Well John, all I can say is, “my bad.” I misspoke when I said that there was no science back in early historic days. We could probably say though, that it (science back then) was very primitive. In looking up the definition of “science” on the internet, the first definition I came to was, “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.” I don’t know if that is what primitives were doing when they learned that wood floats in water better than rocks, but I think you know what I was getting at when I made my comment about primitives and science. We have come a long way since the time of the ancients. I doubt that the ancients’ belief in a pseudo reality in which the gods of that reality interacted with the people on earth had anything to do with science, but rather with superstition.
You went to some length to explain why evolution is a dead end street. I will agree with you, that there are a lot of kinks to work out of this theory. I would imagine that evolutionary scientists will say the same. And it may even take hundreds of years to get it all figured out. But it still seems to be the best hope and the best direction that today’s scientists want to pursue as to dating the age of the earth and the origins of life. It seems to have more in favor of it than what can be found against it. You may disagree with that, but with the comments you have made in this post, as well as other posts, it seems like you present very little to discredit evolution. Volumes and volumes have been written, and years and years of research have been done to support evolution. So it is hard for me to agree with your premise. I don’t claim to be a scientist of any kind so you can fire away at me at will. My disagreement with you comes at a different level.
But now, what about the science that you support. You are suggesting that on the first day some ten thousand years ago, God said abracadabra, and instantaneously (within a day) there was light. On another day, God said abracadabra, and instantaneously there were all the sea creatures and birds of the air. On another day God said, abracadabra, and within that single day all the earth creatures including humans beings were brought into existence in their present forms. Within a total of six literal days all that exists was magically brought into existence.
Wow, the renown scientists of the world are going to jump on that theory. That’s not what you could even call science. Do you really think there are no holes in your theory? Scientists would have a heyday finding fault, if they would even consider your theory. You say there is fault with the theory of evolution, but none with your theory? Come on John. Listen to yourself.
I’m not sure what you are doing as to your own scientific endeavors. It sounds like your scientific ambition is to disprove evolution, rather than to prove Biblical creation. It doesn’t take science to prove or support God saying, “Let the earth produce all the animals of the earth, including human beings,” and it’s done in a single day. That’s religion, not science and has nothing to do with science. So should it be any wonder that scientists reject your theory?
Perhaps this is why, in part, other Christian realities make more sense, such as the Bible’s creation account being myth or fable. It leaves space for God being the creator God and yet let’s science unravel the “how” of how he did it. And along the way to gain many valuable insights for the good of humanity. I’m sorry John, you haven’t convinced me yet, and I doubt that you come close to convincing the scientists of today, other than so-called Christian scientists.
Well, once again John, you have responded to another’s response with questions, rather than acknowledging that a God directed or theistic evolution makes sense and still remains true to the theory of evolution. Most of your objections to evolution are overcome when one realizes that it is God directed. As an orchestra conductor is able to direct all the variety and number of instrumentalists to make beautiful music, so God can direct the evolutionary process to bring about a wonderful creation without interfering with the evolutionary process. Undoubtedly, as you point out, an evolutionary process without God would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. But with God at the helm, all things are possible. And so the process remains evolution. As the Bible points out, not a hair can fall from a person’s head apart from God’s will, or is it a sparrow falling to the ground? All of life happens (according to the Bible) according to God’s purposes, and yet he works through the normal means and laws he created. So also with a theistic evolution. And scientists are increasingly unearthing the evolutionary process that God has used. Maybe with time, the scientists will better understand the process that so far is wrought with problems, but eventually will make better sense. As least for now, to most scientists, evolution makes the most sense and is the obvious direction to pursue.
Hi again, John. I hope I don’t come off as mean spirited toward you. I know I have blogged, either on this site or on others, and have given the impression that I don’t like those I’m blogging with. Please don’t get that impression of me. If I sound caustic, it may be toward aspects of the Christian faith, but not toward individuals. I do appreciate your willingness to debate, even argue. I’m sure, for you, like me, it helps to clarify some of your own thoughts.
I have heard you suggest to others, and now me, that it is those who know the least about evolution that seem to grab on to it most firmly. But it also seems to be the opposite at the same time. Those who know the most about it (the scientists) who also hold most firmly to it. And as I’ve suggested before, even though the evolutionary scientists would admit problems with evolutionary theory, they see it as much more viable than the other theories that are in the arena, including Biblical creation. That has more problems than you can shake a stick at. In your last response, you said, “evidence is required beyond coincidence and beyond conjecture to support evolution.” What evidence beyond coincidence and beyond conjecture is there to support that the whole universe, and our world and its inhabitants were all created in a span of six single days? That, to me, sounds like the impossible theory. I’d like to sit in while a Christian scientist explains this to a group of secular scientists.
The arguments that you give for acknowledging the Christian faith are similar or the same as those given for acknowledging the truth and reliability of many other religions including the Mormon religion (and they believe in a friendly universe). In fact, most religions will make claims for the miraculous and to verify those claims they all maintain their writings are inspired by God, and therefore completely trustworthy. And they too (the Mormons for example) claim witnesses to validate the truthfulness of their religion. And all religions would assert that their God is not bound by the normal limitations that he has placed on the natural order. Therefore the miracles of their religion should be considered as trustworthy and true. As absurd as the miracles of other religions may sound, they are no more absurd than the miracles of Christianity, such as a six day creation. So how does on decide which religion is the one true religion? Thanks for your listening ear.
It would seem John, that God works through natural order and laws to bring about the healing of a terminally ill person, even though 50 years ago there would have been no possible healing, his fate would have been sealed, doctors would have said impossible. And even today, when a person is healed, Christians give thanks and credit to God. The laws were already there 50 years ago, but their discovery came later. Science is continually learning how to overcome the hurdles of the past. Why isn't it possible that hurdles today will be solved tomorrow, especially as science is in already in the process of solving some of the riddles of evolution so that it looks increasingly more realistic?
Hi again, John. I’m sorry if we seem to be keeping Edwin out of the loop in our dialog. It might be interesting to know some of his thoughts.
Your last response, John, was quite lengthy and got off target, at least from the topic of evolution. Maybe that wasn’t really the main topic. Maybe the topic or question is “what is truth?” And that can have to do with evolution versus Biblical creation or which religion, if any represents truth best. Maybe this is where Edwin’s perspective might be interesting, in regard to his original article in the Banner.
As to evolution or not, I have not tried to imply that evolutionary theory has all the answers or doesn’t have problems of its own. As you have pointed out, it seems as though there are many problems. But I do think that today’s scientists would still say, problems or not, evolution (including macro evolution) offers the most reasonable and logical explanation to the age of the earth and the origin and development of life. And eventually answers will be forthcoming to your criticisms, if many of them have not already been answered. To scientists today, evolution is the much more logical approach, than whatever other explanations can be offered up, including a literal understanding of Biblical creation. As to origins my bet rides with the scientists of today.
But now to the crux of your last response. It seems as though you are more concerned with finding the fault with other religions than pointing out the logic of Christianity. Find fault with the opponent. If fault can be found, then that leaves Christianity (especially Reformed Christianity) standing tall. And of course, you would say there is no error in Christianity. So I would like you to consider just one area of Reformed Christianity or what you might call Biblical Christianity. That area has to do with the “election” (predestination unto salvation) of the saved. And of course this really touches on the heart of Christianity. It has to do with salvation in Jesus Christ, your only “comfort in life and in death.”
I hand it to Reformed Christians, historically they have taken the Bible very seriously, as you seem to do, as well. Of course, that means you can’t ignore what it teaches or sweep its teachings under the carpet. Hence, the teaching of Scripture on election is upheld and not denied in Reformed thought. But the question of what does the Bible teach about election has been debated through the ages. Does the Bible teach an infralapsarian or a supralapsarian perspective. Does it teach only an election of the saved or also the election of the lost unto damnation, single predestination or double predestination. Most today, even within the CRC, hold to an infralapsarian position, although the confessions are not altogether clear on that; it could go either way. Consider the Canons of Dort, 3rd and 4th main point, arts. 1-5. They seem to support the more severe view of election.
Double predestination (supralapsarians) dictates that not only the saved, but also the lost, were predestined from eternity past to their final state whether it be salvation or damnation, even in the mind of God. Of course this means God never had a sense of love in Christ for the lost, in fact his only intention for the lost was eternal destruction. In fact, God created them for that very purpose (eternal damnation). Therefore, there is no sincere offer by God of the gospel to those whom he has determined for eternal damnation in hell.
To verify this position, there needs to be Biblical support, which there is. First, to gain God’s acceptance and love by one’s own effort, a person has to be perfectly good, an impossible standard to attain. All have sinned and fallen short. In fact it is impossible to please God by one’s own effort. This is the first barrier that God has placed before humanity, a standard of absolute perfection, which cannot be attained. Secondly to insure that this impossible standard is not met by humans, God has credited to every person the sin of Adam. So even before birth, a person is a condemned sinner, condemned by God. This is something that God has done, apart from human decision. And then third, God has imputed the sinful nature of Adam to every human being. By this sinful nature, given by God, it is impossible to live up to God’s standard from birth on. In fact, according to the Bible, a person can’t help but to sin continually. So God makes salvation for the majority of humanity (all, other than the elect) an impossibility. He does this by giving an impossible standard for people to achieve, also, by crediting all of humanity with Adam’s sin even before birth, and also by imputing a sinful nature to all people so that they cannot help but to sin and therefore meet with failure. These are the actions of God.
In Romans 7, the apostle Paul talks about his struggle with sin, apart from Christ. He paints more than a helpless picture, but even a desperate picture. Although in his mind he knows what is right and good, he can’t do it. He fails every time. He has no power to do the good he knows he should do because of this sinful nature. He concludes by saying what a miserable person he is, one whose life is dominated by sin and death. He is describing here the human condition, the condition of all people who have had this sinful nature imputed to them by God.
When Paul cries out, who will deliver me from this helpless condition, the answer is Jesus Christ. Paul is in no way taking credit for his salvation or even for choosing Christ. He is just thankful that God in Christ has chosen him for salvation. He’s thanking God for his election in Christ. Anything more, would be giving Paul himself credit for choosing Christ. According to Reformed thought it’s the other way around, Christ always chooses us. For those not chosen by God’s electing love, they remain destined for destruction by which God’s has insured their lost estate and damnation. It’s really hard to understand why God would blame humans for their sin and hold them accountable, when God is the one who has insured that they could do nothing but fail. Logic says that God is the one at fault.
So Christianity has a God who has predetermined that the majority of the human race will go to hell for eternity. Reformed Christians talk about God determining not only the ends but also the means to accomplish the ends. And now you see how God has determined both in regard to the lost. This is the picture of God that the Bible portrays to the world. Is this the desirable picture of God that the Bible holds up to the world? Is this what we mean when Christians talk endlessly about the love of God. Obviously the love of God in Christ is only for those whom God has predestined for salvation from before the beginning of time and not for the majority of the human race.
Of course when a person, especially one who is damned by God to hell for eternity, protests his plight the apostle Paul gives this answer. “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?” No, don’t say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, “Why have you made me like this?” When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn’t he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into? In the same way, even though God has the right to show his anger and his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who were made for destruction.” (Romans 9:19-22)
You may claim that when Scripture is taken as a whole, we get a different picture. But this points out either a blaring inconsistency in the Bible’s teaching or shows that the apostle Paul was not on the same page as other Bible writers. We know he did have disagreements with Peter, and probably with most of Christendom today. This certainly says something as to how one should understand the inspiration of the Bible.
The Bible’s inconsistent teaching about salvation in Christ is so glaring that it doesn’t sound any better than other religions, in fact it sounds far worse. So now I wonder if your last response in this blog about the failure of other religions really holds any water. Maybe it is time to start evaluating the teachings of the Bible, as Edwin suggests. Sorry about the length of this comment, but I could have said a lot more.
Thanks, John, for your comments. I think you fall way short in your logic. Your analogy of the father entrusting his son with his money falls way short of the picture of God’s love or discipline. Your story assumes that the son has the ability and freewill to either obey or disobey his father. But the fact is, the son does not have the ability or free will to obey him. That is the point of the apostle Paul’s recounting of his own helpless condition and enslavement to sin.
A more faithful characterization is the story of a father who tells his son to get upstairs to his bedroom after the father has broken the son’s arms and legs, and now the son has no ability to get upstairs. And so the father, because of the son’s disobedience, takes him out behind the woodshed and beats him unmercifully for his disobedience. He couldn’t obey his father, even if he knew he should, because his father has disabled him. He was disabled by the father by imputing to his son a sinful nature (broken legs) by which he was not able to obey, as well as crediting him with Adam’s sin (broken arms) and giving him an impossible standard to achieve, absolute perfect obedience. But you are saying it is still the son’s fault for disobeying his father, and he is responsible for not doing what he had no ability to do.
You see your analogy does not measure up in the least to what Paul describes in the Bible. Are you writing your own infallible Bible now?
But now for an analogy of God’s electing purposes. I think you would admit the Bible teaches a limited atonement. Here’s the analogy. A father takes his five young sons out fishing in a lake. The boys all get rambunctious and tip the boat over. Boys will be boys. They all were at fault. The problem, though, is that none of the sons can swim. But the father is an excellent swimmer and has many medals in life saving. But to the surprise of those watching on shore, the father saves only two of the sons and leaves the other three to drown. He could have saved all five if he had wanted to but chose only to save two. That’s the limited atonement of election. This is neither love nor justice. In a court of law in our land the father would never be pardoned. But I’m guessing you will say that God’s love and justice isn’t measured by our courts and we shouldn’t question him. But logic to anyone’s thinking today, would say something is rotten in Denmark. If we are God’s image bearers, is this the kind of love we are to display to those who surround us?
You see, it is this teaching in the Bible, that makes the Bible either inconsistent, illogical, or abhorrent. But Christians can hide this teaching, that is central to the Bible's teaching of salvation, by continually ranting that God is love and wants everyone to be saved. Really? Or are you going to point me to a Biblical inconsistency?
John, you may think it is the other way around, but the fact that the scientific community in general (other than new earth Christian science) is continually gravitating toward evolutionary theory says otherwise.
Thank you John for your comments. You have helped to clear some things up. I see you are not a five point Calvinist, so you should have difficulty signing the form of subscription for the CRC. I think that might have been one of your criticisms of Edwin Walhout. You obviously don’t believe in total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, probably even “irresistible grace.” And you obviously can’t accept all the statements in the Canons of Dort.
From what you say, it sounds like a person can both accept or decline on God’s offer of grace. He’s almost totally depraved but not quite. Your analogy of the father entrusting the son with his money, as well as your comments in this last response completely support a depraved person, but not ”totally depraved,” maybe just a bad person. Not a Reformed understanding of total depravity. As to “unconditional election”, again you indicate that a person’s acceptance by God is based on the condition of his willing acceptance of God’s offer. So you see (according to you), there is a condition that God looks for in an individual before accepting that person into his kingdom. That’s conditional, and maybe you can’t even call it election. God chooses those who choose him? Sorry John. You are way off base as to Calvinistic leanings. As to “limited atonement”, your perspective is that God’s salvation is only limited to those who choose God first. In other words it’s an unlimited atonement. The offer is made to all, and now all can either respond or not. Any and all can make their way to God. You sound more like a Freewill Baptist than Reformed. I laud you for taking such a position while claiming to be Reformed. But in your heart, you’re obviously not Reformed.
When Paul describes his enslavement to sin in Romans 7, he is not describing a person who can walk away from his enslavement. He’s a SLAVE, and a slave does not have walking rights, as you suggest. You say in your last response, “You can accept, trust and obey.” That’s definitely not Paul is saying. You misrepresent him terribly. His freedom from slavery came to him when God chose him in Christ. Don’t you remember his Damascus road experience? That was not Paul coming willingly to Christ.
So thank you, John. You cleared some things up for me. One, you are not a Calvinist or Reformed. From previous articles that you have written, I thought you were, but maybe I’m mistaken. You obviously don’t like the inconsistencies that are taught in the Bible either. I would gather that you don’t much like Jesus’ teaching regarding salvation by works either. Jesus obviously teaches that the distinction between those who go to heaven and those who go to hell is a matter of works. The sheep are accepted into the Father’s kingdom and the goats are consigned to everlasting anguish in hell. His parable of the talents also support a salvation based on works, what we do with our talents. His story of the good Samaritan, again supports acceptance by God based on works. Even the parable of the wayward son demonstrates the father’s forgiveness based on the son’s willing return. In fact the majority of Jesus’ teaching shows that acceptance with God is based on the mark we leave, whether good or bad. Again this just shows the inconsistencies of the Bible’s teaching. Paul’s teaching does not match what Jesus taught And to reconcile these differences with each other, Christians have to do a lot of manipulation.
But all this comes back full circle to the inspiration of the Bible. How do you reconcile the inconsistencies of the Bible and call them all inspired by God. And of course, Christians have been throwing out different parts of the Bible or manipulating them to say what they want from before the time of Christ right up to the present. Hence the varieties of denominations. How can one even think (with any integrity) that the Holy Spirit will lead his church in all truth? So what makes the Christian faith the one true faith? And what makes you think that God really created all there is, including our world when the physical evidence for your position is lacking? Thanks again for your listening ear.
John, as I have shared several times, I am no expert when it comes to science. So if you asking me for scientific evidence and examples to demonstrate that science is overcoming the hurdles of the past in demonstrating the reality of evolution, then you are asking the wrong person. What seems to me to be evidentiary is the testimony of the vast majority of scientific opinion and findings. You could not get the majority of the scientific community to agree on evolution without what they consider as strong supporting evidence. And this strong opinion comes from a variety of scientific fields, such as molecular biology, genetics, anatomy, paleontology, geology, and probably more. In contrast, I could take your word that there is no evidence to support evolution. Hmm, I think I’ll trust the experts when they tell me that there is an abundance of evidence.
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.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Well John, all I can say is, “my bad.” I misspoke when I said that there was no science back in early historic days. We could probably say though, that it (science back then) was very primitive. In looking up the definition of “science” on the internet, the first definition I came to was, “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.” I don’t know if that is what primitives were doing when they learned that wood floats in water better than rocks, but I think you know what I was getting at when I made my comment about primitives and science. We have come a long way since the time of the ancients. I doubt that the ancients’ belief in a pseudo reality in which the gods of that reality interacted with the people on earth had anything to do with science, but rather with superstition.
You went to some length to explain why evolution is a dead end street. I will agree with you, that there are a lot of kinks to work out of this theory. I would imagine that evolutionary scientists will say the same. And it may even take hundreds of years to get it all figured out. But it still seems to be the best hope and the best direction that today’s scientists want to pursue as to dating the age of the earth and the origins of life. It seems to have more in favor of it than what can be found against it. You may disagree with that, but with the comments you have made in this post, as well as other posts, it seems like you present very little to discredit evolution. Volumes and volumes have been written, and years and years of research have been done to support evolution. So it is hard for me to agree with your premise. I don’t claim to be a scientist of any kind so you can fire away at me at will. My disagreement with you comes at a different level.
But now, what about the science that you support. You are suggesting that on the first day some ten thousand years ago, God said abracadabra, and instantaneously (within a day) there was light. On another day, God said abracadabra, and instantaneously there were all the sea creatures and birds of the air. On another day God said, abracadabra, and within that single day all the earth creatures including humans beings were brought into existence in their present forms. Within a total of six literal days all that exists was magically brought into existence.
Wow, the renown scientists of the world are going to jump on that theory. That’s not what you could even call science. Do you really think there are no holes in your theory? Scientists would have a heyday finding fault, if they would even consider your theory. You say there is fault with the theory of evolution, but none with your theory? Come on John. Listen to yourself.
I’m not sure what you are doing as to your own scientific endeavors. It sounds like your scientific ambition is to disprove evolution, rather than to prove Biblical creation. It doesn’t take science to prove or support God saying, “Let the earth produce all the animals of the earth, including human beings,” and it’s done in a single day. That’s religion, not science and has nothing to do with science. So should it be any wonder that scientists reject your theory?
Perhaps this is why, in part, other Christian realities make more sense, such as the Bible’s creation account being myth or fable. It leaves space for God being the creator God and yet let’s science unravel the “how” of how he did it. And along the way to gain many valuable insights for the good of humanity. I’m sorry John, you haven’t convinced me yet, and I doubt that you come close to convincing the scientists of today, other than so-called Christian scientists.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Well, once again John, you have responded to another’s response with questions, rather than acknowledging that a God directed or theistic evolution makes sense and still remains true to the theory of evolution. Most of your objections to evolution are overcome when one realizes that it is God directed. As an orchestra conductor is able to direct all the variety and number of instrumentalists to make beautiful music, so God can direct the evolutionary process to bring about a wonderful creation without interfering with the evolutionary process. Undoubtedly, as you point out, an evolutionary process without God would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. But with God at the helm, all things are possible. And so the process remains evolution. As the Bible points out, not a hair can fall from a person’s head apart from God’s will, or is it a sparrow falling to the ground? All of life happens (according to the Bible) according to God’s purposes, and yet he works through the normal means and laws he created. So also with a theistic evolution. And scientists are increasingly unearthing the evolutionary process that God has used. Maybe with time, the scientists will better understand the process that so far is wrought with problems, but eventually will make better sense. As least for now, to most scientists, evolution makes the most sense and is the obvious direction to pursue.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Hi again, John. I hope I don’t come off as mean spirited toward you. I know I have blogged, either on this site or on others, and have given the impression that I don’t like those I’m blogging with. Please don’t get that impression of me. If I sound caustic, it may be toward aspects of the Christian faith, but not toward individuals. I do appreciate your willingness to debate, even argue. I’m sure, for you, like me, it helps to clarify some of your own thoughts.
I have heard you suggest to others, and now me, that it is those who know the least about evolution that seem to grab on to it most firmly. But it also seems to be the opposite at the same time. Those who know the most about it (the scientists) who also hold most firmly to it. And as I’ve suggested before, even though the evolutionary scientists would admit problems with evolutionary theory, they see it as much more viable than the other theories that are in the arena, including Biblical creation. That has more problems than you can shake a stick at. In your last response, you said, “evidence is required beyond coincidence and beyond conjecture to support evolution.” What evidence beyond coincidence and beyond conjecture is there to support that the whole universe, and our world and its inhabitants were all created in a span of six single days? That, to me, sounds like the impossible theory. I’d like to sit in while a Christian scientist explains this to a group of secular scientists.
The arguments that you give for acknowledging the Christian faith are similar or the same as those given for acknowledging the truth and reliability of many other religions including the Mormon religion (and they believe in a friendly universe). In fact, most religions will make claims for the miraculous and to verify those claims they all maintain their writings are inspired by God, and therefore completely trustworthy. And they too (the Mormons for example) claim witnesses to validate the truthfulness of their religion. And all religions would assert that their God is not bound by the normal limitations that he has placed on the natural order. Therefore the miracles of their religion should be considered as trustworthy and true. As absurd as the miracles of other religions may sound, they are no more absurd than the miracles of Christianity, such as a six day creation. So how does on decide which religion is the one true religion? Thanks for your listening ear.
Posted in: My Banner Article
It would seem John, that God works through natural order and laws to bring about the healing of a terminally ill person, even though 50 years ago there would have been no possible healing, his fate would have been sealed, doctors would have said impossible. And even today, when a person is healed, Christians give thanks and credit to God. The laws were already there 50 years ago, but their discovery came later. Science is continually learning how to overcome the hurdles of the past. Why isn't it possible that hurdles today will be solved tomorrow, especially as science is in already in the process of solving some of the riddles of evolution so that it looks increasingly more realistic?
Posted in: My Banner Article
Hi again, John. I’m sorry if we seem to be keeping Edwin out of the loop in our dialog. It might be interesting to know some of his thoughts.
Your last response, John, was quite lengthy and got off target, at least from the topic of evolution. Maybe that wasn’t really the main topic. Maybe the topic or question is “what is truth?” And that can have to do with evolution versus Biblical creation or which religion, if any represents truth best. Maybe this is where Edwin’s perspective might be interesting, in regard to his original article in the Banner.
As to evolution or not, I have not tried to imply that evolutionary theory has all the answers or doesn’t have problems of its own. As you have pointed out, it seems as though there are many problems. But I do think that today’s scientists would still say, problems or not, evolution (including macro evolution) offers the most reasonable and logical explanation to the age of the earth and the origin and development of life. And eventually answers will be forthcoming to your criticisms, if many of them have not already been answered. To scientists today, evolution is the much more logical approach, than whatever other explanations can be offered up, including a literal understanding of Biblical creation. As to origins my bet rides with the scientists of today.
But now to the crux of your last response. It seems as though you are more concerned with finding the fault with other religions than pointing out the logic of Christianity. Find fault with the opponent. If fault can be found, then that leaves Christianity (especially Reformed Christianity) standing tall. And of course, you would say there is no error in Christianity. So I would like you to consider just one area of Reformed Christianity or what you might call Biblical Christianity. That area has to do with the “election” (predestination unto salvation) of the saved. And of course this really touches on the heart of Christianity. It has to do with salvation in Jesus Christ, your only “comfort in life and in death.”
I hand it to Reformed Christians, historically they have taken the Bible very seriously, as you seem to do, as well. Of course, that means you can’t ignore what it teaches or sweep its teachings under the carpet. Hence, the teaching of Scripture on election is upheld and not denied in Reformed thought. But the question of what does the Bible teach about election has been debated through the ages. Does the Bible teach an infralapsarian or a supralapsarian perspective. Does it teach only an election of the saved or also the election of the lost unto damnation, single predestination or double predestination. Most today, even within the CRC, hold to an infralapsarian position, although the confessions are not altogether clear on that; it could go either way. Consider the Canons of Dort, 3rd and 4th main point, arts. 1-5. They seem to support the more severe view of election.
Double predestination (supralapsarians) dictates that not only the saved, but also the lost, were predestined from eternity past to their final state whether it be salvation or damnation, even in the mind of God. Of course this means God never had a sense of love in Christ for the lost, in fact his only intention for the lost was eternal destruction. In fact, God created them for that very purpose (eternal damnation). Therefore, there is no sincere offer by God of the gospel to those whom he has determined for eternal damnation in hell.
To verify this position, there needs to be Biblical support, which there is. First, to gain God’s acceptance and love by one’s own effort, a person has to be perfectly good, an impossible standard to attain. All have sinned and fallen short. In fact it is impossible to please God by one’s own effort. This is the first barrier that God has placed before humanity, a standard of absolute perfection, which cannot be attained. Secondly to insure that this impossible standard is not met by humans, God has credited to every person the sin of Adam. So even before birth, a person is a condemned sinner, condemned by God. This is something that God has done, apart from human decision. And then third, God has imputed the sinful nature of Adam to every human being. By this sinful nature, given by God, it is impossible to live up to God’s standard from birth on. In fact, according to the Bible, a person can’t help but to sin continually. So God makes salvation for the majority of humanity (all, other than the elect) an impossibility. He does this by giving an impossible standard for people to achieve, also, by crediting all of humanity with Adam’s sin even before birth, and also by imputing a sinful nature to all people so that they cannot help but to sin and therefore meet with failure. These are the actions of God.
In Romans 7, the apostle Paul talks about his struggle with sin, apart from Christ. He paints more than a helpless picture, but even a desperate picture. Although in his mind he knows what is right and good, he can’t do it. He fails every time. He has no power to do the good he knows he should do because of this sinful nature. He concludes by saying what a miserable person he is, one whose life is dominated by sin and death. He is describing here the human condition, the condition of all people who have had this sinful nature imputed to them by God.
When Paul cries out, who will deliver me from this helpless condition, the answer is Jesus Christ. Paul is in no way taking credit for his salvation or even for choosing Christ. He is just thankful that God in Christ has chosen him for salvation. He’s thanking God for his election in Christ. Anything more, would be giving Paul himself credit for choosing Christ. According to Reformed thought it’s the other way around, Christ always chooses us. For those not chosen by God’s electing love, they remain destined for destruction by which God’s has insured their lost estate and damnation. It’s really hard to understand why God would blame humans for their sin and hold them accountable, when God is the one who has insured that they could do nothing but fail. Logic says that God is the one at fault.
So Christianity has a God who has predetermined that the majority of the human race will go to hell for eternity. Reformed Christians talk about God determining not only the ends but also the means to accomplish the ends. And now you see how God has determined both in regard to the lost. This is the picture of God that the Bible portrays to the world. Is this the desirable picture of God that the Bible holds up to the world? Is this what we mean when Christians talk endlessly about the love of God. Obviously the love of God in Christ is only for those whom God has predestined for salvation from before the beginning of time and not for the majority of the human race.
Of course when a person, especially one who is damned by God to hell for eternity, protests his plight the apostle Paul gives this answer. “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?” No, don’t say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, “Why have you made me like this?” When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn’t he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into? In the same way, even though God has the right to show his anger and his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who were made for destruction.”
(Romans 9:19-22)
You may claim that when Scripture is taken as a whole, we get a different picture. But this points out either a blaring inconsistency in the Bible’s teaching or shows that the apostle Paul was not on the same page as other Bible writers. We know he did have disagreements with Peter, and probably with most of Christendom today. This certainly says something as to how one should understand the inspiration of the Bible.
The Bible’s inconsistent teaching about salvation in Christ is so glaring that it doesn’t sound any better than other religions, in fact it sounds far worse. So now I wonder if your last response in this blog about the failure of other religions really holds any water. Maybe it is time to start evaluating the teachings of the Bible, as Edwin suggests. Sorry about the length of this comment, but I could have said a lot more.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Thanks, John, for your comments. I think you fall way short in your logic. Your analogy of the father entrusting his son with his money falls way short of the picture of God’s love or discipline. Your story assumes that the son has the ability and freewill to either obey or disobey his father. But the fact is, the son does not have the ability or free will to obey him. That is the point of the apostle Paul’s recounting of his own helpless condition and enslavement to sin.
A more faithful characterization is the story of a father who tells his son to get upstairs to his bedroom after the father has broken the son’s arms and legs, and now the son has no ability to get upstairs. And so the father, because of the son’s disobedience, takes him out behind the woodshed and beats him unmercifully for his disobedience. He couldn’t obey his father, even if he knew he should, because his father has disabled him. He was disabled by the father by imputing to his son a sinful nature (broken legs) by which he was not able to obey, as well as crediting him with Adam’s sin (broken arms) and giving him an impossible standard to achieve, absolute perfect obedience. But you are saying it is still the son’s fault for disobeying his father, and he is responsible for not doing what he had no ability to do.
You see your analogy does not measure up in the least to what Paul describes in the Bible. Are you writing your own infallible Bible now?
But now for an analogy of God’s electing purposes. I think you would admit the Bible teaches a limited atonement. Here’s the analogy. A father takes his five young sons out fishing in a lake. The boys all get rambunctious and tip the boat over. Boys will be boys. They all were at fault. The problem, though, is that none of the sons can swim. But the father is an excellent swimmer and has many medals in life saving. But to the surprise of those watching on shore, the father saves only two of the sons and leaves the other three to drown. He could have saved all five if he had wanted to but chose only to save two. That’s the limited atonement of election. This is neither love nor justice. In a court of law in our land the father would never be pardoned. But I’m guessing you will say that God’s love and justice isn’t measured by our courts and we shouldn’t question him. But logic to anyone’s thinking today, would say something is rotten in Denmark. If we are God’s image bearers, is this the kind of love we are to display to those who surround us?
You see, it is this teaching in the Bible, that makes the Bible either inconsistent, illogical, or abhorrent. But Christians can hide this teaching, that is central to the Bible's teaching of salvation, by continually ranting that God is love and wants everyone to be saved. Really? Or are you going to point me to a Biblical inconsistency?
Posted in: My Banner Article
John, you may think it is the other way around, but the fact that the scientific community in general (other than new earth Christian science) is continually gravitating toward evolutionary theory says otherwise.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Thank you John for your comments. You have helped to clear some things up. I see you are not a five point Calvinist, so you should have difficulty signing the form of subscription for the CRC. I think that might have been one of your criticisms of Edwin Walhout. You obviously don’t believe in total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, probably even “irresistible grace.” And you obviously can’t accept all the statements in the Canons of Dort.
From what you say, it sounds like a person can both accept or decline on God’s offer of grace. He’s almost totally depraved but not quite. Your analogy of the father entrusting the son with his money, as well as your comments in this last response completely support a depraved person, but not ”totally depraved,” maybe just a bad person. Not a Reformed understanding of total depravity. As to “unconditional election”, again you indicate that a person’s acceptance by God is based on the condition of his willing acceptance of God’s offer. So you see (according to you), there is a condition that God looks for in an individual before accepting that person into his kingdom. That’s conditional, and maybe you can’t even call it election. God chooses those who choose him? Sorry John. You are way off base as to Calvinistic leanings. As to “limited atonement”, your perspective is that God’s salvation is only limited to those who choose God first. In other words it’s an unlimited atonement. The offer is made to all, and now all can either respond or not. Any and all can make their way to God. You sound more like a Freewill Baptist than Reformed. I laud you for taking such a position while claiming to be Reformed. But in your heart, you’re obviously not Reformed.
When Paul describes his enslavement to sin in Romans 7, he is not describing a person who can walk away from his enslavement. He’s a SLAVE, and a slave does not have walking rights, as you suggest. You say in your last response, “You can accept, trust and obey.” That’s definitely not Paul is saying. You misrepresent him terribly. His freedom from slavery came to him when God chose him in Christ. Don’t you remember his Damascus road experience? That was not Paul coming willingly to Christ.
So thank you, John. You cleared some things up for me. One, you are not a Calvinist or Reformed. From previous articles that you have written, I thought you were, but maybe I’m mistaken. You obviously don’t like the inconsistencies that are taught in the Bible either. I would gather that you don’t much like Jesus’ teaching regarding salvation by works either. Jesus obviously teaches that the distinction between those who go to heaven and those who go to hell is a matter of works. The sheep are accepted into the Father’s kingdom and the goats are consigned to everlasting anguish in hell. His parable of the talents also support a salvation based on works, what we do with our talents. His story of the good Samaritan, again supports acceptance by God based on works. Even the parable of the wayward son demonstrates the father’s forgiveness based on the son’s willing return. In fact the majority of Jesus’ teaching shows that acceptance with God is based on the mark we leave, whether good or bad. Again this just shows the inconsistencies of the Bible’s teaching. Paul’s teaching does not match what Jesus taught And to reconcile these differences with each other, Christians have to do a lot of manipulation.
But all this comes back full circle to the inspiration of the Bible. How do you reconcile the inconsistencies of the Bible and call them all inspired by God. And of course, Christians have been throwing out different parts of the Bible or manipulating them to say what they want from before the time of Christ right up to the present. Hence the varieties of denominations. How can one even think (with any integrity) that the Holy Spirit will lead his church in all truth? So what makes the Christian faith the one true faith? And what makes you think that God really created all there is, including our world when the physical evidence for your position is lacking? Thanks again for your listening ear.
Posted in: My Banner Article
John, as I have shared several times, I am no expert when it comes to science. So if you asking me for scientific evidence and examples to demonstrate that science is overcoming the hurdles of the past in demonstrating the reality of evolution, then you are asking the wrong person. What seems to me to be evidentiary is the testimony of the vast majority of scientific opinion and findings. You could not get the majority of the scientific community to agree on evolution without what they consider as strong supporting evidence. And this strong opinion comes from a variety of scientific fields, such as molecular biology, genetics, anatomy, paleontology, geology, and probably more. In contrast, I could take your word that there is no evidence to support evolution. Hmm, I think I’ll trust the experts when they tell me that there is an abundance of evidence.
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.