What recent riddle has been solved to make evolution look more realistic? I would say in general it has been the other way around. Could you give one or two examples?
ty·pol·o·gy....noun 1. the doctrine or study of types or prefigurative symbols, especially in scriptural literature. 2. a systematic classification or study of types. 3. symbolism.
If Adam was not historical, then how could you have a typology of a one man who brought sin into the world? Wouldn't your typology simply be untrue... a lie... a falsehood? Did a different one man bring sin into the world? what man? how would we know? Typology only works if there is truth in it. If no lambs were ever sacrificed, could they still be a typology of Christ? If Moses never led the people out of Egypt, could he still be a type of Christ? If David was never king, how could he be a type of Christ (never mind an ancestor of Christ). If Abraham never existed, then how could there be an Israel?
If Adam and Eve never existed, then they never sinned. Then God never said to them anything at all. Then they never disobeyed God. How do we know that anyone ever disobeyed God? Cain then was not the son of Adam, and no promise was ever made to Eve and Adam about crushing the serpent's head. No prophecy of Christ at that time.
The more I think about this, the more I realize how susceptible we become to the simple phrase: "did God really say?"
The tastiness of the forbidden fruit was science/nature. To say that this tastiness revealed God's word in the fruit is what Satan wants us to believe.
Roger, thanks for your comments. It is a bit difficult to lump all other religions or faith beliefs together when comparing to Scripture. There are various points on which each falls short.
Christians understand scripture to be inspired by God and to be speaking the truth. Yes there are sometimes different emphases, but differences are discussed in the framework of trusting scripture. Whenever human ideas are placed on an equal plane with scripture, is when we have problems with heresy, lack of understanding, etc. This was shown even in scripture itself, and also led to a need for the reformation. But coming back to scripture allows for reconciliation, renewal, and unity.
Other faiths that believe in more than one god, or that make material things into gods, such as pieces of wood or stone or money or nature, are by and large irrational from the beginning. However, scripture also indicates the ancient greeks worshipped the "unknown" god, which the apostle Paul suggested was the true God, whom they did not yet know. The human desire to worship is a reflection of the way we were created; so how do we find our way to the true God? or, how do we let God reveal Himself to us?
A couple of belief systems built on christianity or historic scriptures but have added stuff, include mormons, bahai, and islam. They basically orginate in somewhat of the same way, but are not the same. How to compare these? Mormons have added an entirely new revelation which was not even hinted at in scripture. Golden plates, ironically only discovered by europeans rather than by aboriginals, and has anyone even seen pictures of these plates? It's far fetched, but the main thing is learning when the book of Mormon contradicts scripture. Furthermore, scripture is open, revealed, and available to all. The things in scripture are by and large verifiable by history, ie. rulers of Israel, roman conquest, syrian and babylonian rules, egypt, persecution of the church. Scripture is written by numerous writers over a thousand years, yet makes a relatively consistent whole, with a direction, a beginning and end both historical and spiritual. The books of the bible tend to refer to each other, and in that sense, validating each other. The new testament writers had all met Jesus, and had met each other. Of course, Mormons will claim their book is consistent with history, and in some peripherals it could be... but by and large it is a great stretch. ( I have only read about a third of it.)
Islam also claims the prophets of christianity/judaism. They even claim Christ as a prophet. But scripture is clear, that Christ claimed to be much more than a prophet. So if Christ is a prophet, somethings he said were false, according to Islam. Which means there is an inconsistency and incoherency. Of course, they say we don't have the true sayings of Jesus... which they would have to say, but as we find older manuscripts we are amazed at how similar they are to the newer ones. So Islam tries to worship the true god, but because of their reliance on one man's words, they end up contradicting much of scripture. This appears to put Islam into the category of false prophets which scripture warns us about. Islam in some ways tries to do good things, ie. moral purity and daily prayer. But it destroys the effect by forgetting that we must be born again in repentance, and that our thoughts condemn us, for which we need the sacrifice of Christ to redeem us. We cannot redeem ourselves by our devotion nor by good works, we can only praise God with them. And their methods of punishment often make them more impure than the ones they punish. The immorality of the inquisition in Spain lives on in Islam today, and seems to be promoted by the Koran. The inquisition at least was inconsistent with scripture, and so was an unchristian practice done by those who called themselves christian, thus requiring a reformation.
Bahai also claims another prophet. But faiths built on prophets will fail as the prophets fail. Jesus said that even the jews who claimed Abraham as their father, and Moses as their prophet, would miss out on God, if they did not realize that only God had the ultimate claim on them. Mormonism depends on Joseph Smith, and Islam depends on "Mohammed". Without them, their system fails. Christianity depends only on Christ, as revealed by all the writers of the old and new testament. Additional writers and prophets such as Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Huss, John Calvin, John Tyndale, Abraham Kuyper, Charles Wesley, Billy Graham, C.S. Lewis and many others, are only revealing scripture, not re-writing it, nor adding to it (or they shouldn't be, anyway), nor contradicting it. If these other men contradict scripture, then scripture becomes the final authority, even though these may be sincere christian men.
In the end, just as believing in a piece of wood, or in nature, or in your self-sufficiency will let you down in the end, so believing in a false god will let you down also, either in this life, or in the life to come. It is faith, not religion, that brings you close to God. But religious life practices and beliefs can reveal truth or falsehood; thus when mormonism advocated more than one wife in direct opposition to the epistles of timothy and titus, which said elders and deacons should be husband of one wife, they revealed a contradiction with scripture. Most mormons have changed this now, but they had based this belief apparently on the book of Mormon, and so the book of Mormon has been somewhat discredited I would think. I think in many ways, mormons are admirable people, but they follow a false book.
Islam is more problematic, because they follow a false prophet. It would be like us following King Henry VIII as a prophet, or following John Calvin or Martin Luther or the Pope as a sinless individual. Even King David of the bible was criticized by his generals and punished by God for his sins. Certainly, has Mohammed not revealed his own sins, while being unrepentant? Should the words of such a man be considered inspired by God, and should he be followed as demi-god?
Sometimes there is no easy way to decide. But pray to God that he will reveal to your heart who He is, and what He has done for us.
Yes, we have some things in common, ie., scriptural authority, God creating the universe. However, the extent of scriptural authority, the way we understand scripture, and the way God created the universe and people is important also. It is interesting that you as a non-scientist, and me as one who has a B.A. in philosophy and English, as well as a B.Sc. in Agricultural science, should have somewhat opposing perspectives on the validity of evolutionary science, as well as on how to understand literature (the Bible).
Is it important to some degree to have a fall-back position that if evolution were incontrovertibly true in every aspect (mud to man, goo-to-you, microbes to microbiologist) then how would scripture be still relevant. Is that what you are proposing? An insurance policy?
Back to your comments. Yes you are convinced of evolutionary theory in its totality, in spite of your stated lack of expertise; and I am convinced there is a lack of evidence for macro evolution, even though possibly the actual material of the universe might possibly be older than 10,000 yrs. Although, I think our minds cannot totally wrap around the possibility of time change, accelerated or decelerating expansion of the universe, etc. Cases of radio carbon dating not able to deal with recent volcano formation accurately remains unexplained. Cases of C14 material imbedded in much older(supposed) rock, remains unexplained. Macro evolution as far as I can tell is based on speculation, on the basis of faith in the theory, on only one interpretation, and not on actual fossil evidence. Documented fraud and error has been perpetrated by the evolutionary theory both in scientific papers and in classroom textbooks, particularly for the more well known assumptions of evolutionary theory, and particularly when it comes to theorizing on descent or evolution of humans.
But, you remain convinced that evolutionary theory is inviolable, so lets consider the typology problem. You suggest that even if Adam did not exist, people still sinned against God. However, you have not provided a mechanism for their sin. Why have they sinned? Why are they disobedient? Evolution theory suggests that there is no moral or ethical element in man’s development. Evolution is a process of death, competition, destruction, elimination of the less able, of survival and selection of species and individuals. Those are the morals of evolution. Why would God counter his own creation process through his commands to people. Or, why would God use a creation process so different from His own stated ideals for holiness, purity, kindness? Even Cain’s murder of Abel would merely be a natural evolutionary act.
If Eden is merely part of the typology, how does it relate? How could Eden then be anything other than the competitive, destructive, death dealing evolutionary process? What is the relevance in the typology of the fall into sin creating death? Doesn’t that make the typology entirely absurd? As a mere typology without substance, it would be seen to be absurd in the context of the evolutionary theory. The question would be asked: repent from what? From my evolutionary instincts and process?
The difference between Adam, and Christian in “Pilgrim’s Progress” is that “Christian” is a reflection of the redeemed man (not Everyman), not the presumed ancestor or progenitor of everyman’s sinful nature. Furthermore, if Adam did not exist, and if our sinful nature is merely our evolutionary process in action, then the validity of Pilgrim’s Progress will also be questioned. The significance of the creation story perhaps lies as much in whether God really did create everything good or not, or what God’s definition of “good” really is. Or in fact, whether God really spoke to man at all, or whether man created God rather than God creating man.
I find your identification of “new” and “old” somewhat limited, or perhaps lacking in depth. We often say “new” in generic comprehensive terms without identifying what is old and what is new. Ecclesiastes says there is nothing new under the sun. Yet it seems new to us. Hebrews 8-10 talks about the old and new covenenant but concentrates specifically on temple, worship, and sacrifices in particular. But it maintains that in understanding this new covenant, he who continues to sin places himself outside of this new covenant, which sounds suspiciously like the old covenant, doesn’t it. In other words, the old and the new covenant are different, yet inseparable.
So the Christians during the reformation brought new insights which were actually a return to old insights and precepts. Having just read the first nine chapters or books of Augustine’s confessions, it became obvious to all of us in this study group, that Augustine’s experiences of 300 AD were very similar to our own in 2014. New information does lead to new insights, true, but we should be very cautious about generalizations which are often untrue in specific cases.
On the science side, I would suggest that you not idolize the scientific community. They are human beings like everyone else, like mechanics, doctors, engineers. They do a lot of good stuff, but they make mistakes. Doctors bleeding people in order to cure illness. Lacking an understanding of bacteria, viruses. Slowly finding ways to treat AIDS but not cure it. Not yet anyway.
Scientists can work with things they can experiment with. But going back in time? Not so simple. Lots of assumptions. They may well find they were wrong on several significant points. I am finding too many problems with their assumptions about layering of sediment, placement of fossils, age of volcanic rocks, undocumented leaps of evolutionary progress.
I am only 60 years old, so I have not yet seen everything. One thing I have seen is that there are more scientific problems with evolution today than there were in the past. Another thing I have also seen is that for many, evolution is a religion or faith, held to most strongly by those who have the least information on it. So that makes me doubly cautious, something like Augustine’s eventual suspicion of the Manichees who lacked knowledge of the basics.
God will lead and teach us, but not all will be willing to accept His teaching until forced to at the last day. Evolution is the primary present day tool to lead us philosophically and morally away from God. On its own, it justifies our unlimited pursuit of money, superiority, material possessions, power, aggressive wars, lack of care for the poor. It provides a rationale for abortion and euthanasia. It supports the idea of a god as a blind watchmaker, if he exists. If evolution can convince us to deny that God created everything good, and that Adam and Eve (man) were not originally responsible for sin, then Satan will be happy when people begin to think that really god is to blame for sin, not us, and that it is just and right that Jesus as god died for his own sin, and is absurd that he could pay for ours.
I am not quite so pessimistic as I sometimes sound, so I trust God will use all of this for his honor and glory. But we must not lose sight of the antithesis, of the battleground for the souls of men. People of the church have too blithely assumed that Satan is no longer active, and that our sinful nature is barely relevant. This sinful nature inclines human beings to look for an origin and solution outside of God. This is the present day struggle, which is not a new struggle. Jesus warned about all those who came to God in the last day saying: “Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophecy in your name, didn’t we cast out demons, didn’t we heal the sick” and God says to them, get away from me, you workers of lawlessness.” “Only the one who does the will of the Father in heaven will enter”. This warning is always in my mind.
I can see how your perspective on evolution has influenced your theology and philosophy of life, Edwin. Evolution is a religion of progress. Progress defined as ever improving physically and materially and socially. You have added in a mystical spiritual element to this "progress". You have also redefined the work of the gospel and the church as bringing about a civilization, rather than bringing about a relationship to God. A kind of heaven on earth.
This highlights a distinction between two perspectives. One perspective is that if we do all the right things, follow the virtues, make the right laws, and work for social change on this earth, that society will become better. That this is the renewal of the earth that we are looking for. The other perspective is that evangelism changes the hearts of men and that when their hearts are changed, they will act in accordance with the will of God, and it will reflect in their influence on society. The first emphasizes the kingdom on earth. The second realizes that God's kingdom will only be complete in heaven.
Your perpective on the human race slowly learning to live as images of God.... where do you get that from? what evidence do you have for that? How do you measure the progress? Do you base that on World War II being more God-imaging than world war I? Do you compare ISIS to the Babylonians or the ancient Israel, and say they are more civilized? What is your criteria?
You say that not just the church but the entire human race creates a civilization that truth, love and justice and goodness characterizes everything we do collectively. Or should. But on what basis? Where is the standard for this? What makes this better than the standards of the Russian mob, or ISIS, or Hitler, or Pol Pot or Stalin?
Is your concept of evolution entirely different than the common view, or is it the same, which includes random change(mutations), survival of the fittest, adaptation and selection, and extinctions of the less adaptable?
Interesting side note to this discussion, is that Michael DuMez has just written an excellent article called "Jurassic Ark", in the the on-line Banner.
I'm sorry, Edwin, but to me it seems like you are only listening to about half or less of what is being discussed. I asked for examples of what science has discovered that indicates this "development" that you keep mentioning, but have not yet seen anyone provide examples. To what data are you referring? Part of what I have been mentioning is that the way data is interpreted by evolutionists may not be correct, so if it is not correct in interpretation, then even though it is part of God's revelation in nature, we cannot with certainty understand development the way that evolutionists understand development. Furthermore, there is an element of social regression in evolutionary faith, as I illustrated in my last post above.
Who is honest about the data of modern science? If we see DNA degradation in nature, if we see the mutation rates increasing cumulatively to the point that in a certain number of centuries it will no longer be possible for human beings to survive under the deleterious mutations, due to all the genetic defects, then would you still see progress or development? There is no observable evidence that one species or kind has evolved into another, no matter how many speculations have abounded. So what evidence do we have for this evolutionary development?
Scripture indicates that when God created things, it was good. It was later, through man's disobedience that things were not so good anymore. This to me seems somewhat anti-evolutionary. So whether you treat Genesis as symbolic or not, this is the message. And this is also what we see in creation itself, even though man works more and more to design and develop things which cope with or counteract the degradation we see in nature itself. God does institute a process of change in our relationship to him, yes. But this is the exact opposite of evolution. It is a dramatic, "catastrophic" event of being born again like the apostle Paul, or the repentance of the apostle Peter, or the struggle of the Reformation. It is the acknowledgement of God in the constitutions of the new nations of USA and Canada. But it is subject again to the obedience or disobedience of the people of earth. And it is counter to the philosophy of evolution.
At the time of Noah, people were so disobedient that God sent a flood to destroy them. You would think after that, that no one would disobey God, that all would fervently worship and be grateful. But not long after, man worshipped himself again, and many worshipped other Gods. Even though Christianity has spread and grown in the world today, how many north americans have abandoned faith and obedience? How does it compare to how non-christians have spread and grown in the world today? Is Islam part of the "development" of which you speak? How do you reference these things in your ideology of "development"?
When you say there can hardly be any valid objection to recognizing... you are begging the question. In fact, there are many valid objections, both to the interpretation of scientific data, and to the philosophical underpinnings for evolution and/or "development". If you say there cannot be objections, when there are objections, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the objections are not valid, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the biological and evolutionary development. It does not help anyone simply to restate your position.
I had thought we were done, Edwin. And we are done. Unless we can leave the unproven generalities and get to specifics, it is no use pursuing an esoteric argument on vague philosophical generalities.
Good article. But it doesn't go far enough. Sexual activity outside of marriage is fornication, and therefore immoral for christians. So even if it was consensual and of a common age, it counters the leadership principles and ideals of all involved members of the youthgroup. Yes involvement of minors with majors is inappropriate. But casual sex is inappropriate regardless outside of marriage.
Roger, you are very close to understanding the truth. The central teaching of Jesus as propitiation you have stated well, but then seem to say that Jesus was just a good teacher. When I mention God, or Jesus, since they are the same, it is only for aspect or emphasis, not for distinction. As for works, its not that they count for nothing at all. They have their rewards as Jesus often said. But they do count for nothing in terms of eliminating guilt. The thief on the cross was saved in spite of not having an opportunity to do any works after his faith, and after his repentance. His guilt was not removed by his own doing, but only by God's grace, by the grace of Jesus Christ. If works were required, he could not have been saved.
Edwin, you suggest that God brought the world into its present physical condition thru evolutionary processes. This appears to be a faith statement on your part. Since you don't say that your idea of evolution is different than the general theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin, Dawkins, et.al., then it is necessary that you have an explanation for how and why God is in control of this process. Evolution was promoted both before and after Darwin as an explanation that could eliminate God in the equation; it was not promoted as a way of honoring God. So you would need to explain how it honors God, and how it is indicated by scripture, and how biology/geology/paleontology proves it, and how this demonstrates God. What evidence do you have for an endpoint? How do you know that human beings are the endpoint... according to the theory, they could just as well be an intermediate inferior step towards the progression of something better. In a way, this is what Hitler proposed in terms of racial superiority, that one race could be superior to another. Why was he wrong?
So, if God is playing a role... then what role is God playing? Is your idea of this role consistent with who God is, how he has revealed himself in scripture? When we think of the natural laws of physics, mathematics, such as gravity and consistency of numbers and objects, we see God as a God of order, of beauty, symmetry. Evolutionary theory would see God as a God of disorder, randomness, accidents, death and destruction and survival. If this is how God created, then what does the world need to be renewed from? What does it need to be saved from?
I note that you did not address the fact that scientific evidence/knowledge is indicating less and less support for evolution over time, as I noted in the example of human and chimp genome dissimilarities. What would it take for you to lose your faith in evolution?
Posted in: My Banner Article
What recent riddle has been solved to make evolution look more realistic? I would say in general it has been the other way around. Could you give one or two examples?
Posted in: My Banner Article
ty·pol·o·gy....noun 1. the doctrine or study of types or prefigurative symbols, especially in scriptural literature.
2. a systematic classification or study of types.
3. symbolism.
If Adam was not historical, then how could you have a typology of a one man who brought sin into the world? Wouldn't your typology simply be untrue... a lie... a falsehood? Did a different one man bring sin into the world? what man? how would we know? Typology only works if there is truth in it. If no lambs were ever sacrificed, could they still be a typology of Christ? If Moses never led the people out of Egypt, could he still be a type of Christ? If David was never king, how could he be a type of Christ (never mind an ancestor of Christ). If Abraham never existed, then how could there be an Israel?
If Adam and Eve never existed, then they never sinned. Then God never said to them anything at all. Then they never disobeyed God. How do we know that anyone ever disobeyed God? Cain then was not the son of Adam, and no promise was ever made to Eve and Adam about crushing the serpent's head. No prophecy of Christ at that time.
The more I think about this, the more I realize how susceptible we become to the simple phrase: "did God really say?"
The tastiness of the forbidden fruit was science/nature. To say that this tastiness revealed God's word in the fruit is what Satan wants us to believe.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Roger, thanks for your comments. It is a bit difficult to lump all other religions or faith beliefs together when comparing to Scripture. There are various points on which each falls short.
Christians understand scripture to be inspired by God and to be speaking the truth. Yes there are sometimes different emphases, but differences are discussed in the framework of trusting scripture. Whenever human ideas are placed on an equal plane with scripture, is when we have problems with heresy, lack of understanding, etc. This was shown even in scripture itself, and also led to a need for the reformation. But coming back to scripture allows for reconciliation, renewal, and unity.
Other faiths that believe in more than one god, or that make material things into gods, such as pieces of wood or stone or money or nature, are by and large irrational from the beginning. However, scripture also indicates the ancient greeks worshipped the "unknown" god, which the apostle Paul suggested was the true God, whom they did not yet know. The human desire to worship is a reflection of the way we were created; so how do we find our way to the true God? or, how do we let God reveal Himself to us?
A couple of belief systems built on christianity or historic scriptures but have added stuff, include mormons, bahai, and islam. They basically orginate in somewhat of the same way, but are not the same. How to compare these? Mormons have added an entirely new revelation which was not even hinted at in scripture. Golden plates, ironically only discovered by europeans rather than by aboriginals, and has anyone even seen pictures of these plates? It's far fetched, but the main thing is learning when the book of Mormon contradicts scripture. Furthermore, scripture is open, revealed, and available to all. The things in scripture are by and large verifiable by history, ie. rulers of Israel, roman conquest, syrian and babylonian rules, egypt, persecution of the church. Scripture is written by numerous writers over a thousand years, yet makes a relatively consistent whole, with a direction, a beginning and end both historical and spiritual. The books of the bible tend to refer to each other, and in that sense, validating each other. The new testament writers had all met Jesus, and had met each other. Of course, Mormons will claim their book is consistent with history, and in some peripherals it could be... but by and large it is a great stretch. ( I have only read about a third of it.)
Islam also claims the prophets of christianity/judaism. They even claim Christ as a prophet. But scripture is clear, that Christ claimed to be much more than a prophet. So if Christ is a prophet, somethings he said were false, according to Islam. Which means there is an inconsistency and incoherency. Of course, they say we don't have the true sayings of Jesus... which they would have to say, but as we find older manuscripts we are amazed at how similar they are to the newer ones. So Islam tries to worship the true god, but because of their reliance on one man's words, they end up contradicting much of scripture. This appears to put Islam into the category of false prophets which scripture warns us about. Islam in some ways tries to do good things, ie. moral purity and daily prayer. But it destroys the effect by forgetting that we must be born again in repentance, and that our thoughts condemn us, for which we need the sacrifice of Christ to redeem us. We cannot redeem ourselves by our devotion nor by good works, we can only praise God with them. And their methods of punishment often make them more impure than the ones they punish. The immorality of the inquisition in Spain lives on in Islam today, and seems to be promoted by the Koran. The inquisition at least was inconsistent with scripture, and so was an unchristian practice done by those who called themselves christian, thus requiring a reformation.
Bahai also claims another prophet. But faiths built on prophets will fail as the prophets fail. Jesus said that even the jews who claimed Abraham as their father, and Moses as their prophet, would miss out on God, if they did not realize that only God had the ultimate claim on them. Mormonism depends on Joseph Smith, and Islam depends on "Mohammed". Without them, their system fails. Christianity depends only on Christ, as revealed by all the writers of the old and new testament. Additional writers and prophets such as Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Huss, John Calvin, John Tyndale, Abraham Kuyper, Charles Wesley, Billy Graham, C.S. Lewis and many others, are only revealing scripture, not re-writing it, nor adding to it (or they shouldn't be, anyway), nor contradicting it. If these other men contradict scripture, then scripture becomes the final authority, even though these may be sincere christian men.
In the end, just as believing in a piece of wood, or in nature, or in your self-sufficiency will let you down in the end, so believing in a false god will let you down also, either in this life, or in the life to come. It is faith, not religion, that brings you close to God. But religious life practices and beliefs can reveal truth or falsehood; thus when mormonism advocated more than one wife in direct opposition to the epistles of timothy and titus, which said elders and deacons should be husband of one wife, they revealed a contradiction with scripture. Most mormons have changed this now, but they had based this belief apparently on the book of Mormon, and so the book of Mormon has been somewhat discredited I would think. I think in many ways, mormons are admirable people, but they follow a false book.
Islam is more problematic, because they follow a false prophet. It would be like us following King Henry VIII as a prophet, or following John Calvin or Martin Luther or the Pope as a sinless individual. Even King David of the bible was criticized by his generals and punished by God for his sins. Certainly, has Mohammed not revealed his own sins, while being unrepentant? Should the words of such a man be considered inspired by God, and should he be followed as demi-god?
Sometimes there is no easy way to decide. But pray to God that he will reveal to your heart who He is, and what He has done for us.
Posted in: My Banner Article
So, no examples then? No evidence that you know of?
Posted in: My Banner Article
Edwin, thanks for your response.
Yes, we have some things in common, ie., scriptural authority, God creating the universe. However, the extent of scriptural authority, the way we understand scripture, and the way God created the universe and people is important also. It is interesting that you as a non-scientist, and me as one who has a B.A. in philosophy and English, as well as a B.Sc. in Agricultural science, should have somewhat opposing perspectives on the validity of evolutionary science, as well as on how to understand literature (the Bible).
Is it important to some degree to have a fall-back position that if evolution were incontrovertibly true in every aspect (mud to man, goo-to-you, microbes to microbiologist) then how would scripture be still relevant. Is that what you are proposing? An insurance policy?
Back to your comments. Yes you are convinced of evolutionary theory in its totality, in spite of your stated lack of expertise; and I am convinced there is a lack of evidence for macro evolution, even though possibly the actual material of the universe might possibly be older than 10,000 yrs. Although, I think our minds cannot totally wrap around the possibility of time change, accelerated or decelerating expansion of the universe, etc. Cases of radio carbon dating not able to deal with recent volcano formation accurately remains unexplained. Cases of C14 material imbedded in much older(supposed) rock, remains unexplained. Macro evolution as far as I can tell is based on speculation, on the basis of faith in the theory, on only one interpretation, and not on actual fossil evidence. Documented fraud and error has been perpetrated by the evolutionary theory both in scientific papers and in classroom textbooks, particularly for the more well known assumptions of evolutionary theory, and particularly when it comes to theorizing on descent or evolution of humans.
But, you remain convinced that evolutionary theory is inviolable, so lets consider the typology problem. You suggest that even if Adam did not exist, people still sinned against God. However, you have not provided a mechanism for their sin. Why have they sinned? Why are they disobedient? Evolution theory suggests that there is no moral or ethical element in man’s development. Evolution is a process of death, competition, destruction, elimination of the less able, of survival and selection of species and individuals. Those are the morals of evolution. Why would God counter his own creation process through his commands to people. Or, why would God use a creation process so different from His own stated ideals for holiness, purity, kindness? Even Cain’s murder of Abel would merely be a natural evolutionary act.
If Eden is merely part of the typology, how does it relate? How could Eden then be anything other than the competitive, destructive, death dealing evolutionary process? What is the relevance in the typology of the fall into sin creating death? Doesn’t that make the typology entirely absurd? As a mere typology without substance, it would be seen to be absurd in the context of the evolutionary theory. The question would be asked: repent from what? From my evolutionary instincts and process?
The difference between Adam, and Christian in “Pilgrim’s Progress” is that “Christian” is a reflection of the redeemed man (not Everyman), not the presumed ancestor or progenitor of everyman’s sinful nature. Furthermore, if Adam did not exist, and if our sinful nature is merely our evolutionary process in action, then the validity of Pilgrim’s Progress will also be questioned. The significance of the creation story perhaps lies as much in whether God really did create everything good or not, or what God’s definition of “good” really is. Or in fact, whether God really spoke to man at all, or whether man created God rather than God creating man.
I find your identification of “new” and “old” somewhat limited, or perhaps lacking in depth. We often say “new” in generic comprehensive terms without identifying what is old and what is new. Ecclesiastes says there is nothing new under the sun. Yet it seems new to us. Hebrews 8-10 talks about the old and new covenenant but concentrates specifically on temple, worship, and sacrifices in particular. But it maintains that in understanding this new covenant, he who continues to sin places himself outside of this new covenant, which sounds suspiciously like the old covenant, doesn’t it. In other words, the old and the new covenant are different, yet inseparable.
So the Christians during the reformation brought new insights which were actually a return to old insights and precepts. Having just read the first nine chapters or books of Augustine’s confessions, it became obvious to all of us in this study group, that Augustine’s experiences of 300 AD were very similar to our own in 2014. New information does lead to new insights, true, but we should be very cautious about generalizations which are often untrue in specific cases.
On the science side, I would suggest that you not idolize the scientific community. They are human beings like everyone else, like mechanics, doctors, engineers. They do a lot of good stuff, but they make mistakes. Doctors bleeding people in order to cure illness. Lacking an understanding of bacteria, viruses. Slowly finding ways to treat AIDS but not cure it. Not yet anyway.
Scientists can work with things they can experiment with. But going back in time? Not so simple. Lots of assumptions. They may well find they were wrong on several significant points. I am finding too many problems with their assumptions about layering of sediment, placement of fossils, age of volcanic rocks, undocumented leaps of evolutionary progress.
I am only 60 years old, so I have not yet seen everything. One thing I have seen is that there are more scientific problems with evolution today than there were in the past. Another thing I have also seen is that for many, evolution is a religion or faith, held to most strongly by those who have the least information on it. So that makes me doubly cautious, something like Augustine’s eventual suspicion of the Manichees who lacked knowledge of the basics.
God will lead and teach us, but not all will be willing to accept His teaching until forced to at the last day. Evolution is the primary present day tool to lead us philosophically and morally away from God. On its own, it justifies our unlimited pursuit of money, superiority, material possessions, power, aggressive wars, lack of care for the poor. It provides a rationale for abortion and euthanasia. It supports the idea of a god as a blind watchmaker, if he exists. If evolution can convince us to deny that God created everything good, and that Adam and Eve (man) were not originally responsible for sin, then Satan will be happy when people begin to think that really god is to blame for sin, not us, and that it is just and right that Jesus as god died for his own sin, and is absurd that he could pay for ours.
I am not quite so pessimistic as I sometimes sound, so I trust God will use all of this for his honor and glory. But we must not lose sight of the antithesis, of the battleground for the souls of men. People of the church have too blithely assumed that Satan is no longer active, and that our sinful nature is barely relevant. This sinful nature inclines human beings to look for an origin and solution outside of God. This is the present day struggle, which is not a new struggle. Jesus warned about all those who came to God in the last day saying: “Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophecy in your name, didn’t we cast out demons, didn’t we heal the sick” and God says to them, get away from me, you workers of lawlessness.” “Only the one who does the will of the Father in heaven will enter”. This warning is always in my mind.
John
Posted in: My Banner Article
I can see how your perspective on evolution has influenced your theology and philosophy of life, Edwin. Evolution is a religion of progress. Progress defined as ever improving physically and materially and socially. You have added in a mystical spiritual element to this "progress". You have also redefined the work of the gospel and the church as bringing about a civilization, rather than bringing about a relationship to God. A kind of heaven on earth.
This highlights a distinction between two perspectives. One perspective is that if we do all the right things, follow the virtues, make the right laws, and work for social change on this earth, that society will become better. That this is the renewal of the earth that we are looking for. The other perspective is that evangelism changes the hearts of men and that when their hearts are changed, they will act in accordance with the will of God, and it will reflect in their influence on society. The first emphasizes the kingdom on earth. The second realizes that God's kingdom will only be complete in heaven.
Your perpective on the human race slowly learning to live as images of God.... where do you get that from? what evidence do you have for that? How do you measure the progress? Do you base that on World War II being more God-imaging than world war I? Do you compare ISIS to the Babylonians or the ancient Israel, and say they are more civilized? What is your criteria?
You say that not just the church but the entire human race creates a civilization that truth, love and justice and goodness characterizes everything we do collectively. Or should. But on what basis? Where is the standard for this? What makes this better than the standards of the Russian mob, or ISIS, or Hitler, or Pol Pot or Stalin?
Is your concept of evolution entirely different than the common view, or is it the same, which includes random change(mutations), survival of the fittest, adaptation and selection, and extinctions of the less adaptable?
Posted in: My Banner Article
Edwin, I will reply to this in a separate post so it is at the end of the thread. You will see it below.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Interesting side note to this discussion, is that Michael DuMez has just written an excellent article called "Jurassic Ark", in the the on-line Banner.
Posted in: My Banner Article
I'm sorry, Edwin, but to me it seems like you are only listening to about half or less of what is being discussed. I asked for examples of what science has discovered that indicates this "development" that you keep mentioning, but have not yet seen anyone provide examples. To what data are you referring? Part of what I have been mentioning is that the way data is interpreted by evolutionists may not be correct, so if it is not correct in interpretation, then even though it is part of God's revelation in nature, we cannot with certainty understand development the way that evolutionists understand development. Furthermore, there is an element of social regression in evolutionary faith, as I illustrated in my last post above.
Who is honest about the data of modern science? If we see DNA degradation in nature, if we see the mutation rates increasing cumulatively to the point that in a certain number of centuries it will no longer be possible for human beings to survive under the deleterious mutations, due to all the genetic defects, then would you still see progress or development? There is no observable evidence that one species or kind has evolved into another, no matter how many speculations have abounded. So what evidence do we have for this evolutionary development?
Scripture indicates that when God created things, it was good. It was later, through man's disobedience that things were not so good anymore. This to me seems somewhat anti-evolutionary. So whether you treat Genesis as symbolic or not, this is the message. And this is also what we see in creation itself, even though man works more and more to design and develop things which cope with or counteract the degradation we see in nature itself. God does institute a process of change in our relationship to him, yes. But this is the exact opposite of evolution. It is a dramatic, "catastrophic" event of being born again like the apostle Paul, or the repentance of the apostle Peter, or the struggle of the Reformation. It is the acknowledgement of God in the constitutions of the new nations of USA and Canada. But it is subject again to the obedience or disobedience of the people of earth. And it is counter to the philosophy of evolution.
At the time of Noah, people were so disobedient that God sent a flood to destroy them. You would think after that, that no one would disobey God, that all would fervently worship and be grateful. But not long after, man worshipped himself again, and many worshipped other Gods. Even though Christianity has spread and grown in the world today, how many north americans have abandoned faith and obedience? How does it compare to how non-christians have spread and grown in the world today? Is Islam part of the "development" of which you speak? How do you reference these things in your ideology of "development"?
When you say there can hardly be any valid objection to recognizing... you are begging the question. In fact, there are many valid objections, both to the interpretation of scientific data, and to the philosophical underpinnings for evolution and/or "development". If you say there cannot be objections, when there are objections, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the objections are not valid, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the biological and evolutionary development. It does not help anyone simply to restate your position.
I had thought we were done, Edwin. And we are done. Unless we can leave the unproven generalities and get to specifics, it is no use pursuing an esoteric argument on vague philosophical generalities.
Posted in: Is It Abuse?
Good article. But it doesn't go far enough. Sexual activity outside of marriage is fornication, and therefore immoral for christians. So even if it was consensual and of a common age, it counters the leadership principles and ideals of all involved members of the youthgroup. Yes involvement of minors with majors is inappropriate. But casual sex is inappropriate regardless outside of marriage.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Roger, you are very close to understanding the truth. The central teaching of Jesus as propitiation you have stated well, but then seem to say that Jesus was just a good teacher. When I mention God, or Jesus, since they are the same, it is only for aspect or emphasis, not for distinction. As for works, its not that they count for nothing at all. They have their rewards as Jesus often said. But they do count for nothing in terms of eliminating guilt. The thief on the cross was saved in spite of not having an opportunity to do any works after his faith, and after his repentance. His guilt was not removed by his own doing, but only by God's grace, by the grace of Jesus Christ. If works were required, he could not have been saved.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Edwin, you suggest that God brought the world into its present physical condition thru evolutionary processes. This appears to be a faith statement on your part. Since you don't say that your idea of evolution is different than the general theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin, Dawkins, et.al., then it is necessary that you have an explanation for how and why God is in control of this process. Evolution was promoted both before and after Darwin as an explanation that could eliminate God in the equation; it was not promoted as a way of honoring God. So you would need to explain how it honors God, and how it is indicated by scripture, and how biology/geology/paleontology proves it, and how this demonstrates God. What evidence do you have for an endpoint? How do you know that human beings are the endpoint... according to the theory, they could just as well be an intermediate inferior step towards the progression of something better. In a way, this is what Hitler proposed in terms of racial superiority, that one race could be superior to another. Why was he wrong?
So, if God is playing a role... then what role is God playing? Is your idea of this role consistent with who God is, how he has revealed himself in scripture? When we think of the natural laws of physics, mathematics, such as gravity and consistency of numbers and objects, we see God as a God of order, of beauty, symmetry. Evolutionary theory would see God as a God of disorder, randomness, accidents, death and destruction and survival. If this is how God created, then what does the world need to be renewed from? What does it need to be saved from?
I note that you did not address the fact that scientific evidence/knowledge is indicating less and less support for evolution over time, as I noted in the example of human and chimp genome dissimilarities. What would it take for you to lose your faith in evolution?
John