Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[seebs]

There is also a tendency to equate every reference the bible makes to the Word of God as a self-reference to the bible. But in most, if not all cases, this is not so. Biblical references to writings usually use the term writings (aka scriptures) or an equivalent such as law, statute, commandment, etc. And the bible generally does not equate these writings with the Word of God.

With the capital W, that would be "never ever ever". The early church fathers were very clear in condemning this heresy.

But sometimes I see things said that make me wonder if a reversal of this relationship has taken place. A reversal of this relationship is what I refer to as the Islamicization of Christianity. I got this from a study of biblical inspiration many years ago, in which the role of founder and scripture were compared in Christianity and Islam.

Indeed! This is, in fact, exactly what's happening; the Bible is being gradually turned into the central point of the faith, with Jesus gradually wandering off as just one of many characters in the crucially important Magic Book.

In a way, it is a bit ironic that the books written to proclaim Christ as the Word of God, should come to be called the word of God as well. But as long as the essential relationship that makes the bible dependant on Christ and not the reverse is maintained, I won't quibble about the term.

I agree.

http://www.christianforums.com/t725470-confessions-of-a-young-earth-creationist.html

Unfortunately, that time has passed; in this thread from a year ago, you will find the exact same thing, including claims that the Bible is equal to God.

 

[seebs]

Oh, here it is:

The Bible is the Devine Word of God in book form.

(Post #225 in the big thread.)

There you have it. The answer to all your questions about this particular line of inquiry.

 

[CaDan]

In the original Greek - Ancient Greek - there are capital and lower case letters. Lamda upper case looks like an upside down capital v.



The point that seebs was making was about using a capital to show it as a proper noun. Greek, having capital letters, does not use it in John 1:1 for Logos.

Our oldest manuscripts are uncials, which kind of messes up this argument.

Secondly, if seebs and/or you have a problem with people refering to the Bible as God's Word, then there are hundreds of seminary schools, theologians, and Early Church Fathers that you must also call as idolaters. For if seebs basis for calling us idolaters is because we use a capital W for God's Word, then be consistent, and call everyone of them idolaters as well because they have done the same thing as we are doing, calling the Bible God's Word.

Justin Martyr seemed to be able to discuss the logos without referring to a certain written body of work.

This isn't about the W, it is about falsly accusing us of something we don't do. Seebs even admits he knows we don't mean this, yet he call us idolaters anyways.

Since you, Glaudy's - and anyone else who comes to seebs defense on this issue to support his assertion that YECs who call the Bible God's Word are idolaters - should not be surprised in the future if your faith is called into suspect. For that is what seebs is doing and you by supporting him are doing. It is the same as calling us non-believers and people who don't follow Jesus Christ.

. . . watchin' the detectives . . .

 

[stumpjumper]

I believe it possible the earth and universe is older than 6,000 years but I don't necessary agree with their much needed 4.5 billions year date.

Good at least we are getting into some of the arguments against the claims of modern science. I have found the evidence to support a very old earth and evolution to be convincing. The 4.5 billion years however is not there because its needed for evolution. It is there because that is what the earth is telling science. Cosmology, geology, and radiometric dating agree that the earth is very old. Here is a good article written by a Christian geologist that shows that science shows that the earth is very old.

this is the old 19th century claim that a simple cell can produce a complex life form. Darwin could easily used this argument as science since in his day cells are thought to be very simple ; like Jell-O. Today they know that this view is totally wrong; the cell is extremely complex from the beginning with many "which came first..." paradoxes. So this view is totally based on faith today since evolutionists doesn't have any example to simple to complex in nature when it comes to the cell/life.

Are you referring to Lamarckian views of evolution? When I said relatively simple to relatively complex I was referring to the claim that life started out as simpler single celled organisms and grew more complex over time (within the cell and then onto multicelled organisms). The cell is very complex today and many many cells make up living things but I was referring to a gradiation of complexity over time, which is well supported in theory and by the fossil record if not through actual experimentation.

With examples of very complex human design like a sonar can't come close to match the sonar build into bats. there very good reason to doubt these since evolutionist has to rely on supernatural-selection powers and extremely smart genetic mutations. It's more like life orginated vs evolution without a engine or a driver. The cell has factories,machines,motors along with information in it's DNA in which allows it to adapted to it's environment.

Well, I am a theist and I do follow that evolution was guided even if not actively. I follow an argument from intention and purpose more than anything else from natural theology that convinces me that there was an intelligence behind our origin. Your argument is one of intention versus mechanism. You can show a material mechanism without ruling out a God behind the curtain.

I believe that natural selection is a well supported theory and that it can account for the complexity we see in life today.

 

[seebs]

Since you, Glaudy's - and anyone else who comes to seebs defense on this issue to support his assertion that YECs who call the Bible God's Word are idolaters - should not be surprised in the future if your faith is called into suspect. For that is what seebs is doing and you by supporting him are doing. It is the same as calling us non-believers and people who don't follow Jesus Christ.

A couple of points:

1. As I pointed out in a later post, I have seen people specifically affirm that the Bible is "co-equal with God" and otherwise do exactly what I'm talking about.
2. To "call someone's faith into suspect" in retaliation is inappropriate.
3. I've been here three years and probably never made it a week without someone trying to come between me and Jesus. Go ahead, bring it. I am long past worrying about what people think of my faith.

 

[Critias]

A couple of points:

1. As I pointed out in a later post, I have seen people specifically affirm that the Bible is "co-equal with God" and otherwise do exactly what I'm talking about.

If you are speaking of Vossler, then you are misinformed. He doesn't bow down and worship the Bible in his home.

2. To "call someone's faith into suspect" in retaliation is inappropriate.

But it wasn't inappropriate to call me and others here idolaters?

And don't worry seebs, I have no interest in thinking I am God and can judge your heart.

3. I've been here three years and probably never made it a week without someone trying to come between me and Jesus. Go ahead, bring it. I am long past worrying about what people think of my faith.

Well, you are doing just that to me and others here by calling us idolaters. I have no interest in doing what you are doing here.

How you think it is ok to come in here and call us idolaters is beyond me. And yet, even when I make a hint that what you are doing may come back to you, you write as if offended. Yet, you see no offense in calling me an idolater which is one who is not a Christian.

Is it that you, seebs, feel you are not bound by the rules of this forum?

What you tell me to bring, is what you have done to me, Vossler and others here. You are beyond questioning our faith, you are calling us faithless.

 

[Critias]

Our oldest manuscripts are uncials, which kind of messes up this argument.



Justin Martyr seemed to be able to discuss the logos without referring to a certain written body of work.



. . . watchin' the detectives . . .

Do you feel it justified to call us idolaters, when we have said God's Word in context of the Bible? It is not as if he didn't know what were talking about, he just wanted to call us idolaters.

An idolater is not a Christian and that is what he has said, judging our hearts as if he is God.

And do you agree that you also can judge our hearts to make this claim?

 

[seebs]

If you are speaking of Vossler, then you are misinformed. He doesn't bow down and worship the Bible in his home.

Not having been there, I cannot comment.

I can only observe that he said, in his own words:
1. That the Bible was co-equal with God.
2. That the Bible was "the Devine Word of God, in written form".

Neither of these is ambiguous.

But it wasn't inappropriate to call me and others here idolaters?

I am calling certain things idolatry; as has become clear in these discussions, the terminology is confusing enough that it is impossible for me to know whether anyone is actually doing these things.

What is clear is this:
1. The Word of God is Jesus.
2. The phrase "Word of God" (capital W) is never once used to refer to anything but Jesus in the Bible.
3. Early Christian writers were very clear on the distinction between the Logos, the unique cosmological force, and the more generic usage of logos to refer to words.
4. This distinction has been consciously and intentionally preserved in English translations of the Bible, to draw a distinction between the Word and the words attributed to Him.

How you think it is ok to come in here and call us idolaters is beyond me. And yet, even when I make a hint that what you are doing may come back to you, you write as if offended. Yet, you see no offense in calling me an idolater which is one who is not a Christian.

There are Christian idolators. Idolatry is error, and even heresy, but it doesn't make you non-Christian. (This is the generic "you"; I do not know that you personally engage in any idolatry, whether intentionally or otherwise.)

Is it that you, seebs, feel you are not bound by the rules of this forum?

No. We had this conversation last summer, and the staff agreed that it was permissible for people to have this debate if we wished.

What you tell me to bring, is what you have done to me, Vossler and others here. You are beyond questioning our faith, you are calling us faithless.

No, I am not. I think it is quite clear that you have faith in God, and I think it no less likely to be saving faith than anyone else's.

However, the fact remains that conflation of the Word with a book is not good doctrine; it is a modern convention adopted recently, and there are dozens of examples of people who use this convention having mistaken beliefs about the nature of the Bible and its relationship to Jesus.

[bible]John 1:1[/bible]

If you can't plug X into this verse and have it be true, X is not the Word.

 

[seebs]

Do you feel it justified to call us idolaters, when we have said God's Word in context of the Bible?

Why not use "God's Word" in the context of this tasty pizza I have just obtained from a local restaurant? Once we are willing to use that phrase for things other than Jesus, who is to say what is or isn't a reasonable usage? Certainly, this pizza is a creation of God, through whom all things are made. Certainly, it is doing His will, in that it is feeding the hungry.

And yet, somehow, I feel I should stop short of conflating it with Jesus. Perhaps this is merely pedantry on my part, but I think the distinction significant.

 

[CaDan]

Do you feel it justified to call us idolaters, when we have said God's Word in context of the Bible? It is not as if he didn't know what were talking about, he just wanted to call us idolaters.

You are missing the subtlety of the argument.

While it is possible to refer to the writings of the Bible as "the Word of God" without error, it is not profitable to do so. Because the title "the Word of God" -- logos ton theos -- rightfully belongs to the second Person of the Trinity, misuse of the term makes it easy to slip into error. Why run that risk when we have a perfectly acceptable English word such as "Scripture" to use instead?

An idolater is not a Christian and that is what he has said, judging our hearts as if he is God.

Idolatry can be the elevation of any created thing to the level of the Uncreated. The logos ton theos is the Uncreated; the Scriptures are the created. We can honor them; we can respect them; but we dare not make them a part of the Godhead.

And do you agree that you also can judge our hearts to make this claim?

I'm just watchin' the detectives.

 

[vossler]

Critias,

Seebs lurks here in order to make accusations rather than confront truth of God's Word. Knowing where he's coming from helps me to deal with his accusations. If the moderators of this forum are not concerned with his charges of idolatry or blasphemy it must mean that they're baseless. For me to try and defend myself is futile, his mission is clear and he will not stop. To that I just remember the comforting words of Jesus in Matthew 5:11 - 12.

Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

or

Matthew 5:39

But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Remember too that Jesus goes on to say in Matthew 5:39

But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...

So take heart, Jesus told us of people like him and that we are called to love him and pray for him. This I will do tonight. Remember also that Jesus said for us to rejoice and be glad because were are blessed. This is so true, we are blessed and we should rejoice and be glad. This I will also do tonight.

 

[seebs]

Seebs lurks here in order to make accusations rather than confront truth of God's Word.

This is simply false.

As to the questions of idolatry and blasphemy, I will leave it up to the readers to draw their own conclusions about the claim that the Bible is "co-equal with God".

 

[Critias]

Why not use "God's Word" in the context of this tasty pizza I have just obtained from a local restaurant? Once we are willing to use that phrase for things other than Jesus, who is to say what is or isn't a reasonable usage? Certainly, this pizza is a creation of God, through whom all things are made. Certainly, it is doing His will, in that it is feeding the hungry.

And yet, somehow, I feel I should stop short of conflating it with Jesus. Perhaps this is merely pedantry on my part, but I think the distinction significant.

This analogy is just laughable. I am convinced that you have an agenda, to spread lies, make false accusations about creationists being idolaters.

One who is an idolater is not a Christian. For they are worshipping another god, not the Alpha and Omega, God Almighty. If you think one can be a Christian and worship as many other gods as they choose, then wonder what you really think Christianity is.

It is plain and obvious that you enjoy taking this position against Christians here on this board. I have tried to explain the position and you show nothing but disdain for it. I will just bow out of this as it is fruitless and the only point of it being your self exaltation.

 

[shernren]

History is the story of our past. Whether one believes that God created Adam and Eve sometime during the middle stone age or whether the account of our past lines up with Genesis in more of an allegorical fashion, it is still talking about a history (or a story of things that happended in our past). All of the contingencies that Genesis states that God created are accepted by me, it is just how those things came about that are not specified. Why limit God in the manner of bringing these things about?

Look at Genesis. It is obviously set up to tell a specific story about the past of the ancient Israelites. Genesis starts out with "In the beginning" Gen 1 (God created the world). Then it sets out the beginnings of the nations of theh world and then it shows the beginning of the nation of Israel in Gen 12. The story is told by taking these progression into account. You do not lose that by accepting a method of creation that goes into more detail than Genesis 1.

Oh, I see. In my dictionary that's something more like "mythology". When I was 13 school taught me that there are three central tenets of history: causes & consequences, people & motives, and dates & times. So I wouldn't agree that what you described was history, to me. But I do agree that I don't think it would get in the way of the truthfulness of the Bible.

 

[seebs]

This analogy is just laughable. I am convinced that you have an agenda, to spread lies, make false accusations about creationists being idolaters.

Then you are quite mistaken. I know many Creationists who are absolutely certifiably free of idolatry.

I have been known to point to, as idolatrous, claims such as "the Bible is co-equal with God", or "the Bible is the Word in the same sense that Jesus is". Both of which, I point out, are actual examples. Those statements are, flat out, idolatry.

One who is an idolater is not a Christian. For they are worshipping another god, not the Alpha and Omega, God Almighty. If you think one can be a Christian and worship as many other gods as they choose, then wonder what you really think Christianity is.

Christianity is the set of beliefs denoted by the Nicene Creed.

Some Christians have false beliefs, or misunderstand the Creed. This makes them heretics, but they are nonetheless Christians.

It is plain and obvious that you enjoy taking this position against Christians here on this board.

It is odd that what is "plain and obvious" is nonetheless also untrue.

I am not taking a position against Christianity. I am taking a position against a common misunderstanding of Christianity.

I have tried to explain the position and you show nothing but disdain for it.

You have not once explained how it can be that you can say "A is exactly equivalent to B, and C is A, but C is not B".

Let us review the claims:
1. The Word of God is God. (John 1:1)
2. The Bible is the Word of God. (You.)
3. The Bible is not God. (We all agree on this.)

Now, these premises lead to a contradiction. One of them is Scripture which we both accept as authoritative. One of them is pretty obvious given that we're both Trinitarians.

The only premise left to toss out is the one saying "the Bible is the Word of God".

I will just bow out of this as it is fruitless and the only point of it being your self exaltation.

The point is to try to remove a stumbling-block set in front of the many innocents who come to these forums and are told, by people who carry Christian icons and claim deep insight into Scripture, that the Bible is "co-equal with God".

 

[vossler]

Sadly, you have proven my point. You are here to make accusations.

 

[Critias]

Sadly Vossler, in the same breathe of seebs saying only Jesus is the Word of God, he says Jesus is in error about the mustard seed. God doesn't make errors.

In another thread it is being said it is a good thing to mock all creationists and take arms up with atheists to ridicule them. That creationists do more harm to Christianity than anyone else could do. The only one, Gluady's, stating she doesn't support the mocking but agrees we are the most dangerous to Christianity.

Thanks again for the verse Vossler. I remember a time when someone posted verses and TEs got all upset, at least they are calm about the ones you posted.

 

[seebs]

Sadly, you have proven my point. You are here to make accusations.

No, I am not. I am here to discuss origins theology. The majority of my participation in this forum over time is exclusively focused on the origins aspect. Occasionally, non-origins theology has significant impact on the discussion.

I do note that you have very carefully avoided retracting claims that the Bible is, in your wourds, "co-equal with God". This certainly helps understand your position.

 

[seebs]

Sadly Vossler, in the same breathe of seebs saying only Jesus is the Word of God, he says Jesus is in error about the mustard seed. God doesn't make errors.

This is a non-sequitur.

However, you have rather missed the point. I also claim that the Pharisees were not actually limbless reptiles. I believe Jesus was speaking rhetorically much of the time. I do not believe this to be an error.

In another thread it is being said it is a good thing to mock all creationists and take arms up with atheists to ridicule them. That creationists do more harm to Christianity than anyone else could do. The only one, Gluady's, stating she doesn't support the mocking but agrees we are the most dangerous to Christianity.

I have to agree. For the most part, mockery is harmful, but I have seen more people lose their faith over creationism than over anything else in the years I've spent at CF. People who end up doing work in any field related to biology or geology are stuck; they either dismiss creationism, dismiss the faith entirely, or pick another field.

Thanks again for the verse Vossler. I remember a time when someone posted verses and TEs got all upset, at least they are calm about the ones you posted.

I still don't know where you guys get the idea that there's any persecution going on here. This is a discussion of theology. The question of whether or not the Bible is "co-equal with God" is central to a question of how important it is that we understand how to interpret it correctly.

Come to think of it, I've seen no comments from you indicating that you see anything wrong with that sentiment.

 

[Critias]

These words I say to you, are they part of who I am? Or do they have nothing to do with me?

Would it be wrong to say these are Critias' words? Or would you instantly call me an idolater, once again, because I have used the english word logos?

Theou Logo is what God has given us to know Him.

Seebs, it doesn't matter what I say. Even when I told you I don't see the Bible as God Himself, you called me an idolater anyways. So what does it really matter what I say to you. You are more insistent with being my accuser than my brother.

Did you know John taught that if people come and tell you things that are not inaccord to what John and the Apostles taught about God and Jesus that they are false teachers? Yet, when creationists follow what John and the Apostles taught,
you call us the greatest threat to Christianity and call them ignorant. Irony, isn't it.