Why is God needed in TE?

[juvenissun]

To suggest that God is not intimately involved with His creation -- that He does not sustain and uphold it at every moment -- IS deism, or at least, it reeks of deism. And as I pointed out to you earlier, juvie, it is an unbiblical view of God.
If you are going to seriously argue that evolution, being a natural process, works without God's involvement, then to be consistent, you must also advocate that ALL natural processes work without God's involvement. Are you sure you want to embrace such a view of an indifferent/detached God?

I like the verses you quoted before. But, I think that God "upholds" all the natural processes He created, does not mean He is acting on, or interacting with the processes all the time. We may think that without God, these processes will fail. But with God's power, they all works as they should. God does not have to manipulate them in any sense at any time. So, in a sense, if we admit that God's power is the foundation for all natural processes, then evolution can simply work on itself without further action from God. So, we simplify the statement as: it will work without God.

However, this simplification, which is frequently so stated, will have deadly consequence to people who do not acknowledge God at the first place. To them, the evolution is working perfectly "without God". And they take it as a critical evidence against God.

To TE, I still think there is something very wrong with this concept. I still need more time to spell it out clearly.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, the Bible tells us that God is continuously creating even to this day (Ps 104:29-30, 139:13), that He continually upholds all of creation (Col 1:17, Heb 1:3, Job 38-41, Ps 104), and that He is intimately and actively involved in natural processes (Amos 4:6ff, Mt 5:45) including those than involve randomness (1 Kg 22:17-38, Prov 16:33, Ac 1:21-26).

Yes, these are good verses to show God's action in our daily lives.

But, there is one major problem: God may only do this to human, but not to all animals in their evolution history.

 

[theFijian]

Yes, these are good verses to show God's action in our daily lives.

But, there is one major problem: God may only do this to human, but not to all animals in their evolution history.

I'm afraid your purely speculative statement of what God may or may not do cannot be taken as a major problem as you do seem to have an expressly deistic take on God's relationship with his creation. Could you give us your view on the immanence of God?

 

[Mallon]

I like the verses you quoted before. But, I think that God "upholds" all the natural processes He created, does not mean He is acting on, or interacting with the processes all the time. We may think that without God, these processes will fail. But with God's power, they all works as they should. God does not have to manipulate them in any sense at any time. So, in a sense, if we admit that God's power is the foundation for all natural processes, then evolution can simply work on itself without further action from God. So, we simplify the statement as: it will work without God.

Your logic is baffling, juvie. You go from saying, "I think that God 'upholds' all the natural processes He created" to saying, "we simplify the statement as: it will work without God."
You've completely contradicted yourself here. You've made no sense whatsoever.

However, this simplification, which is frequently so stated, will have deadly consequence to people who do not acknowledge God at the first place. To them, the evolution is working perfectly "without God". And they take it as a critical evidence against God.

And do you really think you are helping the Christian cause by saying that creation "will work without God", as you do above?

Yes, these are good verses to show God's action in our daily lives.

But, there is one major problem: God may only do this to human, but not to all animals in their evolution history

That's hearsay. Show me what you mean. Because Matthew 10 tells us that not even a sparrow will fall to the ground apart from the will of God, which leads me to believe that God is involved in all of creation, not simply in human affairs.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm afraid your purely speculative statement of what God may or may not do cannot be taken as a major problem as you do seem to have an expressly deistic take on God's relationship with his creation. Could you give us your view on the immanence of God?

Whatever the Bible says is critical to human, but is not to animals as they do not need salvation. So, God could use a thunder to wake me up for my benefit. But He probably will not use a lightening on purpose to trigger a critical mutation of a fish so it could start to walk on land.

 

[Mallon]

But He probably will not use a lightening on purpose to trigger a critical mutation of a fish so it could start to walk on land.

With all due respect, juvie, if you think God mutates animals by striking them with lightning, you probably shouldn't be criticizing evolutionary theory.

 

[gluadys]

Whatever the Bible says is critical to human, but is not to animals as they do not need salvation. So, God could use a thunder to wake me up for my benefit. But He probably will not use a lightening on purpose to trigger a critical mutation of a fish so it could start to walk on land.

Why would God not also use thunder to wake an animal for its benefit? (I am not speaking of salvation, but a more immediate benefit, like alerting the animal to a dangerous situation.) I am finding this assertion that God's benevolence is species-centric a tad arrogant. Scripture is full of references to God's provision for animals, especially wild animals. It would seem God cares for them.

 

[mark kennedy]

I would really like to see this unpacked and sustained. Is the Trinity a vague and nebulous definition of God? Because that is how I define God. Is Jesus a vague and nebulous definition of God? Because the God I acknowledge is "the fullness of the Godhead" and, "the reflection of God's glory and exact imprint of God's very being" found in Christ. Just how is this nebulous?

You may well believe that as do some other TEs but they have no regard for the historicity of Scripture and when it comes to conflicts between secular philosophy and Scripture they side with atheistic materialism. I have heard the Gospel only once from a TE on here in 5 years and never once seen one take a stand on the Gospel in opposition to secular skepticism. You have compromised your theology with the spirit of the age and there is nothing in these discussions that has ever shown me anything else. What you are doing is making Christianity attractive to atheists and agnostics.

I am glad you state it so clearly. Indeed there is no difference between theists and non-theists as to the natural history--including the evolutionary history--of the natural world. And we know that understanding of natural history is supported by the empirical evidence available to all. It is YE creationists who must reject God as the God of nature and of natural history. It is YE creationists who must deny the actual empirical reality of nature as God's creation and claim it is an illusion. They may as well be Hindus or Buddhists when it comes to affirming God as the creator of the material world.

Not when you consider the Bible to be a myth there isn't a difference. Now you want to make this about the natural world when it has nothing to do with either natural science or the natural world per se, it's about naturalistic a priori assumptions. What is at stake here is human history and when you simply marginalize the historicity of Scripture you are abandoning any intellectual defense of the Gospel. This has consequences, you can't follow Christ and be a friend of the world. We are called to believe the Gospel and if you find the secular scientific evidence satisfactory as natural history I have no problem with you. It is when the clear testimony of Scripture is trampled under foot and essential doctrine is firmly and zealously attacked that I start to question if you ever believed it at all.

I don't know about you, but when I affirm that God is the creator of heaven and earth I mean the heaven and earth that I know through my senses and my intellect, the earth that is accessible to all--believer and non-believer alike. How else could the created world be the witness to God's glory and majesty to the pagan world Paul claims it to be? I do not believe God is a philosophical abstraction and I do not believe God created a universe that is a philosophical abstraction. But that is all the YE creation can be.

What YE Creation is, is God's supernatural working in human history from the very beginning. By your rationale Paul is a pagan since he clearly believed Adam was the first man and the reason that the curse of sin and death came upon us all. Paul, Luke and Jesus all spoke of Adam in this way and Peter clearly believed in a world-wide flood. Now that does not mean that you cannot believe the Scriptures and still be persuaded by secular science, it's even a noble effort to try to reconcile the two. It's when you malign traditional Christian theism in a compromise with secular philosophy that I am obliged to take my stand on the Gospel.

If natural history is history, and God is a God of history, then there had better be no conflict between theism and history. You cannot acclaim God as sovereign over human history and dismiss God as author of natural history.

Pagan religions have embraced mythologies as history since ancient times. Evolution as natural history is nothing more then a modern version. Greater then the gods in pagan mythology were the elementals which is a very old philosophy we now call atheistic materialism.

YEcreationism substitutes mysticism for natural history, denies natural history its historic reality and never confronts the question of how the author of a fabulous natural history can be the real sovereign of real human history.

YEC affirms the historicity of Scripture and the supernatural element of Scripture both academically and as a matter of faith. The principle of New Testament theism is in now way shape or form mystical, it is the revelation of the wonderful works of God from the beginning to the end of human history and beyond. I have long considered Darwinism to be a modern mystery religion and have seen nothing in the sciences and certainly not in the arguments of TEs to indicate otherwise.

Most of the way here we speak as one, but it seems to me that you are inserting the notion that the Christian relationship with God depends on a relationship with Adam. Surely when you say that we cannot have a relationship with an abstraction you mean that God is not an abstraction, the Holy Spirit is not an abstraction, Jesus Christ is not an abstraction.

The abstractions of Hegel and Tillich are gross heresy, Christianity is a book of history and we are a people of that history. Paul directly ties the sin of Adam to the need for justification by faith in Romans. Evolution in Christian theism is nothing but a slow poison unless you can finally find a place where you take a stand on the Gospel in opposition to the atheistic materialism that so dominates Darwinism.

If they were, it wouldn't matter if Adam was not an abstraction. We could still have no relationship with such an abstract deity. But since God is not abstract, the possibility of relationship with God exists, irrespective of whether "ha-adam" refers to a historic individual or the human race under its federal head or as a personification of the human race. All of these allow for a non-abstract relation to Adam. But none of these would be significant if we had only an abstraction to relate to as our god.

I have dismissed this rationalization repeatedly on doctrinal grounds as nonchristian. It matters very much whether you consider Adam the first man or just a mythical abstraction. Clearly Paul never intended his exposition of the Gospel in his letter to the Romans to be a personification.

It is the non-abstract nature of God that is significant in the Christian relationship.

It's is the historicity of Scripture that is essential to the Gospel, straight up and flat out. Now how far Darwinism has led you astray is beyond my depth but one thing is sure, you attack YEC zealously and without restraint. That is why I have concluded that TE is little more then a covert attack on traditional Christian theism. Theistic Evolution is a nonchristian philosophy even when it is argued by Christians.

My interest has never been trilobites, whales or random mutations. My central focus has been human history and the Scriptures speak expressly on this topic. I have read the scientific literature on the subject and found that every chimpanzee ancestor from Africa is automatically labeled on of our ancestors. It was not always that way, in fact Taung was originally considered a chimpanzee until the Piltdown hoax was no longer tenable. Evolution as history, particularly with regards to human history is either a fraud or the Bible is. Choose wisely which side you take your stand on because the middle ground has been turned into a no man's land by your cohorts.

 

[theFijian]

Whatever the Bible says is critical to human, but is not to animals as they do not need salvation. So, God could use a thunder to wake me up for my benefit. But He probably will not use a lightening on purpose to trigger a critical mutation of a fish so it could start to walk on land.

The quote given from Matthew 10 adequately shows that your position is false, scripture clearly tells us that God cares for animals as well as humans. What would be funny if it wasn't so sad is that there are deists like yourself among the Creationists here but a TE could be as orthodox as they come but that wont save them from all manner of accusations being levelled against them.

 

[shernren]

The quote given from Matthew 10 adequately shows that your position is false, scripture clearly tells us that God cares for animals as well as humans. What would be funny if it wasn't so sad is that there are deists like yourself among the Creationists here but a TE could be as orthodox as they come but that wont save them from all manner of accusations being levelled against them.

Aye theFijian, I remember when ClearSky was doing his open theist thing around here and not a single creationist was willing to take him to task for it. Some defenders of orthodoxy they are.

EDIT: Saw that there was a post from vossler, as well as some polite suggestions by busterdog for ClearSky to reword herself. 'Twas interesting how busterdog so kindly restrained himself, clearly because he was talking to a fellow creationist. Which is more doctrinally important for orthodoxy - the mechanical details of how God populated the earth or the theological capstone that God does not change?

 

[shernren]

I have heard the Gospel only once from a TE on here in 5 years and never once seen one take a stand on the Gospel in opposition to secular skepticism. You have compromised your theology with the spirit of the age and there is nothing in these discussions that has ever shown me anything else.

Remember this particular exchange from about three months back?

The point of Christianity isn't to "get into Heaven." It's really sad that that's what the popular idea of it has become.

The point of Christianity is reconciliation with God, the restoration of fallen humanity to its true purpose (worship of God and service to one another), and ultimately the physical resurrection of the dead.

... by what criteria does one garner entrance?

By the grace of God.

Not precisely. This is where one gets into deep Pauline theology, and it is not simple. Salvation is not dependent on one's works in the sense that there is some kind of formula: "Be kind to orphans, tithe, don't smoke or commit adultery, etc. etc. etc.... and you will be saved." Salvation is not a reward for good behaviour. But at the same time, salvation is inseparable from good behaviour. "Faith without works is dead." as James said. "Show me your faith without works: I will show you my faith by my works."

Anyone can rhyme off a list of things it is good to do. But the spirit in which they are done is important. Jesus and Paul both opposed the legalistic attitude of the Pharisees for two reasons: they did what was good (works of the law) not for the good of doing them, but as means to another end (salvation). And they became both proud of themselves and judgmental of "sinners" because they kept the law so much more perfectly than others. At least in letter. Works are connected to salvation not as a means of earning salvation, but because of the difference in spirit in which they are performed. Good works are done for their own sake, because they are good, and flow from a natural love of goodness such as is found in God's own nature. They express the inner nature of the person who does the good works, just as God's good works express God's nature. And this includes kindness to others out of genuine love and compassion for the other. Not like the Pharisee blowing his trumpet as he gives alms to a beggar that he doesn't even see as a person--only as a means to his own perfection.

This transformation of the inner nature from the egotism exemplified by the Pharisees, to one from which love and goodness flow as a matter of course is the essence of salvation. That person has already the kingdom of heaven within them. And that is what it means to be saved.

And so they are saved: not by their works, but by the fact they want salvation.

One of the most difficult things about the gospel, is, strangely, the Christian concept that one does not have to do anything to become saved. As Shernren noted in another post, the most common reaction he gets when counselling people is that it can't possibly be so easy. Like Naaman, we expect to be set a hard task in order to be healed, and become insulted when we are denied the opportunity to "prove ourselves".

What did the lost sheep do to be saved by the shepherd, other than get lost in the first place?

When the prodigal did decide to return home, he expected to pay a price for his folly and he was willing to do so. "I will say to my father, 'Let me have the place of a hired servant.'" But he never got the chance to make the offer.

So, is it "doing something" to accept that all that needs to be done has been done for you? In that case, I suppose you have to "do something". It certainly seems to be a very hard thing for most people to do. We act like people who have been told the concert is free, yet insist on buying a ticket. And then we prize our ticket more than the concert. Because, after all, we bought the ticket.

For five straight pages WiccanChild was asking questions on this thread about the gospel by free grace. How many creationists showed up? Zero. The moral high ground does not suit you mark.

 

[crawfish]

The most fun part about being a TE is how everybody wants to tell you what you really believe.

 

[shernren]

Yeah, it's amazing. Kinda like one of those sci-fi wardrobes from the Jetsons that puts on your clothes for you. Why bother thinking about what you believe when it's patently obvious that you're secretly an agent of Satan blinded by science seeking to pull the world down into atheism?

 

[juvenissun]

Why would God not also use thunder to wake an animal for its benefit? (I am not speaking of salvation, but a more immediate benefit, like alerting the animal to a dangerous situation.) I am finding this assertion that God's benevolence is species-centric a tad arrogant. Scripture is full of references to God's provision for animals, especially wild animals. It would seem God cares for them.

It is amazing to see what people would say when get pushed by their own logic. So you, Mallon and theFijian said that God is supporting (treating) animal lives the same way as He supports ours (through natural processes). And basically, that is the essence of TE belief regards to evolution. Is it correct?

To make it more clear. You suggested that God's sustainment to any and all animals before human evolved is the same as He is doing today. And the appearance of human is just adding another species onto the list of God's care.

If so, let me ask another seeming redundant question: Is God treating a lion and a man the same way overall? If not, in what sense is it different?

 

[juvenissun]

The most fun part about being a TE is how everybody wants to tell you what you really believe.

If I were you, I will not laugh at all. This situation means a lot of your Christian fellows DO NOT UNDERSTAND what your faith is about.

 

[crawfish]

If I were you, I will not laugh at all. This situation means a lot of your Christian fellows DO NOT UNDERSTAND what your faith is about.

Laughing is the way I deal with it. Otherwise, I would just get mad. Which does happen now and then.

 

[shernren]

If I were you, I will not laugh at all. This situation means a lot of your Christian fellows DO NOT UNDERSTAND what your faith is about.

Indeed.

 

[gluadys]

To make it more clear. You suggested that God's sustainment to any and all animals before human evolved is the same as He is doing today. And the appearance of human is just adding another species onto the list of God's care.

If so, let me ask another seeming redundant question: Is God treating a lion and a man the same way overall? If not, in what sense is it different?

The main difference is that due to sin, God's concern for humankind includes provision for redemption from sin, something the lion does not need.

 

[Assyrian]

It is amazing to see what people would say when get pushed by their own logic. So you, Mallon and theFijian said that God is supporting (treating) animal lives the same way as He supports ours (through natural processes). And basically, that is the essence of TE belief regards to evolution. Is it correct?

To make it more clear. You suggested that God's sustainment to any and all animals before human evolved is the same as He is doing today. And the appearance of human is just adding another species onto the list of God's care.

If so, let me ask another seeming redundant question: Is God treating a lion and a man the same way overall? If not, in what sense is it different?

I think you may be confusing God's methods of operation with his attitude and purpose. Jesus ate dinner with Mary and his family, he ate with tax collectors and sinners, he went to dinner with Pharisees, was breaking bread with his disciples simply another group on his social diary?

Luke 12:24 Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds!

God loves us more than ravens and sparrows. He made us in his image and called us into relationship with him, and when we sinned, sent his only Son to redeem us. So yes we are another species God formed, cares for and feeds. But we are not just another species.