Hey Joshua, Thanks for your short article in regard to the pressure of raising kids. It's certainly not an easy task. My mother in law once said, you never know if you've done it right until they are grown up. Of course, doing our best as parents doesn't insure success. Many a parent can attest to that. I think the best a parent can do is not pressuring our kids (to read their Bibles) but to simply set the example for them by our own lives. That is perhaps hardest for a minister, as he is expected to study the Bible daily in his role of being a minister. If he doesn't (and it happens) how can it be expected of others to follow his lead or instruction. Does your wife also study her Bible daily, as an example. The reality is, that even ministers and their spouses, tire of Bible study at times. How can we expect any more of our children? Be patient and enjoy your children at each stage of their lives. And trust God.
Hi, once again, John, and whoever else may be listening in. I apologize for an error I made. When I logged on to this site just now, it was to make a correction that I realized I had made. I was in a rush to get somewhere. In the next to last sentence of my last response, I said, “And what makes you think that God really created all there is, including our world ((all in six literal days)) when the physical evidence for your position is lacking?” I meant to add the five words in brackets. I do believe that God is the creator God and that he works within the natural laws that he has established. That’s the reason scientists can do science. If God worked outside of his established laws, as you suggest, then there is no need for science. Even conclusive evidence would prove nothing, and the study of origins and the age of earth would be meaningless. So why are young earth scientists trying to disprove evolution? They believe in a literal Biblical creation apart from any evidence.
You still surprise me. You seem to cast a lot of suspicion on doctrine. You say, “The question is: do you love God? If you love God, then you know you belong to Him, that God loves you, and you know that you want to do what God desires.” Do you really believe that? The Muslim will make that same statement, as well as the Mormon, the Hindu, the Jew, and myself, as well. I guess we all fit into the category of being God’s children. But I’m guessing that your statement needs some clarification. You probably mean, if you love the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, inferred in the Bible, and believe in Christ’s atoning sacrifice, and now live in grateful obedience to him then you belong to him. You see John, it’s your theology or doctrine that defines your belief system and where you stand in life and death in regard to him. Reformed Christians have said it is very important what we believe, even in the details. That’s why the Reformed Churches and it’s members subscribe to the three forms of unity, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort. It’s those three confessions and what they teach that binds all these members together, giving them a single voice. You see, to some, what a Reformed Christian believes is very important to the body as a whole. But I guess you are saying, no it’s not really that important.
Reformed Christians have said, when it comes to salvation, it is all a credit to God, completely. We can’t even add our faith, for faith comes from God. Human kind stands at complete odds with God. If the Holy Spirit doesn’t enable a person to believe, he will definitely not respond to the gospel. If the Holy Spirit does enable as person to respond in faith, then he will definitely respond. There is no ifs, ands, or buts. There are no exceptions, because God will not fail to accomplish his purposes, according to Reformed teaching. God’s purposes in electing a people to himself and in determining the damnation of the rest of humanity is set in stone. God will not waiver or change his mind. This sovereignty is a cornerstone of Reformed faith.
Doctrine is at the heart of Reformed ministry training. Reformed seminaries make theological study the cornerstone of their curriculum. The difference between “reformed thinking and free-willism is not as big as we make it?” Are you kidding? It’s huge. One says God is sovereign in everything, especially salvation, the other gives much credit to human will.
But I do believe that you probably give more credit to doctrine than what you are letting on. Otherwise, why would you be arguing so vehemently about differences of opinion as to how God created the world. And why would you write articles about how retired ministers that don’t conform to our confessions should be disciplined?
But then if what the Bible teaches (doctrine) isn’t that important, then why make such a big deal about creation versus evolution? If God does it one way or another, why split hairs? Edwin, along with many others, including myself, are not trying to take away from the grandeur of God. He gets all the credit. And if (as you say,) “you love God, then you know you belong to Him,” why split hairs over doctrine? Edwin and I are both well within the ballpark. I think I hear you speaking out of two sides of your mouth.
Thanks John, for your response. As far as I can tell, you think that someone (Darwin) at the front of the line passed a message back to the rest of the scientists behind him and they all blindly believed what he told them. And now for the last 150 years all their research has been for naught because they thoughtlessly bought into his original theory. Their research has counted for nothing, in fact for the most part it is bogus. They are just spreading lies and trying to convince the public of Darwin’s and their own lies. It’s good to know where you stand.
But now, as to your theory. You are convinced that some 10,000 years ago, in the span of six actual days, God created all that there is. Of course with a span of six days, you or scientists can’t really distinguish between the first day, or the fourth, or the sixth day, because I doubt that there is any mechanism to distinguish dating to such precision (as to measure days). As to testing all the created world came about instantaneously. Ten thousand years ago, wham, bam, and the world in its present form came into being. Now tell me, John, what scientists are you following and believing to swallow such a tall tale and to disregard all the scientific evidence that would go counter to such a theory? Oh, ya, it’s those nine PhD’s in the book you’re reading. And their information comes from four or five pages (Genesis 1 and 2) written some four thousand years ago. Isn’t that the theory of origins they buy into? And you say to me, “When you say you will trust the experts, I say you don't know what you are talking about.” It sounds to me, as though you have already jumped off the bridge.
Hi John and Edwin, as well as others. Good to hear your latest contribution Edwin. You make an interesting distinction, whether speaking or thinking from a personal perspective or from an official capacity as a minister in the CRC. Kind of like the pope in the Roman Catholic church when he speaks ex cathedra. I’ll have to give that some thought. Certainly I’ve allowed my personal thoughts to flow out into the public arena. But by speaking out of two sides on one’s mouth, or from two sides of the fence, I question a person’s integrity to one’s true self.
The issue of Biblical creation versus evolution has been an eye opener for me. But place that issue alongside a host of other issues that has come to the forefront in CRC history over the years and you realize that what was once considered the sure teaching of Scripture in the past is no longer the sure teaching. In the not too distance past, marital divorce was totally forbidden except for very few exceptions, and then anyone divorced was forbidden from church office and often from even serving in any capacity. Today, divorce is seldom even noticed. Was the Holy Spirit leading in truth in the past on this issue or is he presently? And the list of areas of concern could go on to a very large list. Today’s position on divorce if held 50 years ago would be cause for discipline or excommunication. Was the Holy Spirit leading in truth then, or now? Six day creation or evolution. Was the Holy Spirit leading in the past to take a literal approach to Genesis, but what about now when scientific evidence is leading toward evolution and more of a mythical understanding of Genesis? As John might suggest, the support of evolution is just opening up a can of worms.
To my understanding the Bible sends some very contradictory messages, which makes me question how do we understand the inspiration of Scripture when the Bible doesn’t always agree with itself.
As I suggested to John, Jesus taught a whole new perspective from what was being taught among the Jews of his day. When the Jews were thinking that formal rites and rituals could make them right with God, Jesus basically said, you put too much stock in these things. What really matters is how you live your life, a life that demonstrates love for God and neighbor, that is what brings pleasure to God. This is what was taught in nearly all of Jesus’ stories and parables, such as the separation of the goats from the sheep, the story of the good Samaritan, the parable of the talents, and on and on. It was good works that was the deciding factor in separating the sheep from the goats. Did faith play a part in Jesus’ teaching? Of course it did, but it was a faith that believed how I lived my life would make a difference in God’s disposition. “As you did it to the least one of these you do it unto me.” Over and over again Jesus taught a life of servanthood to others, and Jesus demonstrated such a life.
Paul on the other hand taught quite a different message. Our actions count for nothing in gaining God’s salvation and favor. People are helpless creatures bound only to win God’s disapproval. People are dead in sin. Don’t count on winning any points with God by your own actions. They are only filthy rags. And beside, one sin, was enough to condemn you for eternity. So one’s object of faith is not in a life of serving others and doing good, but now (in Paul’s teaching) it’s the object or person of Jesus Christ who has done it all for you. Sure you still want to do good, but Paul says you can’t do it. All you can do in your own effort is sin, and sin miserably, you’re a total failure. I don’t hear Jesus saying that. He’s saying ritual counts for nothing, but a life of service is everything. Check out Jesus’ own teaching and example and you will see this is Jesus’ emphasis.
There’s a contradiction here. You can try to harmonize these two teachings (Jesus and Paul), like John Z has shown. But remember, John, the object of faith was different for Jesus than it was for Paul. Martin Luther wanted the book of James removed from the Bible. His frustration was not that there was too little talk of faith in James, but rather that faith was not directed toward Jesus Christ but more toward works. James didn’t have a Pauline emphasis, as far as Luther was concerned. Luther thought James was saying that if you lived a good life seeking to please God then you would have God’s favor. James stood with Jesus rather than Paul. You can be assured (trust/faith) if you were trying to please God, that he would be happy with you. Your faith influences your actions and vice versa. That didn’t sit well with Luther because Christ wasn’t the focal point of faith, but works were.
So you see, you can talk about faith all you want. “Just have faith.” But what is the object of your faith. Jesus taught: by trusting a life of service, God will separate you from the goats. Paul taught that your works count for nothing so trust completely in Christ and works will follow (but they don’t count for anything, not even reward in heaven).
So you see it’s not just our inconsistencies as to how we interpret the Bible, but also the inconsistencies within the Bible itself (and they are glaring). These make me question the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible or at least how we understand inspiration. I like what Jesus teaches. So does that make me a Christian. Some would say yes (Thomas Jefferson) and some would say no. How far are we allowed to go before we get pushed out of the barn yard. Would Jesus himself get pushed out because he was not Pauline? Does Paul have more authority than Jesus in order to change his emphasis. Unless you can synchronize what Jesus taught with what Paul taught then for many denominations (including the CRC) you’re out. I may be extreme, but with Edwin I think until we make some changes to become more inclusive or change some our doctrinal ways of thinking, a narrow Christianity may have a hard time making it down the road. And holding to a six day literal creation with no evidence to support it doesn’t help. Also espousing a God who has, from eternity past, determined the eternal damnation of the majority of human kind while the gospel of grace is only intended for the few, doesn’t bode well for the Christian faith either.
I agree Edwin, our (John and I) arguments sound like an endeavor in futility. But by taking a different point of view from John it always ends up the same. John, you may accuse me of extended arguments but look at your arguments against evolution on this website and others, and how many books have you written? And you haven’t budged from the beginning, and the same is true with other arguments you have gotten into. I enjoy the debate, and I think our discussions are having little impact on anyone, so I don’t get bent out of shape over any of it, nor should anyone else. If one doesn’t like the debate, then don’t read it.
Thanks again John for another insightful response. But I still question your insight. I notice that the latest book you’re reading goes to great lengths to disprove evolution, for example to discredit all the dating methods that scientists use to support an old earth (at least, that was the bulk of your latest response). I suppose those methods should be discarded because they are so unreliable. But they aren’t, are they? It is because, on the whole, they are reliable, therefore scientists continue to use those methods, refine them, and come up with other means to measure age that measures under different circumstances. But, on the whole, the methods used to measure age give a generally good idea of age, whether billions, millions, or thousands of years. Do they calculate correctly in every instance? Of course not. But you don’t take the exception (as your Dr. Jim Mason has done) to discredit the whole system or mechanism for determining age. That would be like finding a mix of chemotherapy drugs that works well in 90 percent of the cases for colon cancer, but then discredit the mix because it didn’t work well in ten percent. So it’s easy for you to find exceptions to different (maybe even every) dating method, and then say the exception proves the invalidity of the method. Again, John, you are grasping at straws to disprove evolution.
The fossil evidence is just one case in point. Young earth scientists can discredit some of the fossils found that evolutionists believe fill some of the gaps to support the development of life from earlier forms. But again the exception doesn’t disprove the rule. With the advances and growth in geological sciences the fossil evidence is now abundant. And now to find an exception and say this disproves the rule is silly. Even secular scientist will willingly admit that mistakes have been made. But you can’t discredit the abundance of evidence for the sake of the few miscalculations that have been made. The abundance of evidence is continually making a sound case for evolution.
But now for what is truly silly John, the suggestion that the earth and its inhabitants are no older than 10,000 years when nearly all the scientific evidence points to a much much older earth. And yes, the authors of your latest book, do begin with a beginning premise from the Bible that the earth cannot be older than 10,000 years. That’s the beginning presupposition for them. And to hold such a presupposition, your scientists have to disprove any evidence that says the earth is older. But pointing out exceptions in the present and mistakes of the past doesn’t fool many today.
Hey John, it’s not always easy to get thoughts put into words. Sometimes I’m in such a hurry to get something on paper that I step on my tail in the process. And afterward, I wonder if I should have made a particular comment differently. I think that’s why I go to extremes in making a simple statement. I appreciate your willingness to listen as well as to show some soft edges in your thinking.
But let me say something about your comment in regard to Reformed and Baptist thinking. From some of your comments elsewhere, I remember you talking about the form of subscription that office bearers sign in the CRC, pledging their allegiance to the three forms of unity. So I’m guessing you are a CRCer. Now I realize there are a multitude of shades within Baptist denominations. If we think there is variety in the Reformed denominations, we have nothing on the Baptists. They have a truckload of them. But by a very big margin, they tend to be Arminian. Again, the first definition that my online dictionary gives for Arminianism is, “the doctrinal teachings of Jacobus Arminius or his followers, especially the doctrine that Christ died for all people and not only for the elect.” There is a Reformed Baptist denomination that would not fall for Arminius’s teaching. Other than that most Baptists are Arminian. And Calvin is a naughty word. Now you must realize that the Canons of Dort were formulated to contest vigorously such a view. And it’s the Canons of Dort that is one of the CRC’s three forms of unity. This is what officebearers subscribe to, and I’m guessing you, as well. It has never been thought to be a small difference when it came to the Reformed teachings and the Baptists’, even though many CRCers seek out a Baptist church when they are away on vacation. Do you ever wonder why that might be? For the most part, it’s because Baptists tend to be much more experiential in their expressions of faith and worship. The emphasis is on my experience (my faith) unlike the Reformed who emphasizes what God has done. Enough of that.
I want to come back to Jesus and Paul. Thanks for your admission of seeing a difference of emphasis between the two. Of course you go on to say they are reconciled to each other in the writings of James and John. So most Christians would say (and perhaps you) that there is only an apparent contradiction. These two apparent ways of viewing salvation are not really so different, and it only takes a James and John to bring them together into a cohesive whole. But Luther didn’t quite see it that way when it came to James. For Luther, there just wasn’t enough of Paul in James’ letter, in fact for Luther James went counter to Paul, and his letter was not worthy of being included in the Bible. Good thing he didn’t have to sign the Reformed form of subscription. I hope you realize that the difference of emphasis between Jesus and Paul was not small. This is where most Christians don’t scrutinize their own beliefs to any great degree. Most acknowledge the truth of the Bible on a Sunday School education or less, especially if they have just gone forward at a Billy Graham crusade. And yet this (they claim) is the most important influence in their whole life.
I hope you know how radical the difference is between Paul and Jesus. By far the greatest emphasis for Jesus is living a life of service to God and neighbor. In the vast majority, it is what a person has done to glorify God and serve his neighbor that separates a person from going to heaven or hell. And it’s not that every single thing has to be done with God in one’s mind. “As you have done this unto one of the least of these, you have done it to me.” And Jesus doesn’t even call for perfection. Sure faith is involved. How could anyone serve his neighbor without having faith that God is pleased with such service. Unless you are Paul or a Pauline. Paul tells his readers that works count for nothing. Everyone is deserving of eternal damnation and is an abomination to God. One sin, not just an inclination to sin, will sentence you to hell. Even the sin of Adam, credited to all, is enough to (and will) damn you for eternity. Paul, in his discourse on Adam, points out that everyone following Adam up through Moses, when the law was given, was condemned to die. Why did they all die? Because they were guilty of Adam’s sin, and not because of their own sin (how could they know without the law?). Everyone is evil and deserves damnation in Paul’s mind. I don’t hear this in Jesus’ teaching. In fact Jesus teaches you can and should do good and in so doing you win God’s favor. Paul says, no, no! You can’t do good even if you want to because everyone is helplessly controlled by sin. Is this really how God looks at us?
Common sense says, tells me to stick to Jesus’ teaching. Does God really think everyone is so miserable that they deserve an eternity in hell where there will be gnashing of teeth? Common sense tells me that people were created as people, not as gods with the perfections of God. God is all knowing, yet he doesn’t expect people to be like him as to knowledge or intellect. God may be perfectly holy but does he really expect the same degree of holiness from his creatures? Sure he wants us to be good, but perfectly good? He did give us a free will, and with a free will, bad choices are bound to be make at times. And don’t people in general, do a fair amount of good? I don’t personally know anyone who has murdered another person, and I know very few who have stolen. But I do know a lot of people that have been kind and loving toward me, whether in the church or outside. My wife and I are part of a walking group (twice a week) and I doubt that many of them would claim to be Christian (two are atheists). Yet, when my wife was diagnosed with stage four colon cancer some six months ago, this group along with many other neighbors have reached out and sacrificed for us in so many ways. (Her cancer is already in remission.) The point is, the great majority of people I know get high grade for goodness. Their goodness far outweighs their evil. Common sense tells me that God will look at people and judge their entire life. To me it sounds like a Jesus emphasis, and he encourages us to live loving and caring lives. A teacher will judge a student by his/her effort throughout the course. The student many not get 100%, but he still will likely get an A, B, C, or D, all passing grades. But according to Paul, God only gives out F’s, no chance for anyone apart from perfection, which is impossible. If we were to follow the example of God, according to Paul, instead of giving our children a kiss at night and tell them we love them, we would instead tell them how bad they are and that they deserve nothing but damnation.
On top of this, in Paul’s thought, God never had a purpose to save all, but his intent was to save the chosen few and send the rest into eternal damnation.
In contrast, Jesus’ emphasis was to encourage goodness in those he taught, even self sacrificing goodness or a life of service. And with attempting such a life, God would be pleased. Perfection? You always set the goal at perfection, even if you don’t reach it. But you’re not an utter failure if you don’t reach it. Makes sense to me.
This is no small difference between Paul and Jesus. But if I’m not mistaken, the Bible teaches that it was Jesus, who is God, who came to earth to show us the way. Now it sounds like Paul is trying to correct Jesus, or that Jesus didn’t get the whole story right. Who am I to argue with God, or to tell him, he got it wrong. It certainly sounds like an inconsistency to me.
Oh, thanks for the additional comment, that on the other side of grace, Paul calls Christians to sin no more. Of course it’s on the other side of grace, or after having been chosen in Christ by God. On the forward side it doesn’t really matter, does it, because for most, they’re going to hell anyway, and God takes no pleasure in one’s attempt to do good. Again, that’s Paul, not Jesus.
Hey John. I have to admit, you do have me at a disadvantage. Once again, I’m not a scientist, don’t even come close. So I have to rely on others, even as I hear you doing (the book you are presently reading), and you are a scientist. I don’t think you are on the cutting edge of research, but you do have some understanding of what’s going on in those fields. You ask me for examples, but isn’t that just you, trying to push me into a corner? What am I supposed to do, read some evolutionist expert, look for an example in his research or book, then bring it back to you, so you can tear it apart? I don’t know if what you or they tell me is really true, or how to scrutinize theirs or your findings. I really think those beyond yourself are the real experts. I can go to a hospital or a medical expert with serious symptoms of illness, and I have to take the word of the doctors when they give me a diagnosis. Even getting a second opinion leaves me in the same position of having to rely on the experts. It’s my opinion that there are many more experts on the side of evolution. You can bash their findings endlessly, even as I”m sure they could do to you. But they are not involved in this particular debate, so you get to do the bashing with no opposition. If they were involved in this debate, they would not walk home with their tails between their legs. And it would be foolish of me to think that they are not doing their work with integrity. So you can keep pushing me for examples, but that makes you sound like a bully. That leaves me with having to pick a side to stand with. To me, it makes much more sense to stand with those who have put in the abundance of work and research. It feels, to me, like choosing to stand either with a professional team or a little league team. I’ll go with the experts.
All that being said, what bothers me more, is the foolishness of the creationist perspective. Everything created instantaneously and simultaneously at a single point in history (all within six days). That means, as to dating, everything is the exact same age, to within a week (as to the original creation). I imagine young earth creationists (apart from geneologies) can date the origin of the universe to within a week, or at least to a year or two. You may think that science and dating methods can back this up, but to the scientific community it sounds like foolishness. And it does to me. Theoretically, young earth scientists should be able to determine whether the origin of the earth and all of life was 10,000, 8,000 or 8,543 years ago, using the dating methods that they have found to be accurate. That’s the theory for young earth creationists, and again it is based on a couple chapters of the Bible. That may make sense to you and to some Christians, but it’s a theory that has to be accepted by faith because it doesn’t have the evidence to back it up. That’s the nature of religious faith, believing that which is not seen. It has to be accepted by faith because it involves a huge miracle and it can’t be explained otherwise. And it’s based on faith that the church (some churches) expect its members to accept this teaching, and not based upon scientific evidence. It’s also the reason that young earth creationists spend the majority of their effort trying to disprove evolution rather than proving an instantaneous creation (that’s based on faith).
This gets difficult when trying to respond to two people that seem to hold somewhat different positions. I appreciate your input and distinctions. Edwin, you’re right when you categorize me as the flaming liberal (I know, you didn’t quite say that). In my responses I’ve wanted to show that from within the Christian faith (especially the Reformed faith) that there are inconsistencies. It’s arguing from within a prepsuppositional apologetic the inconsistencies or unreasonableness of the Christian religion. But if I disregard the Christian presuppositions then that pretty much ends the debate right there. It would be like a Hindu arguing with a Christian. You can’t argue two completely different religions and expect to get anywhere.
As I understand the Christian religion (and I think there is no other way to understand it), Christianity is different from all other religions. The difference is that Jesus, who is God in the fullest sense, came to earth from heaven to pay the supreme price for sin. It is only in Jesus that there is salvation and apart from him, there is no salvation. He is the propitiation by which he appeased the wrath of God against sinners. And since all people are sinners (even come in the world as sinners) all are deserving of eternal damnation. Apart from Jesus and his payment for sin all are destined for hell. No other religion offers such a perspective on the condition of the human race or on such a plan for the salvation of people. It is unique. Jesus is the cornerstone, not only by his example, but especially by who he is and what he has done to accomplish salvation, making payment for sin. Apart from Christ’s saving work all are lost, because all are sinners. The good a person does counts for nothing because sin negates any good a person may have thought he has done.
I haven’t really heard too much from either John or Edwin on this central teaching of Christianity. It is only by faith in this saving work of Christ, that a person can experience salvation in the present and for eternity. And even this faith comes from God, given only to the elect. (Side note: Arminians believe that Jesus came for the salvation of all and all can respond.) This is the faith and rescue that the apostle Paul speaks about when he describes his struggle with sin. This is the faith that Paul agues for in his letters. It is a specific faith with a specific object. And there is no other faith that will save. “There is no other name under heaven...” This is the heart of Christianity.
John, you have talked a lot about God, but not so much about Jesus, and you have said a lot about faith, but not the object of faith. And Edwin, although you seem to acknowledge Jesus as fully God, and miraculously taking on a human nature, you don’t say much about this necessary propitiation made by Jesus or the helpless state of human kind.
Once again about “faith,” John. “Just have faith and you will be ok.” That’s what a lot of people might say. But not Paul. But, in contrast to Paul, when Jesus talked about faith the object of faith would change according to the situation. When the author of Hebrews talks about faith, the object of faith varies. “It was by faith that Abel brought a more acceptable offering to God than Cain did. Abel’s offering gave evidence that he was a righteous man, and God showed his approval of his gifts.” The object of faith was the sufficiency of his offering to God (works). No propitiation necessary. By faith Noah built the ark. By faith Abraham left his homeland. None of these mention the propitiation of another, but trust that they were doing (what God asked of them). They all believed they could please God. Anyone who truly believes in God will trust that their attempts to please God (love for God and neighbor) will be accepted by him. That’s not the faith Paul is talking about. You don’t trust your efforts even with faith in God. They won’t do it. Propitiation has to be made. And once again Paul and Jesus are at odds. Jesus says the difference between heaven and hell is in loving others, and by loving others you demonstrate your love for God. And Jesus’ teaching was revolutionary, especially in the context of what the Jewish religion had become. Paul’s addition is not just a new twist to what Jesus teaches, but different altogether. I don’t know how to make myself any clearer.
It seems to me, whether you acknowledge Jesus as God or not, whether you acknowledge him as a prophet sent by God, or whether he was just very insightful into where the Jewish religion (which he was part of) had gone amuck, however you see him, his teaching was insightful in his context, as well as insightful for all people in any age. He taught we could please God. It was his teaching and his insight into given situations that made him revolutionary. It’s here that you will fault me to no end. Paul came along and made an idol of Jesus, something I don’t think Jesus wanted for himself. Jesus came to teach a new way, the way of love. But now realize that many or most religions teach the same thing, perhaps with a different prophet. It’s just that Jesus is the teacher par excellence, at least in my thinking.
Well, I see that another response has come in from John. I'll send this as is, and then respond to the next responses later. Wishing both of you health and happiness (God's rich blessings).
I suppose you are right John, to some extent, when you say that both evolutionism and creationism involve faith. But that doesn’t mean that belief in evolution necessitates whether a person believes in God or not. Belief in Biblical creation does necessitate such belief. In fact, that is the beginning presupposition. A scientist should (and most do) do his evolutionary studies apart from any opinion about God. The evolutionist is simply looking for a natural explanation for the development of life. He looks at the facts or his findings and based on those findings comes up wth a theory of what those findings demonstrate. It’s when you add a philosophy (cosmology) to your findings that you come up with an “ism.” Hence evolutionism. But then this is a mixing of science and cosmology, and not true science. Creationism necessitates a cosmology, in fact begins with it. So, you see, the faith element is entirely different for the person who believes that evolution explains the origins of life. He may or may not believe in God.
Of course creationism or belief in a Biblical creation, begins with the presupposition that God has done this (brought into existence the world and all of life), in fact, has done this according to the outline laid out in Genesis 1 and 2. You, John, because you have some sympathy for the findings of evolution (dating and age findings) are now willing to stretch the Genesis account to include something never intended by the author of the Genesis account. I’m sure Moses was not thinking of days in terms of years or even millions of years for part of creation and twenty-four hours days for the rest. That takes away from the plain sense of reading the text. If God could create the animal kingdom in a matter of a few actual days he could do the same with the rest of creation. That’s the point of the Genesis account, not to differentiate the length of days in the account. That’s where the young earth creationists are attempting to be true to the text of Genesis. But they are beginning with big presuppositions which shades their whole scientific endeavor.
You have pointed out previously that buying into the theory of evolution necessitates an atheistic cosmology. Even the evolutionary scientists have claimed that. But certainly not all, or even a majority, have made that claim. And it’s not the begriming premise. And for those scientists that do claim evolution necessitates an atheistic perspective, they don’t really understand what God can and can’t do. Randomness does not exclude God from the process or development of life over time to its present forms. In fact Reformed Christians would say God works in and through what appears to be random or coincidence. In fact nothing happens by chance, even the falling of a single hair to the ground (again, or is it a bird). Isn’t that the point of Peter’s address to the Jews who had crucified Jesus but God was at work, despite their ill attempts, to accomplish the salvation of many. Isn’t that Paul’s meaning, when he says that everything happens by the hand of God, or when he talks about the Pharoah being a pot made for the seemingly ill purpose that God intended. Isn’t this what Christians have in mind when they talk about looking at a quilt from the back side and it looks ugly, but when seen from God’s perspective is beautiful (like seeing it from the front)? Atheistic evolutionism (evolution + cosmology) has a narrow understanding of what God can and can’t do, or what might make sense in the mind of God.
Now for a comment especially for you, Edwin. Again, I appreciate your perspective. And I agree that we have got off target. I think the original article can easily lead into other areas, as it has seemed to have happened here. I don’t expect either you, Edwin or John, to agree with me in the least. That’s ok, but at least you will know where I’m coming from.
I think all religions are manmade and are an attempt to explain the God who has revealed himself in creation. Most religions are ancient and are archaic in many of their basic premises. And certainly scientists today have a host of doubts when someone tells them that the earth, life and even human beings were all created in a matter of six days. Not only do scientists have to defend themselves against the likes of Christians, but also Hindus, Muslims, Mormons and a host of other religions that have their own ideas on origins, because these other ideas of origins come from their inspired Scriptures just as Christians assert. Like other ancient religions, Christianity has a central theme (just one of several) of the wars of the gods (the creator God and the demigod, Satan) who are in constant battle from the beginning of time and will culminate at the end of time. Also, like the many other religions, Christianity’s God acts outside of the created order and laws (such as with creation and a multitude of other miracles).
I think that creation tells us enough about God that I can stand in awe of him and desire to honor him with my life. And when someone as insightful as Jesus appears on the scene, it is cause enough to stand up and listen. In the fact that Jesus’ teachings makes so much sense, I could easily feel I’m a follower of Jesus, myself. But it would be very difficult to feel the same for Paul, who seems to have a very different perspective and emphasis on God and finding acceptance with him.
Also the personal nature that Christians portray God having with Christians raises flags for me. Prayer and the leading of the Holy Spirit are the impetuses for such thoughts of a personal God. They both are very subjective. When someone asks, what would Jesus want me to do, what they really mean is what do “I think” Jesus would want me to do, or what do I want Jesus to tell me to do in any given situation. The Holy Spirit can be thought to have led people and groups in a thousand different directions. And yet the Holy Spirit leads in all truth. I wonder if looking for the Spirit’s voice is no different than let your conscience be your guide. As to prayer, a person can feel that in a given situation God has answered their prayers (healing from cancer) but at the same time a hundred other Christians pray for the same but never recover. Then there is all kinds of rationalizing, as to the answers we get in regard to prayer, even though Jesus taught on more than one occasion that we could pray for anything we want and we will be given what we prayed for. I don’t think that the creation reveals these things but from the beginning of time people have been crying out to the gods with no more success than Christians. Maybe having a personal God is part of the myth of made up religions. Does God care for his creation? In my mind, definitely. He has brought it into existence in one way or another and preserves it wonderfully. Why would I doubt his care of his world. But a personal relationship?
So you see how easily questions (or doubts) about creation and evolution can lead to other areas of concern? Or maybe, more than likely, I’m not very disciplined in staying on track.
I don’t know John. Going back and forth with you makes me a little weary. Maybe it does for you, as well. I think that may be why Edwin dropped out a long time back.
As to your last response, you did a lot of speculation as to a naturalistic explanation of the first four days of the creation narrative in Genesis. You want to be true to the intent of Scripture and yet true to science (general revelation). Sounds admirable. And even though you admitted that what you stated could be totally out, you probably put more stock in such speculations you have made up than in evolutionary theory which has a lot of research behind it. It sounds a little bit to me, that for you, speculation is ok as long as it doesn’t agree with evolutionary theory.
Here’s another take (my speculation). I think there’s a possibility that as to primary causation Genesis is saying that God is the creator God. He stands above it all. That’s the important message for the ages. As to secondary causation a face on reading of Genesis made sense to the people of Moses’ day. That’s as far as their science would let them go in that early stage of history. And a day was a day, as Moses would have understood it. Today, as to primary causation, the message is the same. But today with the advances of science, people are still trying to make sense of origins as to secondary causation. And maybe on both sides of the issue there is both speculation as well as research. This includes Christians on both sides of the evolution/creation issue. Maybe too much is being made of secondary causation when reading the Bible.
I know, for you, an actual Adam, seems very important. Without him a lot of theology seems like it can thrown out or watered down. It sounded to me, as though Edwin was trying to come up with a way to be true to natural science and to the Biblical account. I know you disagree, and I understand. A lot could be at stake.
For me, I’m a theist. That means, in one way or another, God is involved. I’m not near ready to dismiss him. I’m not sure I want to keep this up endlessly. Honestly, I thought you would wear down before me. But looking over these responses, as well as others (to other articles) I think you are the energizer bunny. It’s been fun. And thanks for the food for thought. It’s been good.
Hear, hear Edwin. I like your comments that direct us toward the advances and progress that are being made in history. There may be plenty of evil, but culturally and politically our societies are making progress. I can’t tell you the name of the project or the authors, but recently a research project pointed out that today there are many less homicides per capita committed than in the past decades or centuries.
It may not seem it, but if we focus on the negative we will not see or appreciate the good. Christianity tends to focus on the sin of a society and individuals; we are part of a fallen world. Sin will only increase until God intervenes. So it’s a difficult thing to see and appreciate the good that is taking place outside the narrow confines of the church. Christian theology tends to belittle the good, with many Christians longing for the good old days and belittling the progress being made in the areas of science, technology and cultural growth. Even Christian evangelism tends to point toward the negative. The good of the gospel cannot be recognized until the evil is first recognized, especially personally, and confessed. So there is no good news until the bad is recognized. Christians are very good at pointing the evil. And of course, Paul is one of the greatest contributors to this negativity (total depravity).
The progress that you point out, Edwin, can be seen as the slow development of the human race (whether it takes hundreds of years or thousands, or more) It can be attributed to God and his mysterious intervention or to the long and slow process of evolution, also attributed to God. But Christianity, on the whole, will have a difficult time acknowledging any progress, because to them the world is on its way to hell in a hand basket.
And thank you, Jolanda, for the reminders to be kind and to stay on target. We love you.
Posted in: Pressure?
Hey Joshua, Thanks for your short article in regard to the pressure of raising kids. It's certainly not an easy task. My mother in law once said, you never know if you've done it right until they are grown up. Of course, doing our best as parents doesn't insure success. Many a parent can attest to that. I think the best a parent can do is not pressuring our kids (to read their Bibles) but to simply set the example for them by our own lives. That is perhaps hardest for a minister, as he is expected to study the Bible daily in his role of being a minister. If he doesn't (and it happens) how can it be expected of others to follow his lead or instruction. Does your wife also study her Bible daily, as an example. The reality is, that even ministers and their spouses, tire of Bible study at times. How can we expect any more of our children? Be patient and enjoy your children at each stage of their lives. And trust God.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Hi, once again, John, and whoever else may be listening in. I apologize for an error I made. When I logged on to this site just now, it was to make a correction that I realized I had made. I was in a rush to get somewhere. In the next to last sentence of my last response, I said, “And what makes you think that God really created all there is, including our world ((all in six literal days)) when the physical evidence for your position is lacking?” I meant to add the five words in brackets. I do believe that God is the creator God and that he works within the natural laws that he has established. That’s the reason scientists can do science. If God worked outside of his established laws, as you suggest, then there is no need for science. Even conclusive evidence would prove nothing, and the study of origins and the age of earth would be meaningless. So why are young earth scientists trying to disprove evolution? They believe in a literal Biblical creation apart from any evidence.
You still surprise me. You seem to cast a lot of suspicion on doctrine. You say, “The question is: do you love God? If you love God, then you know you belong to Him, that God loves you, and you know that you want to do what God desires.” Do you really believe that? The Muslim will make that same statement, as well as the Mormon, the Hindu, the Jew, and myself, as well. I guess we all fit into the category of being God’s children. But I’m guessing that your statement needs some clarification. You probably mean, if you love the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, inferred in the Bible, and believe in Christ’s atoning sacrifice, and now live in grateful obedience to him then you belong to him. You see John, it’s your theology or doctrine that defines your belief system and where you stand in life and death in regard to him. Reformed Christians have said it is very important what we believe, even in the details. That’s why the Reformed Churches and it’s members subscribe to the three forms of unity, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort. It’s those three confessions and what they teach that binds all these members together, giving them a single voice. You see, to some, what a Reformed Christian believes is very important to the body as a whole. But I guess you are saying, no it’s not really that important.
Reformed Christians have said, when it comes to salvation, it is all a credit to God, completely. We can’t even add our faith, for faith comes from God. Human kind stands at complete odds with God. If the Holy Spirit doesn’t enable a person to believe, he will definitely not respond to the gospel. If the Holy Spirit does enable as person to respond in faith, then he will definitely respond. There is no ifs, ands, or buts. There are no exceptions, because God will not fail to accomplish his purposes, according to Reformed teaching. God’s purposes in electing a people to himself and in determining the damnation of the rest of humanity is set in stone. God will not waiver or change his mind. This sovereignty is a cornerstone of Reformed faith.
Doctrine is at the heart of Reformed ministry training. Reformed seminaries make theological study the cornerstone of their curriculum. The difference between “reformed thinking and free-willism is not as big as we make it?” Are you kidding? It’s huge. One says God is sovereign in everything, especially salvation, the other gives much credit to human will.
But I do believe that you probably give more credit to doctrine than what you are letting on. Otherwise, why would you be arguing so vehemently about differences of opinion as to how God created the world. And why would you write articles about how retired ministers that don’t conform to our confessions should be disciplined?
But then if what the Bible teaches (doctrine) isn’t that important, then why make such a big deal about creation versus evolution? If God does it one way or another, why split hairs? Edwin, along with many others, including myself, are not trying to take away from the grandeur of God. He gets all the credit. And if (as you say,) “you love God, then you know you belong to Him,” why split hairs over doctrine? Edwin and I are both well within the ballpark. I think I hear you speaking out of two sides of your mouth.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Thanks John, for your response. As far as I can tell, you think that someone (Darwin) at the front of the line passed a message back to the rest of the scientists behind him and they all blindly believed what he told them. And now for the last 150 years all their research has been for naught because they thoughtlessly bought into his original theory. Their research has counted for nothing, in fact for the most part it is bogus. They are just spreading lies and trying to convince the public of Darwin’s and their own lies. It’s good to know where you stand.
But now, as to your theory. You are convinced that some 10,000 years ago, in the span of six actual days, God created all that there is. Of course with a span of six days, you or scientists can’t really distinguish between the first day, or the fourth, or the sixth day, because I doubt that there is any mechanism to distinguish dating to such precision (as to measure days). As to testing all the created world came about instantaneously. Ten thousand years ago, wham, bam, and the world in its present form came into being. Now tell me, John, what scientists are you following and believing to swallow such a tall tale and to disregard all the scientific evidence that would go counter to such a theory? Oh, ya, it’s those nine PhD’s in the book you’re reading. And their information comes from four or five pages (Genesis 1 and 2) written some four thousand years ago. Isn’t that the theory of origins they buy into? And you say to me, “When you say you will trust the experts, I say you don't know what you are talking about.” It sounds to me, as though you have already jumped off the bridge.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Hi John and Edwin, as well as others. Good to hear your latest contribution Edwin. You make an interesting distinction, whether speaking or thinking from a personal perspective or from an official capacity as a minister in the CRC. Kind of like the pope in the Roman Catholic church when he speaks ex cathedra. I’ll have to give that some thought. Certainly I’ve allowed my personal thoughts to flow out into the public arena. But by speaking out of two sides on one’s mouth, or from two sides of the fence, I question a person’s integrity to one’s true self.
The issue of Biblical creation versus evolution has been an eye opener for me. But place that issue alongside a host of other issues that has come to the forefront in CRC history over the years and you realize that what was once considered the sure teaching of Scripture in the past is no longer the sure teaching. In the not too distance past, marital divorce was totally forbidden except for very few exceptions, and then anyone divorced was forbidden from church office and often from even serving in any capacity. Today, divorce is seldom even noticed. Was the Holy Spirit leading in truth in the past on this issue or is he presently? And the list of areas of concern could go on to a very large list. Today’s position on divorce if held 50 years ago would be cause for discipline or excommunication. Was the Holy Spirit leading in truth then, or now? Six day creation or evolution. Was the Holy Spirit leading in the past to take a literal approach to Genesis, but what about now when scientific evidence is leading toward evolution and more of a mythical understanding of Genesis? As John might suggest, the support of evolution is just opening up a can of worms.
To my understanding the Bible sends some very contradictory messages, which makes me question how do we understand the inspiration of Scripture when the Bible doesn’t always agree with itself.
As I suggested to John, Jesus taught a whole new perspective from what was being taught among the Jews of his day. When the Jews were thinking that formal rites and rituals could make them right with God, Jesus basically said, you put too much stock in these things. What really matters is how you live your life, a life that demonstrates love for God and neighbor, that is what brings pleasure to God. This is what was taught in nearly all of Jesus’ stories and parables, such as the separation of the goats from the sheep, the story of the good Samaritan, the parable of the talents, and on and on. It was good works that was the deciding factor in separating the sheep from the goats. Did faith play a part in Jesus’ teaching? Of course it did, but it was a faith that believed how I lived my life would make a difference in God’s disposition. “As you did it to the least one of these you do it unto me.” Over and over again Jesus taught a life of servanthood to others, and Jesus demonstrated such a life.
Paul on the other hand taught quite a different message. Our actions count for nothing in gaining God’s salvation and favor. People are helpless creatures bound only to win God’s disapproval. People are dead in sin. Don’t count on winning any points with God by your own actions. They are only filthy rags. And beside, one sin, was enough to condemn you for eternity. So one’s object of faith is not in a life of serving others and doing good, but now (in Paul’s teaching) it’s the object or person of Jesus Christ who has done it all for you. Sure you still want to do good, but Paul says you can’t do it. All you can do in your own effort is sin, and sin miserably, you’re a total failure. I don’t hear Jesus saying that. He’s saying ritual counts for nothing, but a life of service is everything. Check out Jesus’ own teaching and example and you will see this is Jesus’ emphasis.
There’s a contradiction here. You can try to harmonize these two teachings (Jesus and Paul), like John Z has shown. But remember, John, the object of faith was different for Jesus than it was for Paul. Martin Luther wanted the book of James removed from the Bible. His frustration was not that there was too little talk of faith in James, but rather that faith was not directed toward Jesus Christ but more toward works. James didn’t have a Pauline emphasis, as far as Luther was concerned. Luther thought James was saying that if you lived a good life seeking to please God then you would have God’s favor. James stood with Jesus rather than Paul. You can be assured (trust/faith) if you were trying to please God, that he would be happy with you. Your faith influences your actions and vice versa. That didn’t sit well with Luther because Christ wasn’t the focal point of faith, but works were.
So you see, you can talk about faith all you want. “Just have faith.” But what is the object of your faith. Jesus taught: by trusting a life of service, God will separate you from the goats. Paul taught that your works count for nothing so trust completely in Christ and works will follow (but they don’t count for anything, not even reward in heaven).
So you see it’s not just our inconsistencies as to how we interpret the Bible, but also the inconsistencies within the Bible itself (and they are glaring). These make me question the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible or at least how we understand inspiration. I like what Jesus teaches. So does that make me a Christian. Some would say yes (Thomas Jefferson) and some would say no. How far are we allowed to go before we get pushed out of the barn yard. Would Jesus himself get pushed out because he was not Pauline? Does Paul have more authority than Jesus in order to change his emphasis. Unless you can synchronize what Jesus taught with what Paul taught then for many denominations (including the CRC) you’re out. I may be extreme, but with Edwin I think until we make some changes to become more inclusive or change some our doctrinal ways of thinking, a narrow Christianity may have a hard time making it down the road. And holding to a six day literal creation with no evidence to support it doesn’t help. Also espousing a God who has, from eternity past, determined the eternal damnation of the majority of human kind while the gospel of grace is only intended for the few, doesn’t bode well for the Christian faith either.
I agree Edwin, our (John and I) arguments sound like an endeavor in futility. But by taking a different point of view from John it always ends up the same. John, you may accuse me of extended arguments but look at your arguments against evolution on this website and others, and how many books have you written? And you haven’t budged from the beginning, and the same is true with other arguments you have gotten into. I enjoy the debate, and I think our discussions are having little impact on anyone, so I don’t get bent out of shape over any of it, nor should anyone else. If one doesn’t like the debate, then don’t read it.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Thanks again John for another insightful response. But I still question your insight. I notice that the latest book you’re reading goes to great lengths to disprove evolution, for example to discredit all the dating methods that scientists use to support an old earth (at least, that was the bulk of your latest response). I suppose those methods should be discarded because they are so unreliable. But they aren’t, are they? It is because, on the whole, they are reliable, therefore scientists continue to use those methods, refine them, and come up with other means to measure age that measures under different circumstances. But, on the whole, the methods used to measure age give a generally good idea of age, whether billions, millions, or thousands of years. Do they calculate correctly in every instance? Of course not. But you don’t take the exception (as your Dr. Jim Mason has done) to discredit the whole system or mechanism for determining age. That would be like finding a mix of chemotherapy drugs that works well in 90 percent of the cases for colon cancer, but then discredit the mix because it didn’t work well in ten percent. So it’s easy for you to find exceptions to different (maybe even every) dating method, and then say the exception proves the invalidity of the method. Again, John, you are grasping at straws to disprove evolution.
The fossil evidence is just one case in point. Young earth scientists can discredit some of the fossils found that evolutionists believe fill some of the gaps to support the development of life from earlier forms. But again the exception doesn’t disprove the rule. With the advances and growth in geological sciences the fossil evidence is now abundant. And now to find an exception and say this disproves the rule is silly. Even secular scientist will willingly admit that mistakes have been made. But you can’t discredit the abundance of evidence for the sake of the few miscalculations that have been made. The abundance of evidence is continually making a sound case for evolution.
But now for what is truly silly John, the suggestion that the earth and its inhabitants are no older than 10,000 years when nearly all the scientific evidence points to a much much older earth. And yes, the authors of your latest book, do begin with a beginning premise from the Bible that the earth cannot be older than 10,000 years. That’s the beginning presupposition for them. And to hold such a presupposition, your scientists have to disprove any evidence that says the earth is older. But pointing out exceptions in the present and mistakes of the past doesn’t fool many today.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Hey John, it’s not always easy to get thoughts put into words. Sometimes I’m in such a hurry to get something on paper that I step on my tail in the process. And afterward, I wonder if I should have made a particular comment differently. I think that’s why I go to extremes in making a simple statement. I appreciate your willingness to listen as well as to show some soft edges in your thinking.
But let me say something about your comment in regard to Reformed and Baptist thinking. From some of your comments elsewhere, I remember you talking about the form of subscription that office bearers sign in the CRC, pledging their allegiance to the three forms of unity. So I’m guessing you are a CRCer. Now I realize there are a multitude of shades within Baptist denominations. If we think there is variety in the Reformed denominations, we have nothing on the Baptists. They have a truckload of them. But by a very big margin, they tend to be Arminian. Again, the first definition that my online dictionary gives for Arminianism is, “the doctrinal teachings of Jacobus Arminius or his followers, especially the doctrine that Christ died for all people and not only for the elect.” There is a Reformed Baptist denomination that would not fall for Arminius’s teaching. Other than that most Baptists are Arminian. And Calvin is a naughty word. Now you must realize that the Canons of Dort were formulated to contest vigorously such a view. And it’s the Canons of Dort that is one of the CRC’s three forms of unity. This is what officebearers subscribe to, and I’m guessing you, as well. It has never been thought to be a small difference when it came to the Reformed teachings and the Baptists’, even though many CRCers seek out a Baptist church when they are away on vacation. Do you ever wonder why that might be? For the most part, it’s because Baptists tend to be much more experiential in their expressions of faith and worship. The emphasis is on my experience (my faith) unlike the Reformed who emphasizes what God has done. Enough of that.
I want to come back to Jesus and Paul. Thanks for your admission of seeing a difference of emphasis between the two. Of course you go on to say they are reconciled to each other in the writings of James and John. So most Christians would say (and perhaps you) that there is only an apparent contradiction. These two apparent ways of viewing salvation are not really so different, and it only takes a James and John to bring them together into a cohesive whole. But Luther didn’t quite see it that way when it came to James. For Luther, there just wasn’t enough of Paul in James’ letter, in fact for Luther James went counter to Paul, and his letter was not worthy of being included in the Bible. Good thing he didn’t have to sign the Reformed form of subscription. I hope you realize that the difference of emphasis between Jesus and Paul was not small. This is where most Christians don’t scrutinize their own beliefs to any great degree. Most acknowledge the truth of the Bible on a Sunday School education or less, especially if they have just gone forward at a Billy Graham crusade. And yet this (they claim) is the most important influence in their whole life.
I hope you know how radical the difference is between Paul and Jesus. By far the greatest emphasis for Jesus is living a life of service to God and neighbor. In the vast majority, it is what a person has done to glorify God and serve his neighbor that separates a person from going to heaven or hell. And it’s not that every single thing has to be done with God in one’s mind. “As you have done this unto one of the least of these, you have done it to me.” And Jesus doesn’t even call for perfection. Sure faith is involved. How could anyone serve his neighbor without having faith that God is pleased with such service. Unless you are Paul or a Pauline.
Paul tells his readers that works count for nothing. Everyone is deserving of eternal damnation and is an abomination to God. One sin, not just an inclination to sin, will sentence you to hell. Even the sin of Adam, credited to all, is enough to (and will) damn you for eternity. Paul, in his discourse on Adam, points out that everyone following Adam up through Moses, when the law was given, was condemned to die. Why did they all die? Because they were guilty of Adam’s sin, and not because of their own sin (how could they know without the law?). Everyone is evil and deserves damnation in Paul’s mind. I don’t hear this in Jesus’ teaching. In fact Jesus teaches you can and should do good and in so doing you win God’s favor. Paul says, no, no! You can’t do good even if you want to because everyone is helplessly controlled by sin. Is this really how God looks at us?
Common sense says, tells me to stick to Jesus’ teaching. Does God really think everyone is so miserable that they deserve an eternity in hell where there will be gnashing of teeth? Common sense tells me that people were created as people, not as gods with the perfections of God. God is all knowing, yet he doesn’t expect people to be like him as to knowledge or intellect. God may be perfectly holy but does he really expect the same degree of holiness from his creatures? Sure he wants us to be good, but perfectly good? He did give us a free will, and with a free will, bad choices are bound to be make at times. And don’t people in general, do a fair amount of good? I don’t personally know anyone who has murdered another person, and I know very few who have stolen. But I do know a lot of people that have been kind and loving toward me, whether in the church or outside. My wife and I are part of a walking group (twice a week) and I doubt that many of them would claim to be Christian (two are atheists). Yet, when my wife was diagnosed with stage four colon cancer some six months ago, this group along with many other neighbors have reached out and sacrificed for us in so many ways. (Her cancer is already in remission.) The point is, the great majority of people I know get high grade for goodness. Their goodness far outweighs their evil. Common sense tells me that God will look at people and judge their entire life. To me it sounds like a Jesus emphasis, and he encourages us to live loving and caring lives. A teacher will judge a student by his/her effort throughout the course. The student many not get 100%, but he still will likely get an A, B, C, or D, all passing grades. But according to Paul, God only gives out F’s, no chance for anyone apart from perfection, which is impossible. If we were to follow the example of God, according to Paul, instead of giving our children a kiss at night and tell them we love them, we would instead tell them how bad they are and that they deserve nothing but damnation.
On top of this, in Paul’s thought, God never had a purpose to save all, but his intent was to save the chosen few and send the rest into eternal damnation.
In contrast, Jesus’ emphasis was to encourage goodness in those he taught, even self sacrificing goodness or a life of service. And with attempting such a life, God would be pleased. Perfection? You always set the goal at perfection, even if you don’t reach it. But you’re not an utter failure if you don’t reach it. Makes sense to me.
This is no small difference between Paul and Jesus. But if I’m not mistaken, the Bible teaches that it was Jesus, who is God, who came to earth to show us the way. Now it sounds like Paul is trying to correct Jesus, or that Jesus didn’t get the whole story right. Who am I to argue with God, or to tell him, he got it wrong. It certainly sounds like an inconsistency to me.
Oh, thanks for the additional comment, that on the other side of grace, Paul calls Christians to sin no more. Of course it’s on the other side of grace, or after having been chosen in Christ by God. On the forward side it doesn’t really matter, does it, because for most, they’re going to hell anyway, and God takes no pleasure in one’s attempt to do good. Again, that’s Paul, not Jesus.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Hey John. I have to admit, you do have me at a disadvantage. Once again, I’m not a scientist, don’t even come close. So I have to rely on others, even as I hear you doing (the book you are presently reading), and you are a scientist. I don’t think you are on the cutting edge of research, but you do have some understanding of what’s going on in those fields. You ask me for examples, but isn’t that just you, trying to push me into a corner? What am I supposed to do, read some evolutionist expert, look for an example in his research or book, then bring it back to you, so you can tear it apart? I don’t know if what you or they tell me is really true, or how to scrutinize theirs or your findings. I really think those beyond yourself are the real experts. I can go to a hospital or a medical expert with serious symptoms of illness, and I have to take the word of the doctors when they give me a diagnosis. Even getting a second opinion leaves me in the same position of having to rely on the experts. It’s my opinion that there are many more experts on the side of evolution. You can bash their findings endlessly, even as I”m sure they could do to you. But they are not involved in this particular debate, so you get to do the bashing with no opposition. If they were involved in this debate, they would not walk home with their tails between their legs. And it would be foolish of me to think that they are not doing their work with integrity. So you can keep pushing me for examples, but that makes you sound like a bully. That leaves me with having to pick a side to stand with. To me, it makes much more sense to stand with those who have put in the abundance of work and research. It feels, to me, like choosing to stand either with a professional team or a little league team. I’ll go with the experts.
All that being said, what bothers me more, is the foolishness of the creationist perspective. Everything created instantaneously and simultaneously at a single point in history (all within six days). That means, as to dating, everything is the exact same age, to within a week (as to the original creation). I imagine young earth creationists (apart from geneologies) can date the origin of the universe to within a week, or at least to a year or two. You may think that science and dating methods can back this up, but to the scientific community it sounds like foolishness. And it does to me. Theoretically, young earth scientists should be able to determine whether the origin of the earth and all of life was 10,000, 8,000 or 8,543 years ago, using the dating methods that they have found to be accurate. That’s the theory for young earth creationists, and again it is based on a couple chapters of the Bible. That may make sense to you and to some Christians, but it’s a theory that has to be accepted by faith because it doesn’t have the evidence to back it up. That’s the nature of religious faith, believing that which is not seen. It has to be accepted by faith because it involves a huge miracle and it can’t be explained otherwise. And it’s based on faith that the church (some churches) expect its members to accept this teaching, and not based upon scientific evidence. It’s also the reason that young earth creationists spend the majority of their effort trying to disprove evolution rather than proving an instantaneous creation (that’s based on faith).
Posted in: My Banner Article
This gets difficult when trying to respond to two people that seem to hold somewhat different positions. I appreciate your input and distinctions. Edwin, you’re right when you categorize me as the flaming liberal (I know, you didn’t quite say that). In my responses I’ve wanted to show that from within the Christian faith (especially the Reformed faith) that there are inconsistencies. It’s arguing from within a prepsuppositional apologetic the inconsistencies or unreasonableness of the Christian religion. But if I disregard the Christian presuppositions then that pretty much ends the debate right there. It would be like a Hindu arguing with a Christian. You can’t argue two completely different religions and expect to get anywhere.
As I understand the Christian religion (and I think there is no other way to understand it), Christianity is different from all other religions. The difference is that Jesus, who is God in the fullest sense, came to earth from heaven to pay the supreme price for sin. It is only in Jesus that there is salvation and apart from him, there is no salvation. He is the propitiation by which he appeased the wrath of God against sinners. And since all people are sinners (even come in the world as sinners) all are deserving of eternal damnation. Apart from Jesus and his payment for sin all are destined for hell. No other religion offers such a perspective on the condition of the human race or on such a plan for the salvation of people. It is unique. Jesus is the cornerstone, not only by his example, but especially by who he is and what he has done to accomplish salvation, making payment for sin. Apart from Christ’s saving work all are lost, because all are sinners. The good a person does counts for nothing because sin negates any good a person may have thought he has done.
I haven’t really heard too much from either John or Edwin on this central teaching of Christianity. It is only by faith in this saving work of Christ, that a person can experience salvation in the present and for eternity. And even this faith comes from God, given only to the elect. (Side note: Arminians believe that Jesus came for the salvation of all and all can respond.) This is the faith and rescue that the apostle Paul speaks about when he describes his struggle with sin. This is the faith that Paul agues for in his letters. It is a specific faith with a specific object. And there is no other faith that will save. “There is no other name under heaven...” This is the heart of Christianity.
John, you have talked a lot about God, but not so much about Jesus, and you have said a lot about faith, but not the object of faith. And Edwin, although you seem to acknowledge Jesus as fully God, and miraculously taking on a human nature, you don’t say much about this necessary propitiation made by Jesus or the helpless state of human kind.
Once again about “faith,” John. “Just have faith and you will be ok.” That’s what a lot of people might say. But not Paul. But, in contrast to Paul, when Jesus talked about faith the object of faith would change according to the situation. When the author of Hebrews talks about faith, the object of faith varies. “It was by faith that Abel brought a more acceptable offering to God than Cain did. Abel’s offering gave evidence that he was a righteous man, and God showed his approval of his gifts.” The object of faith was the sufficiency of his offering to God (works). No propitiation necessary. By faith Noah built the ark. By faith Abraham left his homeland. None of these mention the propitiation of another, but trust that they were doing (what God asked of them). They all believed they could please God. Anyone who truly believes in God will trust that their attempts to please God (love for God and neighbor) will be accepted by him. That’s not the faith Paul is talking about. You don’t trust your efforts even with faith in God. They won’t do it. Propitiation has to be made. And once again Paul and Jesus are at odds. Jesus says the difference between heaven and hell is in loving others, and by loving others you demonstrate your love for God. And Jesus’ teaching was revolutionary, especially in the context of what the Jewish religion had become. Paul’s addition is not just a new twist to what Jesus teaches, but different altogether. I don’t know how to make myself any clearer.
It seems to me, whether you acknowledge Jesus as God or not, whether you acknowledge him as a prophet sent by God, or whether he was just very insightful into where the Jewish religion (which he was part of) had gone amuck, however you see him, his teaching was insightful in his context, as well as insightful for all people in any age. He taught we could please God. It was his teaching and his insight into given situations that made him revolutionary. It’s here that you will fault me to no end. Paul came along and made an idol of Jesus, something I don’t think Jesus wanted for himself. Jesus came to teach a new way, the way of love. But now realize that many or most religions teach the same thing, perhaps with a different prophet. It’s just that Jesus is the teacher par excellence, at least in my thinking.
Well, I see that another response has come in from John. I'll send this as is, and then respond to the next responses later. Wishing both of you health and happiness (God's rich blessings).
Posted in: My Banner Article
I suppose you are right John, to some extent, when you say that both evolutionism and creationism involve faith. But that doesn’t mean that belief in evolution necessitates whether a person believes in God or not. Belief in Biblical creation does necessitate such belief. In fact, that is the beginning presupposition. A scientist should (and most do) do his evolutionary studies apart from any opinion about God. The evolutionist is simply looking for a natural explanation for the development of life. He looks at the facts or his findings and based on those findings comes up wth a theory of what those findings demonstrate. It’s when you add a philosophy (cosmology) to your findings that you come up with an “ism.” Hence evolutionism. But then this is a mixing of science and cosmology, and not true science. Creationism necessitates a cosmology, in fact begins with it. So, you see, the faith element is entirely different for the person who believes that evolution explains the origins of life. He may or may not believe in God.
Of course creationism or belief in a Biblical creation, begins with the presupposition that God has done this (brought into existence the world and all of life), in fact, has done this according to the outline laid out in Genesis 1 and 2. You, John, because you have some sympathy for the findings of evolution (dating and age findings) are now willing to stretch the Genesis account to include something never intended by the author of the Genesis account. I’m sure Moses was not thinking of days in terms of years or even millions of years for part of creation and twenty-four hours days for the rest. That takes away from the plain sense of reading the text. If God could create the animal kingdom in a matter of a few actual days he could do the same with the rest of creation. That’s the point of the Genesis account, not to differentiate the length of days in the account. That’s where the young earth creationists are attempting to be true to the text of Genesis. But they are beginning with big presuppositions which shades their whole scientific endeavor.
You have pointed out previously that buying into the theory of evolution necessitates an atheistic cosmology. Even the evolutionary scientists have claimed that. But certainly not all, or even a majority, have made that claim. And it’s not the begriming premise. And for those scientists that do claim evolution necessitates an atheistic perspective, they don’t really understand what God can and can’t do. Randomness does not exclude God from the process or development of life over time to its present forms. In fact Reformed Christians would say God works in and through what appears to be random or coincidence. In fact nothing happens by chance, even the falling of a single hair to the ground (again, or is it a bird). Isn’t that the point of Peter’s address to the Jews who had crucified Jesus but God was at work, despite their ill attempts, to accomplish the salvation of many. Isn’t that Paul’s meaning, when he says that everything happens by the hand of God, or when he talks about the Pharoah being a pot made for the seemingly ill purpose that God intended. Isn’t this what Christians have in mind when they talk about looking at a quilt from the back side and it looks ugly, but when seen from God’s perspective is beautiful (like seeing it from the front)? Atheistic evolutionism (evolution + cosmology) has a narrow understanding of what God can and can’t do, or what might make sense in the mind of God.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Now for a comment especially for you, Edwin. Again, I appreciate your perspective. And I agree that we have got off target. I think the original article can easily lead into other areas, as it has seemed to have happened here. I don’t expect either you, Edwin or John, to agree with me in the least. That’s ok, but at least you will know where I’m coming from.
I think all religions are manmade and are an attempt to explain the God who has revealed himself in creation. Most religions are ancient and are archaic in many of their basic premises. And certainly scientists today have a host of doubts when someone tells them that the earth, life and even human beings were all created in a matter of six days. Not only do scientists have to defend themselves against the likes of Christians, but also Hindus, Muslims, Mormons and a host of other religions that have their own ideas on origins, because these other ideas of origins come from their inspired Scriptures just as Christians assert. Like other ancient religions, Christianity has a central theme (just one of several) of the wars of the gods (the creator God and the demigod, Satan) who are in constant battle from the beginning of time and will culminate at the end of time. Also, like the many other religions, Christianity’s God acts outside of the created order and laws (such as with creation and a multitude of other miracles).
I think that creation tells us enough about God that I can stand in awe of him and desire to honor him with my life. And when someone as insightful as Jesus appears on the scene, it is cause enough to stand up and listen. In the fact that Jesus’ teachings makes so much sense, I could easily feel I’m a follower of Jesus, myself. But it would be very difficult to feel the same for Paul, who seems to have a very different perspective and emphasis on God and finding acceptance with him.
Also the personal nature that Christians portray God having with Christians raises flags for me. Prayer and the leading of the Holy Spirit are the impetuses for such thoughts of a personal God. They both are very subjective. When someone asks, what would Jesus want me to do, what they really mean is what do “I think” Jesus would want me to do, or what do I want Jesus to tell me to do in any given situation. The Holy Spirit can be thought to have led people and groups in a thousand different directions. And yet the Holy Spirit leads in all truth. I wonder if looking for the Spirit’s voice is no different than let your conscience be your guide. As to prayer, a person can feel that in a given situation God has answered their prayers (healing from cancer) but at the same time a hundred other Christians pray for the same but never recover. Then there is all kinds of rationalizing, as to the answers we get in regard to prayer, even though Jesus taught on more than one occasion that we could pray for anything we want and we will be given what we prayed for. I don’t think that the creation reveals these things but from the beginning of time people have been crying out to the gods with no more success than Christians. Maybe having a personal God is part of the myth of made up religions. Does God care for his creation? In my mind, definitely. He has brought it into existence in one way or another and preserves it wonderfully. Why would I doubt his care of his world. But a personal relationship?
So you see how easily questions (or doubts) about creation and evolution can lead to other areas of concern? Or maybe, more than likely, I’m not very disciplined in staying on track.
Posted in: My Banner Article
I don’t know John. Going back and forth with you makes me a little weary. Maybe it does for you, as well. I think that may be why Edwin dropped out a long time back.
As to your last response, you did a lot of speculation as to a naturalistic explanation of the first four days of the creation narrative in Genesis. You want to be true to the intent of Scripture and yet true to science (general revelation). Sounds admirable. And even though you admitted that what you stated could be totally out, you probably put more stock in such speculations you have made up than in evolutionary theory which has a lot of research behind it. It sounds a little bit to me, that for you, speculation is ok as long as it doesn’t agree with evolutionary theory.
Here’s another take (my speculation). I think there’s a possibility that as to primary causation Genesis is saying that God is the creator God. He stands above it all. That’s the important message for the ages. As to secondary causation a face on reading of Genesis made sense to the people of Moses’ day. That’s as far as their science would let them go in that early stage of history. And a day was a day, as Moses would have understood it. Today, as to primary causation, the message is the same. But today with the advances of science, people are still trying to make sense of origins as to secondary causation. And maybe on both sides of the issue there is both speculation as well as research. This includes Christians on both sides of the evolution/creation issue. Maybe too much is being made of secondary causation when reading the Bible.
I know, for you, an actual Adam, seems very important. Without him a lot of theology seems like it can thrown out or watered down. It sounded to me, as though Edwin was trying to come up with a way to be true to natural science and to the Biblical account. I know you disagree, and I understand. A lot could be at stake.
For me, I’m a theist. That means, in one way or another, God is involved. I’m not near ready to dismiss him. I’m not sure I want to keep this up endlessly. Honestly, I thought you would wear down before me. But looking over these responses, as well as others (to other articles) I think you are the energizer bunny. It’s been fun. And thanks for the food for thought. It’s been good.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Hear, hear Edwin. I like your comments that direct us toward the advances and progress that are being made in history. There may be plenty of evil, but culturally and politically our societies are making progress. I can’t tell you the name of the project or the authors, but recently a research project pointed out that today there are many less homicides per capita committed than in the past decades or centuries.
It may not seem it, but if we focus on the negative we will not see or appreciate the good. Christianity tends to focus on the sin of a society and individuals; we are part of a fallen world. Sin will only increase until God intervenes. So it’s a difficult thing to see and appreciate the good that is taking place outside the narrow confines of the church. Christian theology tends to belittle the good, with many Christians longing for the good old days and belittling the progress being made in the areas of science, technology and cultural growth. Even Christian evangelism tends to point toward the negative. The good of the gospel cannot be recognized until the evil is first recognized, especially personally, and confessed. So there is no good news until the bad is recognized. Christians are very good at pointing the evil. And of course, Paul is one of the greatest contributors to this negativity (total depravity).
The progress that you point out, Edwin, can be seen as the slow development of the human race (whether it takes hundreds of years or thousands, or more) It can be attributed to God and his mysterious intervention or to the long and slow process of evolution, also attributed to God. But Christianity, on the whole, will have a difficult time acknowledging any progress, because to them the world is on its way to hell in a hand basket.
And thank you, Jolanda, for the reminders to be kind and to stay on target. We love you.