, how we've left God's Word. He's highlighting sola scriptura, which he says most Reformed churches will affirm, but the sufficiency of scripture most churches will not affirm, which the churches will then turn to marketing ploys, big speakers, healings, signs & wonders in order to bring people to a saving knowledge of Christ. The author affirms that God's Word is sufficient to bring one to salvation.

But I think it also effects peoples theology here. Christians who do not understand that the Bible does have absolute truth and we can know it. In my posts I've pulled out scripture that targets several aspects of postmodernism, so I'm not sure where they can wiggle, unless they deny they can understand the scripture I pulled(!).

 

[Buho]

Dannager: "All of those quotations by TEs seem like pretty reasonable things to say. I think you're probably off-base."

Thanks for your input. I'm not sure you've convinced me, though. One thing I considered last night was that in my "Christ's body" scenario, I didn't clarify between "scientists conclusively found" and "scientists claim to have found" which is an important distinction. If Christ's body had been found with more reliable evidence than the scriptural record, it would be the end of Christianity. Of course, that's impossible. The more probable scenario is the "claim." Possibly the TE reacted to my scenario with the former interpretation.

Mark: "Right now I am not dealing with a who, I am dealing with a single premise I call naturalistic assumptions."

And I'm thinking it goes beyond this, as I discussed in my previous post, but this is an important topic as well. YECs really only have scripture. TEs are denying us this tool with a variety of methods. I'm thinking by establishing a solid base we can make some progress.

Mark: "I'm starting a thread that focuses on crucial historical narratives."

One thing that surprised me was, after I (thoroughly) showed Genesis 1 is narrative and not poetry, I was asked how do we determine if Genesis 1 is historical narrative or story narrative (ie, parable). You might run into the same, Mark.

Jabechler: "I believe and see that in most cases these qoutes on yec and te are accurate."

What do you mean? Both are accurate? How so? Each quote by each respective party is in line with their views? How about this: Are all YEC and TE quotes in line with God and His Word?

 

[cwolf20]

as far as things being already rewritten... well, there are indications that the rib taken out of Adam was something else entirely but the word got translated wrong and is now standard.

I am really scared by this. What is the Church turning in to?

This quote makes me wonder if the enemy is speaking and not the Christian:

 

[Willtor]

One thing that surprised me was, after I (thoroughly) showed Genesis 1 is narrative and not poetry, I was asked how do we determine if Genesis 1 is historical narrative or story narrative (ie, parable). You might run into the same, Mark.

Well, to be sure, I think most of us think it's both poetry and a narrative.

 

[charityagape]

There are core beliefs that are essential to Christianity. I think you really have to pare those core beliefs down to what is essential before you call someone a hearitic or not a "true" Christian. And even then without knowing someone's heart, its an arrogant step to start claiming what someone is or isn't.

Now a couple of the quote you listed seem possibly....well clarification would be needed.

As to most of the other hot and emotional arguments flying between TEs and Cs, how are they different than those between Calvinists and Arminians? Catholics and Protestents? ETC?

Would you say the same thing about people in the groups above that you are about TEs?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Well, to be sure, I think most of us think it's both poetry and a narrative.

Indeed... narrative poetry has always been a common literary genre.

 

[ChetSinger]

I think it's possible to be a TE and a christian. I was one for a while. I had faith in Jesus, but held the wisdom of men in too high regard when reading the Old Testament. I was intimidated by the 'experts' who claimed that the Old Testament couldn't be true.

So I walked down the path I see some following here, marginalizing the Old Testament as myth, or allegory, or whatever. I thought I had no choice.

So I don't think being a TE indicates that one isn't a Christian. But it is a loss for them, because they're disconnected from their origins and their history. They float in a sea of ambiguity, blown about by whatever the archaelogists claim next.

Faith comes by hearing. What helped me was listening to people who had faith. Specifically, a little daily radio blurb created by ICR and run on a local Christian radio station. Until then, I had no idea that there were actually Christian rebuttals that were based on evidence.

 

[Buho]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the Creationism subforum was for Creationists only.

Well, to be sure, I think most of us think it's both poetry and a narrative.

Indeed... narrative poetry has always been a common literary genre.

I did not intend this thread to be a debate, but I want to quickly point out that in the other thread I gave very strong evidence that the verb forms used in Genesis 1 have no resemblance to any other identified poetry in the Hebrew Bible. From that, we can conclude Genesis 1 is not poetry. Not to mention it doesn't subjectively look like poetry (no verse, no symmetry, no parallelism). Again, tho, take it to the other thread.

There are core beliefs that are essential to Christianity. I think you really have to pare those core beliefs down to what is essential before you call someone a hearitic or not a "true" Christian. And even then without knowing someone's heart, its an arrogant step to start claiming what someone is or isn't.

Now a couple of the quote you listed seem possibly....well clarification would be needed.

As to most of the other hot and emotional arguments flying between TEs and Cs, how are they different than those between Calvinists and Arminians? Catholics and Protestents? ETC?

Would you say the same thing about people in the groups above that you are about TEs?

Thank you for your words, Charity. I'm (slowly) identifying my mistakes. Too often I speak like Galations 2:11 and not enough like Colossians 4:6.

I'm currently in a multi-month study on Calvinism & Armenianism with my church. The Christian who guided me to a dedication of my life to Christ is strongly Calvinist and I've come to understand the complete Calvinist framework and find it scriptural and without contradiction. I'm hoping the class I'm in will shed light on why people don't see Calvinism as correct and as not God's clear word. Is it (1) really ambiguous (in scripture), (2) not ambiguous but people simply don't know their theology, or (3) not ambiguous and people conciously choose what they want so they may live their life as they choose? That question I should probably apply to Protestant vs. Catholic and YEC vs. TE.

EDIT: Oh, and if #2 or #3 is the case, shouldn't that issue be adopted as a core doctrine at which point dissents are considered heresy? The doctrine of the Trinity case in point.

 

[Willtor]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the Creationism subforum was for Creationists only.

Oh, no. TE's are allowed to post here, just as YEC's are allowed to post in the TE forum. We're just not allowed to debate the points. It's like the "Catholics" section of the forum. You can go post there, if you want. Sometimes I do. You can say what you think, but you can't debate.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the Creationism subforum was for Creationists only.

Well, as Willtor already pointed out, TEs are not barred from participating in this subforum, just from debating in it. Besides, considering that one of the TE quotes in the OP you were horrified about was one of mine, I thought I should stop in and say hello.

I did not intend this thread to be a debate, but I want to quickly point out that in the other thread I gave very strong evidence that the verb forms used in Genesis 1 have no resemblance to any other identified poetry in the Hebrew Bible. From that, we can conclude Genesis 1 is not poetry. Not to mention it doesn't subjectively look like poetry (no verse, no symmetry, no parallelism). Again, tho, take it to the other thread.

I shall... no verse, symmetry, or parallelism in Genesis 1?

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark: "Right now I am not dealing with a who, I am dealing with a single premise I call naturalistic assumptions."

And I'm thinking it goes beyond this, as I discussed in my previous post, but this is an important topic as well. YECs really only have scripture. TEs are denying us this tool with a variety of methods. I'm thinking by establishing a solid base we can make some progress.

Mark: "I'm starting a thread that focuses on crucial historical narratives."

One thing that surprised me was, after I (thoroughly) showed Genesis 1 is narrative and not poetry, I was asked how do we determine if Genesis 1 is historical narrative or story narrative (ie, parable). You might run into the same, Mark.

If you know anything about liberal theology or secular humanism you must realize it's religion without God. I disagree that we only have the Scriptures and I have had no problem finding scientific research supporting my YEC views. In fact, I have seen nothing in the way of a demonstrated mechanism for the single common ancestor model that can even be laughingly called science.

I look forward to defending the historicity of the Scriptures, that is what I studied before I got into the Creation/evolution controversy. One of the reasons you may have ran into a wall is that you stopped at Genesis 1 (that's just a guess). One thing is for sure, Christian theology and theistic evolution are simply not the same thing either in the traditional or Biblical sense.

The Gospel is either the history of the human race or the single common anceostor mythology. You can't have it both ways, one of them is a lie. The thread is 'Fight for the Faith!' in the Origins Theology common forum. I would be interested in had to contribute to the thread.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Uphill Battle]

I question how a TE can believe in a Risen Christ, and not in the Genesis 1 account. Most often, it's because "scientific evidence indicates otherwise."

I'd like to forward that scientific evidence indicates to the contrary of blind seeing, deaf hearing, and corpses springing back to life, as well.

The rebuttle is usually something along the lines of "but those were miracles." Would creation be different? (any less a miracle, is what I mean.)

 

[shernren]

In response to Uphill Battle: I hope my pointing you to this which I've written doesn't count as a debate post.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=23643223&postcount=46

 

[Uphill Battle]

In response to Uphill Battle: I hope my pointing you to this which I've written doesn't count as a debate post.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=23643223&postcount=46

thank you for the post, I don't think giving me information should be considered a debate post. (Hey you there, git yer pointer off that report button! )

 

[The Lady Kate]

I question how a TE can believe in a Risen Christ, and not in the Genesis 1 account. Most often, it's because "scientific evidence indicates otherwise."

I'd like to forward that scientific evidence indicates to the contrary of blind seeing, deaf hearing, and corpses springing back to life, as well.

The rebuttle is usually something along the lines of "but those were miracles." Would creation be different? (any less a miracle, is what I mean.)

not to debate, but the rebuttal is usually that there isn't any scientific evidence to the contrary of the blind seeing, deaf hearing, corpses springing back to life, etc....

In short, while it's true that these things usually don't happen in our normal experience, there's really no scientific evidence that they didn't happen back then. There may be no scientific evidence to believe it, but there's also no scientific evidence not to believe it. So we accept on faith that it happened.

 

[charityagape]

not to debate, but the rebuttal is usually that there isn't any scientific evidence to the contrary of the blind seeing, deaf hearing, corpses springing back to life, etc....

In short, while it's true that these things usually don't happen in our normal experience, there's really no scientific evidence that they didn't happen back then. There may be no scientific evidence to believe it, but there's also no scientific evidence not to believe it. So we accept on faith that it happened.

So, it's okay to have faith in what seems scientifically impossible as long as there's no scientific evidence against it?