Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by BobRyan.
Tim Clement (a Catholic poster who should not be held accountable to SDA doctrine) said this –
can you accept part of the bible as parable, and part as history?
No one is saying that parts of the bible are true and parts are not. It is a question of what we take literally and what we take figuratively, not what we choose to think is true or false.
We all choose to take different section of the bible as our “clear teachings which explain the rest”. As a catholic I choose to believe Jesus literally when he siad “This is my Body” at the last supper. You choose to take his words figuratively. The same decision is made when it comes to Genesis.
I personally am agnostic as to the actual mechanism of creation by God (as a professional academic scientist, I see the great power of the theory of evolution, but I am also aware that it does not answer all our questions about origins – neither does it it attempt to!) However this is beside the point.
We are not faced with a black or white choice here. It is not either the literally reading of Genesis is true or the whole bible is false, rather, the choice is over what truths God wishes to impart to us as we read Genesis. Are they historical and scientific truths, or are they spiritual and theological truths, or is it both?
Clement is not using the H-G model to interpret scripture but rather the “pick-and-choose” model.
He “chooses” Genesis as fiction since it does not fit with by-faith-alone belief in evolutionism.
He “chooses” parts of the gospel as “real” since they do fit his beliefs.
Certainly this method allows for us to “choose” anything we like when tossing out this or that part of the Bible. I wonder if he would accept the idea that we choose that a God-Man incarntion via “the virgin birth” is fiction or parable since it is not “observed today in nature”. He is opening a flood gate for apostacy when he endorses the “every man just pick and choose what you wish” model of objectivity.
Hence our focus on exegesis and the H-G hermeneutic, rather than just arbitrarily selecting this or that portion as “parable” when ever belief in evolutionism dictates that we eisegete the text of the Bible in just that way.
Since Tim has suggested more direct dialogue – I welcome his comments here.
in Christ,
Bob
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Lydian – in Numbers 12:6 God says “IF there is a prophet among you I will make myself known to him by a dream or in a vision”.
In theory this is how Moses got supernatural divine revelation about Gen 1-2 while he was in the land of Midian (According to Patriarchs and Prophets).
I am not arguing against the use of Daniel 2 and the principle of fulfilled prophecy.
I am simply arguing in favor of the Romans 1 and Romans 10 principle that the voice of nature itself is used to convert (“faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God”) as we see in Romans 10 and the ID element of nature to convict as we see in Romans 1.
I agree with your statements about the use of predictive prophecy in convincing minds. Walter Veith is one who was convinced in part by Daniel 2.
But he also claims to have been convinced by the evidence in nature that so fully debunked his prior evolutionist beliefs.
in Christ,
Bob
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Lydian – prophecy includes what Moses wrote about creation given that moses lived about 2500 years after creation. Only divine revelation via dream/vision could have given him such a clear picture of the event.
In Romans 1 Paul says that the “invisible attributes of God are clearly seen” in the things that have been made so that those with no Bible at all are “without excuse”.
In Romans 10 Paul says “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” and “then” Paul goes on to point out that the “Word of God” that everyone is “hearing” is that which is found in nature.
in Christ,
Bob
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Lydian Belknap: Frankly, I think Satan and all of his angels are rejoicing over all of this controversy over creation vs evolution.
The belief in evolutionism is a big part of his final plan – I have no doubt that he is more than a little satisfied with the results of those who have been evangelizing for faith in evolutionism both inside and outside Christian churches.
But having it creep up within our own SDA teaching institutions must be a special joy to someone.
in Christ,
Bob
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
Gentlemen,What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind
