Who are we dealing with?

[Willtor]

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

Regardless of science (science isn't old enough for it to be the sole recipient of the following statement), the orthodoxy has always held that it is only okay to have faith in Christ. How we interpret the Scriptures, how we look at the world around us, and everything else, must strictly be viewed in that light. Faith in a particular interpretation, or faith in science, or faith in whatever else is (by definition) misplaced. One accepts the conclusions of an interpretation, or of science, or of philosophy, or whatever else, insofar as it relates to the sovereignty of Christ.

If you (or anybody) dispute any of the semantics of "faith" I've used, I'm really eager to discuss it, but (obviously) I can't do so here. If you start up another thread (in General Theology or wherever), please post a link.

 

[charityagape]

I may not be understanding what you mean. For clarification, not debate. My faith IS in Christ. Faith that He created the universe exactly as He said He did.

 

[Willtor]

I may not be understanding what you mean. For clarification, not debate. My faith IS in Christ. Faith that He created the universe exactly as He said He did.

That's fine. If, in fact, YEC is correctly interpreting Genesis, then one would be hard pressed to come up with a reason not to believe that it is so. But my comment was more in references to your statement:

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

The word, faith, in that context led me to believe that you thought that faith corresponded to an idea. That idea would be a particular interpretation (whether by science, common sense, anthropology, or whatever other hermeneutic) of Scripture. Certainly, it must be understood that we each try to apprehend God in a greater degree each day, and in the process we remove misconceptions. Our conceptions of what is so are not, themselves, the truth, but we hope that our conceptions are formed by the truth, himself.

In this sense, I could never say I have faith in TE, or in YEC (if I were to be convinced by that perspective). Merely that I have faith in Christ, and that I think God means for us to understand Genesis in a particular way.

 

[Melethiel]

Just popping in....don't lump all TE's under the same banner. Not all of us are post-modernists or theologically liberal.

 

[The Lady Kate]

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

Things aren't always what they seem to be. 150 years ago, machines that fly seemed "scientifically impossible." 75 years ago, men walking on the Moon seemed "scientifically impossible."30 years ago, an entire music library on a silver disk seemed "scientifically impossible."

It's not about what might have happened, but what we know did not or could not have happened.

For example, if you were to tell me that your cousin Marvin is fighting over in Iraq, I'd take it on faith that this is true... after all, I have no reason not to believe you.

If, on the other hand, you told me that Your cousin Marvin was killed by a nuclear attack over Baghdad last Tuesday, that's a different story... we all know for a fact that there was not, and could not have been, a nuclear explosion over Baghdad.

The difference is in not knowing if something is true, and knowing that something is not/could not be true. Believing in the former is called faith... believing in the latter is called gullibility.

 

[Buho]

Just popping in....don't lump all TE's under the same banner. Not all of us are post-modernists or theologically liberal.

Well hello there I guess that was the original intent of starting this thread. To figure out what kind of people TEs tend to be. But I think this thread has run its course.

 

[shernren]

Well hello there I guess that was the original intent of starting this thread. To figure out what kind of people TEs tend to be. But I think this thread has run its course.

(emphasis added)

You make it sound like we TEs are a whole different species.

 

[sjdennis]

This thread has wandered a bit from it's original purpose of finding out who TE's were. I make a habit of debating creation / evolution with both evolutionist scientists at my university and TE's I meet through church etc. I have a faith in Creation that is based on the bible, and I hold this because it is what God says in the bible. As a scientist, I also find that Creation is supported very strongly through all areas of science.

I have found while scrolling through this forum, and through my normal life experience, vastly different responses from TE's and evolutionists to discussions about origins. Evolutionists try to debate the issue based on hard scientific facts, and when I am able to present hard scientific facts supporting a recent creation, they are willing to look at and consider these. Within evolutionists, I have found that the ones that do respond hostilely generally don't know much about the scientific evidence for or against evolution. Those that know more about Evolution are much more willing to accept that it may not be correct, as they know the flaws in the theory.

However in general I find that TE's respond very harshly to any suggestion that evolution may be wrong. They are much more likely to be personally insulting about it. They have been taught evolution through school, and even in some cases through church, and believe it as part of their theology. When you try to debate with them, they bring up theological arguments, argue about the interpretation of words in scripture, and other wishy-washy stuff that really can never be proven conclusively either correct or incorrect. Therefore you can never win the debate (although neither can they). They are much less likely to be willing to debate the issue based on hard scientific facts.

Why do TE's support evolution with much greater fervor than the evolutionist scientists who are actually involved in research relating to it? Where is the logic in that? I have now pretty much given up debating with them, as it is hard to have a reasonable, practical debate about science with them. I know science, I don't know as much theology, but I know what science clearly shows about the age of the earth.

And if science shows the earth is young, or even if it was not clear on the issue (it is in fact very clear), what reason is there to believe anything other than what Genesis clearly states to the casual reader? The only reason to reject the clear statements of Genesis on a six day, recent creation is based on clear scientific evidence to the contrary. I have yet to have a TE present me with this.

All of what I have said above is based on my own personal experience, and is true from my life. I do not mean to put these labels on you if you are a TE and do not reflect the above statements. However that is what I have commonly observed.

 

[sjdennis]

btw, have you read the top "Sticky" thread in this forum, re-emphasising the rules of the YEC forum area? Check out the statement at the bottom:

"the reason this is posted in the creationism forum is NOT because creationists are the main ones violating this rule. It is posted here because so many TE's are coming here to debate."

Does this not confirm what I just said from my own personal experience of TE's?!!! And it's written by a TE!

 

[Redneck Crow]

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.)

Since you raised the issue, I'll answer. As I am a TE, I'm not going to get in a debate here in your forum, I'll simply state my belief.

My belief is that Genesis is an allegory, and not literal. I believe that when Jesus taught the parables whether or not there was an actual guy who got robbed and beaten up and whether or not there was not an actual good Samaritan who rescued him is not what the story is about--He used it to teach a concept, not a history lesson. I also don't believe that there was never a woman who's breasts looked like a couple of young roes who are twins, and if there the author of Canticles would be screaming, not admiring.

The crucifixion account is historical, and written as an account sans poetic or allegorical language. Pontius Pilate was a real guy, as was Caesar Augustus. It describes a known political climate and a known Roman means of execution. I have no reason to believe that the author of such an account is going to tuck in the stray bit of imagery, like a resurection, to give the story a happy ending. As for Christ's miracles, they aren't given in the form of poetic accounts. Had these accounts been hogwash, surely people would have reacted to them in the early Church much as we would react today if someone were to record that there was no Revolutionary War in the U.S.

It all comes down to whether a person believes that Christ is the Son of God and their Savior. I do. Whether I believe that the creation story is historical or whether I believe that the this is an instance in which the truth is revealed as an allegoral account as opposed to literal is no more salvatory than whether I believe that the good Samaritan was a real guy or a fictional character Christ used to teach a basic concept.

What I attribute to miracle and what I attribute to natural cause isn't so important because I believe God to be the author of natural law. When I see good indication that something occurred by natural process, as I see for evolution and geological formation, then that is what I attribute it to. When I see good indication that God contravened His natural law, as in the accounts of Christ's miracles, I attribute that to a miracle. And I'll even admit that I might be wrong in some cases. But my salvation doesn't lie in whether I can correctly discern which passages are historical and which are utilizing literary devices. It lies in whether or not I believe Christ was the Son of God and accept Him as my Savior and thank God (literally) that He didn't require perfect discernment and perfect knowledge on my part to be His.

 

[Redneck Crow]

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.)

Since you raised the issue, I'll address it. As I am a TE, I'm not going to get in a debate here in your forum, I'll simply state my belief.

My belief is that Genesis is an allegory, and not literal. I believe that when Jesus taught the parables that whether or not there was an actual guy who got beat up and whether or not there was not an actual good Samaritan who rescued him is not what the story is about--He used it to teach a concept, not a history lesson. I also don't believe that there was never a woman whose breasts looked like a couple of young roes who are twins, and if there were such an unfortunate woman the author of Canticles would be screaming, not admiring.

The crucifixion account is historical, and written as an account sans poetic or allegorical language. Pontius Pilate was a real guy. It describes a known political climate and a known Roman means of execution. I have no reason to believe that the author of such an account is going to tuck in the stray bit of imagery, like a resurection, to give the story a happy ending. As for Christ's miracles, they aren't given in the form of poetic accounts. Had these accounts been hogwash, surely people would have reacted to them in the early Church much as we would react today if someone were to publish a book stating that there was no Revolutionary War in the U.S.

It all comes down to whether or not a person believes that Christ is the Son of God and has accepted Him as their Savior. I do and I have. Whether I believe that the creation story is historical or I believe that the this is an instance in which the truth is revealed as an allegoral account as opposed to literal is no more salvatory than whether I believe that the good Samaritan was a real guy or a fictional character Christ used to teach a basic concept.

What I attribute to miracle and what I attribute to natural cause isn't so important because I believe God to be the author of natural law. When I see good indication that something occurred by natural process, as I see for evolution and geological formation, then that is what I attribute it to. When I see good indication that God contravened His natural law, as in the accounts of Christ's miracles, I attribute that to a miracle. And I'll even admit that I might be wrong in some cases. But my salvation doesn't lie in whether I can correctly discern which passages are historical and which are utilizing literary devices. It lies in whether or not I believe Christ was the Son of God and accept Him as my Savior and thank God (literally) He didn't require perfect discernment and perfect knowledge to be His.

 

[vossler]

However in general I find that TE's respond very harshly to any suggestion that evolution may be wrong. They are much more likely to be personally insulting about it.

I've noticed this too, although the same can be held true by YECs. I guess that the result if you passionately believe something.

Why do TE's support evolution with much greater fervor than the evolutionist scientists who are actually involved in research relating to it? Where is the logic in that? I have now pretty much given up debating with them, as it is hard to have a reasonable, practical debate about science with them. I know science, I don't know as much theology, but I know what science clearly shows about the age of the earth.

I'm glad to see a creationist who is a scientist who has realized the futility in arguing the science of creation, at least with TEs. So many times I've seen a well presented position diminished by an evolutionist without nary a thought on how it could be supported through Scripture or even adequately supported via science.

And if science shows the earth is young, or even if it was not clear on the issue (it is in fact very clear), what reason is there to believe anything other than what Genesis clearly states to the casual reader? The only reason to reject the clear statements of Genesis on a six day, recent creation is based on clear scientific evidence to the contrary. I have yet to have a TE present me with this.

That's the crux of the matter, at least with how I see this issue.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I have only read the first couple pages so forgive my skipping the rest of the thread. Buho, I agree with you. I have the same concerns for TEs. But I have decided to not bother debating with them, because it only falls on deaf ears. I have found when debating any topic that it isn't worth debating if the other parties mind is closed to hear the truth. All we can do is that they will open their ears to the Holy Spirit's speaking and communicating the truth.

Just a reminder to all, its great that all can visit this thread, but it has appeared to turn into somewhat of a debate (at least from looking at the first two pages). Sometimes it is best not to post if we are in disagreement on this topic so that we don't end up in a debate. Just a thought!!

 

[vossler]

Just a reminder to all, its great that all can visit this thread, but it has appeared to turn into somewhat of a debate (at least from looking at the first two pages). Sometimes it is best not to post if we are in disagreement on this topic so that we don't end up in a debate. Just a thought!!

The debate you sense stems from visitors to this forum who aren't YECs, whenever that happens you're just asking for disagreements.