Evolution & Theology: the Divine Image

Charles has been kind enough to consent to discuss evolution from it
most important aspect- its relation to God. =A0There were two major
points of contention which I raised concerning evolution from a
biblical point of view. =A0The first concerns the "image of God" aspect
which God declares granting mankind. =A0The second was the fact that
evolution requires death to occur prior to sin.
I feel that Charles has not adequately resolved the second point but
it seems that line of discussion has ended. =A0So back to my primary
issue.

Which calls into question everything written in scripture. For if you
cannot accept the Genesis record from a normal reading, then why
so one expect what follows to be any different?

But there is a very big problem with your position- its not what is
represented in Rom 5. The idea that ALL alienation, whether it be
spiritual, social (personal) or physical, is represented in Adam in
Rom 5 in regards to the atonement. Such a position as yours
really, if we are honestly investing the matter, destroys the type
of death Christ suffered.

First the scripture passages relevant to a discussion of the divine
image in man.

I agree with Loren's description of the image of God, and commend most
of his posting. I disagree only on his comments on the relationship
with evolution.

Evolution doesn't account for any of this. =A0It must be read into the
Genesis record and then made to contort some explanation in very much
a deist sort of way. =A0But from a normative reading of the text and all

But Gen 9 reveals the fact that they didn't "briefly" embody it. It
was
not lost as the murder command so illustrates.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
Either way, we are part of a fallen world.

But your idea of a fallen world and the Calvinist idea are not one and
same. Calvin was a creationist. And one is wrong in thinking that
the
evolutionary model didn't come along until Darwin, or his
predecessors.
I feel that Isa 14's account of Lucifer's fall reveals that his belief
was
that God Himself only evolved prior to his own coming into existence
and that he too was going to ascend to such a great height.

That all aside, your "fallen world" is much less distinct and
representative
of a race than that of a creationist. For your position has man
rising up
out of animal existence thus their "soul" is not classicially
distinguished.
This has real ramifications when one begins to consider all that is
actually involved.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
We depend upon God's grace and live in hope of his
establishment of the image.

"But hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one also hope
in what one sees?"

The image is still there. It is part of that distinction that divides
man from non-man. It is part of that distinction which makes
man responsible and thus accountable.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I don't expect this to happen in the
natural course of evolution, nor as a result of purely human efforts.

Then why do you hold that it began so? Again, though you
admit that this has wide application even to the degree as to
touching upon the incarnation, you do not credit it with the
worthiness that it deserves. For I maintain that it not only
extends to the incarnation but as far as the penal substitutionary
atonement as well. How can Christ be a federal head /
representative of the race when the evolutionary model actually
destroys Adam's federal headship? Adam, according to you
account, would represent not only the human race, but having
the same blood line as his predecessory animal heritage
as well, would have him be a most indistinct representative.

What I don't understand is why is it necessary not to accept
-on faith (I see you didn't rebut that line of argument at all)
a normal reading of the opening chapters of scripture? Where
is the justification -from scripture itself- to suddenly introduce
some comparative paradigm, such as, say allegorization, instead
of just taking what is written on faith just as you take on faith
that Christ died for *your* sin/sins? Where is the justification?

I feel this is a question that must be answered honestly for if
one starts playing the husk 'n kernel shell game at the outset
of the scriptural record, how does one form *any* dogmatics?
I really am honestly seeking a discourse on this, trying to
understand just how such things are answered/argued.

Charles Hedrick

2008-09-12 02:43:19 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Which calls into question everything written in scripture. For if you
cannot accept the Genesis record from a normal reading, then why
so one expect what follows to be any different?

We are unlikely to agree on this. I think the fundamentalist reading
of Scripture is a fairly recent innovation. Calvin certainly assumed
that things are literally true that I don't, but where he knew of
reasons not be literal he wasn't, e.g. he said that the Sermon on the
Mount wasn't given exactly in the form recorded, and that Genesis
recorded things as they appeared, not scientific accounts. Augustine
also cautioned against over-literal readings. The Catholic Church came
close during the 16th Cent, but in the arguments with Galileo the
claim was that the scientific evidence wasn't yet clear. If it became
clear the Church would make the necessary adjustments. It did and they
did. The modern period is the first case I know of where a substantial
fraction of Christianity has tried to reject reasonably well
established science.

Furthermore, we have the conflict in order between Gen 1 and Gen 2,
with man created before plants and animals in Gen 2. The usual
response is that Gen 2 isn't intended as an orderly account of
creation, but as a set of comments on specific aspects. I.e. it
shouldn't be taken literally.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But there is a very big problem with your position- its not what is
represented in Rom 5. The idea that ALL alienation, whether it be
spiritual, social (personal) or physical, is represented in Adam in
Rom 5 in regards to the atonement. Such a position as yours
really, if we are honestly investing the matter, destroys the type
of death Christ suffered.

The concept of type is essentially a metaphor. That is, Christ's
function doesn't actually work the same as Adam's. It provides a nice
symmetry, and may help us understand. But Christ's death applies to us
through faith, not through our genealogical tree. (The same as
actually true of Adam. As Calvin notes, we're guilty of sin because we
ourselves are sinful, not just because we are descended from Adam. See
his commentary on Rom 5.)

I don't see that things are much affected by the question of
whether or
not Adam and Eve briefly embodied that ideal.

But Gen 9 reveals the fact that they didn't "briefly" embody it. It
was not lost as the murder command so illustrates.

I'm having trouble making sense of this argument. My reference to Adam
and Eve briefly embodying the ideal was that before the fall they were
briefly perfect. No, certainly the image wasn't lost through the fall.
It was only corrupted. But the only way in which Adam and Eve differ
from us is that pre-fall state. After the fall they're like us, with
the image of God marred by sin.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
That all aside, your "fallen world" is much less distinct and
representative
of a race than that of a creationist. For your position has man
rising up
out of animal existence thus their "soul" is not classicially
distinguished.
This has real ramifications when one begins to consider all that is
actually involved.

I can't make any sense of parts of this. As far as the soul, I see two
possibilities. I don't think there's clear evidence to decide between
them. If the soul is a separate non-physical component, the most
likely thing seems to be that God created it. I don't see any way such
a thing could have evolved. I have no objection to taking a
creationist view of the soul and evolution for the body. If the soul
is a function rather than a separate item (which is consistent with
the Bible I think, but not with most theologies) then it might have
evolved. In any case, I'm missing a premise here. Yes, there may be a
difference from what people used to think. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

We depend upon God's grace and live in hope of his
establishment of the image.

...
The image is still there. It is part of that distinction that divides
man from non-man. It is part of that distinction which makes
man responsible and thus accountable.

I agree.

I don't expect this to happen in the
natural course of evolution, nor as a result of purely human efforts.

Then why do you hold that it began so?

Because the evidence that it did is quite convincing. If the Church
ties its theology to things that everyone else realized are wrong,
we're making a mistake that is going to have serious impact, for which
we will be held accountable by God.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
How can Christ be a federal head /
representative of the race when the evolutionary model actually
destroys Adam's federal headship? Adam, according to you
account, would represent not only the human race, but having
the same blood line as his predecessory animal heritage
as well, would have him be a most indistinct representative.

I don't see our tie with Christ as being primarily through blood (i.e.
descent -- I'm not talking about Christ's blood shed), but through
faith. Christ's death applies to us because we are united with him in
faith. I doubt any animals are capable of faith, but if they were I
would see no objection to Christ's death applying to them as well. I
rather suspect however that God intended us to be responsible for
them. Thus their participation in God's kingdom happens through us.
Interpreting our tie to Christ as primarily racial seems extremely
dangerous to me. At the very least, it leads to a universalist reading
of Rom 5, which I suspect you don't accept.

As I've commented before, my view of Reformed tends be based on Calvin
rather than later folk. I believe his focus was on faith and a
spiritual union with Christ. I'm a bit concerned that you are
replacing this with physical descent and federal headship. While much
of the Calvinist movement went this way, it doesn't seem like a change
in the right direction.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
What I don't understand is why is it necessary not to accept
-on faith (I see you didn't rebut that line of argument at all)
a normal reading of the opening chapters of scripture? Where
is the justification -from scripture itself- to suddenly introduce
some comparative paradigm, such as, say allegorization, instead
of just taking what is written on faith just as you take on faith
that Christ died for *your* sin/sins? Where is the justification?

This sounds like a hermeneutical question. Is that right? How do you
decide what is literal? Sometimes there is internal evidence,
sometimes it's external. Without external evidence, I'm pretty sure I
would realize that Jesus' parables are primarily non-literal (though
they often reflect realistic situations). I think I would also
recognize that Jonah is a satire not meant literally. But in other
cases I'm not sure it would be clear without external evidence. E.g.
why don't we take references to the sun rising and setting as literal?
Because we know from science that it's not true. In this case you
can't take both Genesis 1 and 2 literally. I think that's a sign that
neither is. But would I take this position if we didn't have
scientific evidence for both the age of the earth and evolution? I'm
not sure, because I'm not sure I can reliably put myself in that
position.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I feel this is a question that must be answered honestly for if
one starts playing the husk 'n kernel shell game at the outset
of the scriptural record, how does one form *any* dogmatics?
I really am honestly seeking a discourse on this, trying to
understand just how such things are answered/argued.

Matthew Johnson

2008-09-15 00:51:33 UTC

Post by Charles Hedrick

We are unlikely to agree on this. I think the fundamentalist reading
of Scripture is a fairly recent innovation.

See, Charles? Something else we agree on!

Of course, it still remains to be seen whether we agree on the cause of this or
not: my theory has always been that the fundamentalist, over-literal style of
reading is a child of late Scholastic Rationalism.

[snip]

h***@geneva.rutgers.edu

2008-09-15 00:51:33 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
Of course, it still remains to be seen whether we agree on the cause of this or
not: my theory has always been that the fundamentalist, over-literal style of
reading is a child of late Scholastic Rationalism.

In a quick Google search the best thing I could find is
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Sandys-Wunsch_History_Biblical_Interp.htm
He believes that modern interpretation started with the Renaissance.
He gives a summary of the history of the liberal side. My sense is
that the conservative side developed as a response to that. There is a
difference between Calvin, who believed various literal aspects of
Genesis because there was no reason not to, but clearly indicated that
he was willing to use the results of science, and modern
conservatives, who are consciously rejecting critical scholarship.
Again, Calvin thought that every part of the Bible was inspired by
God, but still acknowledged that the numerical differences were likely
the result of errors, and that the Sermon on the Mount was likely a
compilation of Jesus' views but wasn't actually delivered as recorded.
Modern conservatives quote Calvin, but take inspiration in a direction
that I don't think he would have. But that direction wouldn't have
happened without critical scholarship to react against.

There are surely Scholastic influences on this. No intellectual
movement is completely new. But everything I know of conservative
Biblical interpretation says it's a reaction.

It is clearly influenced by "sola scriptura", which assigned the Bible
a role that probably encouraged literal interpretation. But not
everyone drew that consequence. Look at the great difference in how
Luther and Calvin handled the Bible. Luther tended to use it like some
modern conservatives: as source to search for proof texts. Calvin
rejected that approach, in favor of trying to understand the
historical background and the likely meaning in its original context.

l***@hotmail.com

2008-09-15 00:51:34 UTC

First off, thank you for your lengthy reply. I don't recall the last
time
I saw you so involved outside of a discussion on the Trinity.

We are unlikely to agree on this. I think the fundamentalist reading =A0
of Scripture is a fairly recent innovation. Calvin certainly assumed =A0
that things are literally true that I don't, but where he knew of =A0
reasons not be literal he wasn't, e.g. he said that the Sermon on the =A0
Mount wasn't given exactly in the form recorded, and that Genesis =A0
recorded things as they appeared, not scientific accounts. Augustine =A0
also cautioned against over-literal readings.

But this leads us right back to what I have discussed all along,
all the way back to the early 90's when this was discussed at
great length as to what literalism actually is. The WCF gives
a good exposition on what is meant. The grammatic/historic
hermeneutic is very well explained and compared to the various
forms used both by the Jews as well as the Church through
history in Ramm's primer, "Protestant Biblical Interpretation."
Literalism allows for figures of speech. However there are rules.
For instance, in Rev. John lets his reader know when he is
speaking figuratively or symbolic as when he is trying his best
to describe literally but using indicators, "His eyes were LIKE
a flame of fire" or "and the appearance of the locusts was LIKE
horses... there faces were like the faces of men."

The WCF states "the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture
is the Scripture itself" hence we read Rev 12:1 recognizing
the Hebraic history of Jacob & Rachel."

It is best to accept the normal reading of a passage unless
there is good and clear reason to consider it otherwise. WCF
"All things in Scipture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike
clear unto all." But it would be most unexpected that God would
from the outset of His written revelation, speak allegorically. The
greatest evidence against this is Christ's repeated recognition
of the Tanak (Torah, Nebium , Kethubium: T-N-K) as being
literal historically. He doesn't speak, as neither does Paul, of
Adam being merely a figurative (metaphoric) representative.
There must be very good reason then not to consider Adam
and creation as literally presented in Genesis. I have yet
to read anyone who does this while maintaining the integrity
of Scripture and faith.

The Catholic Church came =A0
close during the 16th Cent, but in the arguments with Galileo the =A0
claim was that the scientific evidence wasn't yet clear. If it became =A0
clear the Church would make the necessary adjustments. It did and they =

=A0

did. The modern period is the first case I know of where a substantial =

=A0

fraction of Christianity has tried to reject reasonably well =A0
established science.

1. I'm glad your brought up the RCC. RC theologians came up with
a sophistication which often is termed, "middle knowledge" in
reference
to God. Jakob Hermandszoon (Arminius) found its explanation to be
the spring board on which to leap into "free-will". I find this sort
of
sophistication to be very similar in relation to your argumentation
for
some sort of non-literal interpretation of Genesis. (You have yet to
actually present an objective outline of just what you believe to be
the correct interpretation.) But as in the case of "middle
knowledge"
so with your presuppositions, the question remains, "Can God actually
visualize a plan, a universe where He is not the ultimate sovereign?"
Do you understand the depth of this question?

2. Empiricism. I object to those who use empirical evidence as
a means to win unbelievers over to creationism and true faith, or
regeneration. It is simply unbiblical. In reality, it is not only
heresy,
it is apostasy. Empiricism is not the Christian methodology
when it comes to things of faith. Lately the likes of Sam Harris
in "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason"
and others have redefined "faith" to be little else that "belief
w/o evidence." Biblical "faith" is not warm fuzzy wishing. Yet
again, it is not based upon empirical evidence. This too I have
repeated over and over paraphrasing Augustine's definition to
be that faith is a conviction grounded in authority vs grounded
in reason. We know what rests on reason, we believe what
rests on authority. Yet an activity of reason undergirds all faith
while an activity of faith underlies all knowledge. This leads
us back to the epistemological conclusion that unless you
know everything about everything, you know nothing about
about anything absolutely. Man is left adrift in his little boat
sailing the raging waters of relativism. However, when one
has an all encompassing omniscient God, when He speaks
we have true truth. We obviously never achieve exhaustive
truth, but we can have real reality revealed to us. It is only
natural to believe that the real reality of creation is the normal
reading of the Genesis record. Outside of that, you're back in
your little boat.

Furthermore, we have the conflict in order between Gen 1 and Gen 2, =A0
with man created before plants and animals in Gen 2.

Charles, how many decades have you been a Christian? Have
you not read the simple exposition of this? Schaeffer presents a
good explanation as does ICR founder, Henry Morris who briefly
writes:

Quote: The second chapter of Genesis describes in greater detail
certain of the events of the sixth day of creation, especially of the
formation of the first man and woman. It does not in any respect
contradict the account in the first chapter, but instead is comple-
mentary to it. The vocabularies in the two chapters are some-
what different, reflecting the different emphases as well as the
human authorship of the second chapter. The section from Gen.
2:4b through Gen 5:1 was probably written originally by Adam
himself, as discussed..." ["The Genesis Record," p. 83]

When I first had it drawn out to me I was amazing. That being
the time lapse of Adam's life with those prior to the flood. Adam
was around long enough to share first hand the Genesis story
from his awakening and the advent of Eve, the record of their
fall and all that followed, up to the time of Lamech. So even
Methuselah has the chance to hear of it first hand.

The usual =A0
response is that Gen 2 isn't intended as an orderly account of =A0
creation, but as a set of comments on specific aspects. I.e. it =A0
shouldn't be taken literally.

Well, I think perhaps you should widen your reading a bit. Look at
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Series on Gen 1-11 or
New American Commentary on the same chapters. There is also
the Word Biblical Commentary series or the popular, Expositor's
Bible Commentary.

This isn't something new. "it shouldn't be taken literally" is new
for its genesis (no pun intended) came out of the Jewish heretics
and not much later, Origen's allegorical methodology. Prior to
that, it was very much considered literally.

This is related to chiliasm/millennialism being undeniably the
doctrine of the early Church until allegoricalization came along
to buttress ecclesiastic elitism.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But there is a very big problem with your position- its not what is
represented in Rom 5. =A0The idea that ALL alienation, whether it be
spiritual, social (personal) or physical, is represented in Adam in
Rom 5 in regards to the atonement. =A0Such a position as yours
really, if we are honestly investing the matter, destroys the type
of death Christ suffered.

The concept of type is essentially a metaphor. That is, Christ's =A0
function doesn't actually work the same as Adam's.

I very much agree. It is a similitude not a parallelism. But that
does not destroy or disavow the underlying historical reality. Again,
the burden of proof lies at your doorstep to wander away from the
OT & NT doctrine of atonement.

It provides a nice =A0
symmetry, and may help us understand. But Christ's death applies to us =

=A0

through faith, not through our genealogical tree. (The same as =A0
actually true of Adam. As Calvin notes, we're guilty of sin because we =

=A0

ourselves are sinful, not just because we are descended from Adam. See =

=A0

his commentary on Rom 5.)

Yes, I've got it. But Calvin is not infallible. I prefer Turretin
who was
more precise on this than Calvin. And better still is John Murray's
unexcelled 100 page "Imputation of Adam's Sin."

It seems to me that you follow Dodd's explanation when he states:
"Thus Paul's doctrine of Christ as the 'second Adam' is not so bound
up with the story of the Fall as a literal happening that it ceases to
have meaning when we no longer accept the story as such. Indeed,
we should not too readily assume that Paul did so accept it."

Brunner also follows this path when he writes: "It does not refer
to the transgression of Adam in which all his descendants share;
but it states the fact that 'Adam's' descendants are involved in
death, because they themselves commit sin."

To answer both of these, as well as your own position, read Anders
Nygren's commentary on Romans, pp 207-209. Quite easily he
rebuts such presuppositional findings. But it is Murray who
unequivocally presents the classic Protestant interpretation.

I don't see that things are much affected by the question of =A0
whether or
not Adam and Eve briefly embodied that ideal.

But Gen 9 reveals the fact that they didn't "briefly" embody it. =A0It
was not lost as the murder command so illustrates.

I'm having trouble making sense of this argument. My reference to Adam =

=A0

and Eve briefly embodying the ideal was that before the fall they were =

=A0

briefly perfect. No, certainly the image wasn't lost through the fall. =

=A0

It was only corrupted.

Ah, but here is the rub that has divided Christianity- just how
deprave did man become. But realize that the argument presuppose
a literal Adam. In fact, it requires it.

But the only way in which Adam and Eve differ =A0
from us is that pre-fall state. After the fall they're like us, with =A0
the image of God marred by sin.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
That all aside, your "fallen world" is much less distinct and =A0
representative
of a race than that of a creationist. =A0For your position has man =A0
rising up
out of animal existence thus their "soul" is not classicially =A0
distinguished.
This has real ramifications when one begins to consider all that is
actually involved.

I can't make any sense of parts of this. As far as the soul, I see two =

=A0

possibilities. I don't think there's clear evidence to decide between =A0
them. If the soul is a separate non-physical component, the most =A0
likely thing seems to be that God created it. I don't see any way such =

=A0

a thing could have evolved. I have no objection to taking a =A0
creationist view of the soul and evolution for the body.

Then read Shedd's shredding of the position in leu of Traducianism.
There is no equal to his exposition in the creationist school that
I've ever seen or read. There is also the small matter of the Hebrew
in Gen 2:7 where "lives" is plural. Shedd doesn't mention this but
several Jewish commentaries do. It was in Adam that both the
material and immaterial aspects of man was procreated. This
easily explains the necessity of the virgin birth.

Isn't it interesting how all these things are related and how if
you get one fundamental point incorrect, how it throws off the
whole of the superstructure.

If the soul =A0
is a function rather than a separate item (which is consistent with =A0
the Bible I think, but not with most theologies) then it might have =A0
evolved. In any case, I'm missing a premise here. Yes, there may be a =A0
difference from what people used to think. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

One must be very careful when it comes to new ideas. Certainly
the Reformers were by no means seeking to interject new ideas.
Rather, they were seeking to return to the old ideas. But yes, there
are developments and expansions for understanding is progressive
and always will be. However, the fundamental are not to be so
easily dismissed by "I think". Sound doctrine requires sound
exposition.

We depend upon God's grace and live in hope of his
establishment of the image.

...
The image is still there. =A0It is part of that distinction that divide=

Post by l***@hotmail.com
man from non-man. =A0It is part of that distinction which makes
man responsible and thus accountable.

I agree.

But animal life is "non-man." Man is absolutely unique, hence
my argument concerning the "image" to begin with.

I don't expect this to happen in the
natural course of evolution, nor as a result of purely human efforts.

Then why do you hold that it began so?

Because the evidence that it did is quite convincing.

What evidence? Are you falling back on empiricism which
denies faith/authority? "Man cannot serve God & mammon."
What was the fundamental purpose of the giving of the Law?
It was to form antithetical thinking. It was to place the
emphasis on Authority, not on empirical evidence. "Now faith
is the assurance (title deed) of the things hoped for, the
conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old
gained approval. By faith we understand...."

If the Church =A0
ties its theology to things that everyone else

Who is this "everyone else?" Recognize the paradigm
shift that you have made. "But a natural man does not
accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are fool-
ishness to him and he CANNOT understand them,
because_they_are_spiritually_discerned."

These are fundamentals that you are bantering about.

realized are wrong, =A0
we're making a mistake that is going to have serious impact, for which =

=A0

we will be held accountable by God.

James 3:1. I soberly consider this truth. I really, really do.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
How can Christ be a federal head /
representative of the race when the evolutionary model actually
destroys Adam's federal headship? =A0Adam, according to you
account, would represent not only the human race, but having
the same blood line as his predecessory animal heritage
as well, would have him be a most indistinct representative.

I don't see our tie with Christ as being primarily through blood

But you completely ignore how this affects Adam's federal
headship which in turn affects the nature of Christ's.

(i.e. =A0
descent -- I'm not talking about Christ's blood shed), but through =A0
faith. Christ's death applies to us because we are united with him in =A0
faith. I doubt any animals are capable of faith,

"doubt"?

but if they were I =A0
would see no objection to Christ's death applying to them as well.

Eccles. 3:18ff. And what is the mindset of Solomon? It is the
natural man.

I =A0
rather suspect however that God intended us to be responsible for =A0
them. Thus their participation in God's kingdom happens through us. =A0
Interpreting our tie to Christ as primarily racial

Racial? Now that's a leap!

seems extremely =A0
dangerous to me. At the very least, it leads to a universalist reading =

=A0

of Rom 5, which I suspect you don't accept.
As I've commented before, my view of Reformed tends be based on Calvin =

=A0

rather than later folk. I believe his focus was on faith

Then why isn't yours?

and a =A0
spiritual union with Christ. I'm a bit concerned that you are =A0
replacing this with physical descent and federal headship. While much =A0
of the Calvinist movement went this way, it doesn't seem like a change =

=A0

in the right direction.

Classical Protestantism. Come on Charles. I think you have
had your nose so close to the pages of Calvin's writings that
you have lost his overall perspective.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
What I don't understand is why is it necessary not to accept
-on faith (I see you didn't rebut that line of argument at all)
a normal reading of the opening chapters of scripture? =A0Where
is the justification -from scripture itself- to suddenly introduce
some comparative paradigm, such as, say allegorization, instead
of just taking what is written on faith just as you take on faith
that Christ died for *your* sin/sins? =A0Where is the justification?

This sounds like a hermeneutical question. Is that right?

Hermeneutics are involved, but that isn't the basis for my point.
The basis is more philosophical. You appear to give greater
credence to empirical evidence than you do to Scripture as
being our only sure word of truth. It involves more with "world
view" than hermeneutics though hermeneutics is part of the
presuppositional issue.

The point is, either one believes and trusts, that is place his
whole weight on the purity of Scripture, or he doesn't. It is
a true either/or situation. One cannot implement a both/and
interpretation. And this is why I maintain that Genesis is so
fundamental. From the very outset one declares his/her
stance as to adjudication. As we discussed just this past
Wed. night at great length in our home study, we must pay
strict attention to the fact that the default inclination is that
of the "fruit of the tree of good and evil" as opposed to that
of the original inclination of "being led by the Spirit." How
many times have I suggested "Christian Theistic Ethics"
for your reading? Really fundamental stuff.

How do you decide what is literal?

Ah, but I have the first question. How do you decide when
to employ allegorical interpretation and when not to? Even
Matthew has never advanced any set of rules because there
are none. But the historic/grammatic model has a well
document set of rules or standards for interpretation and
surprise, surprise, they are what we normally employ in
our everyday communications. When did you ever make
the leap into allegory when coming initially to what some
one posts? Never! You don't read you daily newspaper
that way and you don't read 99.0 % of any other reading
that way.

Sometimes there is internal evidence, =A0
sometimes it's external. Without external evidence, I'm pretty sure I =A0
would realize that Jesus' parables are primarily non-literal (though =A0
they often reflect realistic situations).

And hence my often noted, Sigh! Please get a copy of
Ramm and read the primer on just what literalism actually
teaches. "Literalism" by this illustration is simply an
overstating of the reality in an (I'm sure) unconscious
dismissal of the argument.

I think I would also =A0
recognize that Jonah is a satire not meant literally.

OHHHHHHHHH! But what truths you surrender when you
do that. But here I must stop as the wife is waiting to go out to
eat.

l***@hotmail.com

2008-09-15 00:51:35 UTC

I think I would also =A0
recognize that Jonah is a satire not meant literally. But in other =A0
cases I'm not sure it would be clear without external evidence. E.g. =A0
why don't we take references to the sun rising and setting as literal? =

=A0

Because we know from science that it's not true. In this case you =A0
can't take both Genesis 1 and 2 literally. I think that's a sign that =A0
neither is. But would I take this position if we didn't have =A0
scientific evidence for both the age of the earth and evolution? I'm =A0
not sure, because I'm not sure I can reliably put myself in that =A0
position.

This past summer I've been reading nearly a dozen different books
written by Puritan authors. They have really challenged me to rethink
my Christian walk. I have been specifically targeting Owen and his
masterful writings concerning the nature and mortification of sin and
temptation. From all these works I have been awakened to the fact
that we (the truly regenerate) operate out of two completely
different, fundamentally opposed "inclinations." I've been aware of
the issue of inclination for several years now after reading Shedd,
but the Puritans have put a new light on it.

I believe that evolution is the product of man operating out of the
fallen inclination. As I have already lightly touched upon, it
operates not out of a supposition of faith, but rather one of
"evidence" from an all too easy caught society that operates out of
the closed system of empiricism. Christians who do such, I feel are
very much like men who are living in the City of Man while trying to
argue for the City of God. It has become an unconscious rule of life
today that "education" is the messiah of mankind. And, the new
priesthood which rises out of education is no less what we loosely
term, "scientist" or "science" in general. But the Christian must be
made aware of what he has actually done. He has substituted the
revelation of God as inspired, written and illuminated by His Spirit
alone. "Education" or "knowledge", after all, is NOT the Christian's
great necessity. After all, Paul recognizes the danger inherent
noting in 1 Cor 8:1 that "knowledge puffeth up." This is the exact
opposite of what a life lived by faith achieves -dependence and self-
abasement, a recognition that sin is yet within me and I am too easily
deceived by it, and too weak to conquer its many manifestations -apart
from the Word and His Spirit.'

The Puritans make us aware that all theology is in essence,
spirituality in the sense that it produces seed beds out of which
either good or bad, positive or negative, spiritual or humanistic
influences tend us either closer to God or away from God. If our
theology does not quicken us in dependence upon the authority of God,
raise out conscious presence before a truly great and sovereign God,
soften our hearts to His leading, then it will produce just the
opposite. There is no third way.

Packer writes:

"if it does not encourage the commitment of faith, it reinforces the
detachment of unbelief; if it fails to promote humility, it inevitably
feeds pride. So one who theologises in public (SRC!) ... must think
hard about the effect his thoughts will have on people -- God's
people, and other people. Theologians are called to be the church's
water engineers and sewage officers; it is their job to see that
God's pure truth flows abundantly where it is needed, and to filter
out any intrusive pollution that might damage health.... anyone could
learn the nature of this responsibility from the Fathers, or Luther,
or Calvin, or even, in his own funny fashion, Karl Barth, but it was
given to me to learn it through watching the Puritans put every
"doctrine" (truth) they knew to its proper "use" (application) as a
basis for life. It seems to me in retrospect that by virtue of this
Puritan influence on me all my theological utterances from the start,
on whatever theme, have really been spirituality (i.e. teaching for
Christian iiving), ...." [introduction to "A Quest for Godliness: The
Puritan Vision of the Christian Life."]

I could conclude by simply stating, "You go on believing that the
miracles of Scripture are merely inventions or at best various
teaching methodologies," but that would be spiritually callous.
Rather, I encourage, and if accepted, exhort you to look back at what
the true premise of Christianity really is -its about the redemption
of fallen man back into a true interpretation and acceptance of God
for who He has revealed Himself to be. When we make ourselves or our
inventive ways of acquiring truth, then we are yet in the fallen
way.

In Mt 19 and in Mark 10, Christ Himself looks back at Gen 1 & 2 as a
unity. He ties the two chapters together. To deny either chapter is
to deny the other and to deny Christ's own acceptance of their
reality. Adam is a real individual as is Eve who did not evolve, but
was taken from Adam and yet differentiated from him. Jesus builds a
moral standard concerning marriage upon the reality of two historical
racial figureheads.

In Rom 5, Paul places the historical reality of Adam on par with Moses
(v. 14). If one disavows this then he has nulified the Pauline
argument, making it meaningless. Verse 15 buttresses this fact. For
in v. 15 the historicity of Adam (the FIRST man) and two others,
namely Christ and then ourselves, are paralleled. The history of Adam
is directly tied to the reality of the history of Christ which in turn
is directly tied to the historical reality of my own objective
existence. Paul further alludes to it in 1 Cor 15:21-22 and later in
v. 45 which alludes back to Gen 2:7.

In 1 Tim 2:13-14 Paul adds not only is Adam 1st created, but that Eve
is 2nd created. Eve is not a metaphor. 2 Cor 11:3 further testifies
to this fact. Eve is as real as I am. (Cp 1 Cor 11:8, 9) Paul
quotes the early part of Genesis in 1 Cor 6:16 and Eph 5:31. I Jn
3:12, Heb 11 all testify to the historic accuracy of the Genesis
record.

Nor is this a strictly Pauline doctrine for Luke as well gives us the
same thing in Lk 3:38. The parallelism is between objective, historic
existence of a whole group of people we know to be historic through
the OT & NT references to them.

Gen 5: 1-2 again declare the historic nature of man's beginning.
Twice bara, or "created" is used in relationship to both Adam and Eve.

So I commend to all who believe themselves to be Christians and yet
holding to the evolutionary model, to give pause and consider how
foundationally eroding such theology actually is to the truth of the
bible, to the direct teachings of Christ and to His appointed
ministers of the Word. The "flesh wareth against the Spirit" and is
not merely an enemy, but at enmity with God. Enemies can be
conquered, bartered with, put into subjection. Enmity speaks of a
never ending disharmony. What partnership has darkness with light?
We are called to walk in the light --HIS light. This is the test of
faithfulness, to walk according to His revelation. To accept His
revelation where we can only manufacture hypothesise.

The natural man can be better educated even in theology that the
simple brother or sister who rests in the propositional truth that is
revealed to man in Scripture. But the natural man will never discern
true spiritual reality. The true believer is called out from being
conformed to the way the world thinks, sees, adjudicates by the
transfiguration of the new man from within by faith which trusts in
the truthfulness of God even when it seems that "objective" truth
points elsewhere.

Charles Hedrick

2008-09-15 00:51:35 UTC

Loren's two messages are long enough that if I reply point by point,
no one is likely to read it. So I'm going to pull a few points out of
it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
First off, thank you for your lengthy reply. I don't recall the
last time I saw you so involved outside of a discussion on the
Trinity.

Part of it is that I'm preparing a Sunday School lesson on the topic.

Loren talks about "literal" interpretation. There are, for better or
worse, several different things meant by literal:

* not allegorical, except where the original intent was to be
allegorical; Reformation interpreters called this the "plain sense"
* historically accurate, where history was intended
* standards taught apply to us directly

I need to explain what I mean by the third. People sometimes claim
that Paul's opposition to homosexuality was specific to the context of
his culture, and that his comments shouldn't be applied to current
homosexuals. While "literal" isn't a perfect term to apply here,
people who say they interpret the Bible literally normally intend to
reject such interpretations (at least in current controversies).

Loren says that there should be good reason to adopt a non-literal
meaning. I agree. The question is what is a good reason. The closest
analog of the current situation is references to the sun rising. I
interpret this non-literally because I know enough about astronomy to
know that it can't be literal. I see nothing in the text to suggest
that it is non-literal, and in fact I would assume that most of the
Biblical authors took it literally.

Loren speaks against use of empirical evidence in interpreting
Scripture. This is obviously the most serious difference between us. I
hold to the traditional "two books" view, in which both nature and the
Bible tell us about God. There are things we can't get from nature,
since we have no way of knowing much about God unless he tells us. But
to the extent that we can find things from nature, I am willing to
accept it, and use it to guide interpretation of Scripture.

This was the issue with Galileo: the Bible appeared to say that the
sun went around the earth. Was it legitimate to use science to
indicate that this interpretation of the Bible was wrong? I think so.

The problem I see with Loren's approach is that it can't explain
current interpretations. Loren rejects evolution, but the same
principles would lead to rejecting the earth going around the sun.

In another area, he rejects relativizing Paul's condemnation of
homosexuality while much of the church (I assume also Loren, but don't
know for sure) accepts taking of interest and rejects slavery, using
arguments very similar to those that would accept homosexuality. In
the past, literalism was used to reject taking of interest and to
justify slavery.

I understand that it's comfortable to have criteria that are objective
enough that everyone can accept them, without need for a kind of
judgement on which not all will agree. But I don't think it's
possible. It's in the nature of the Bible, in its use of story for
much of its teaching. I believe the conservative Protestant movement
is trying to use the Bible as a combination of textbook and lawbook,
whereas it isn't intended for that. In doing this, they are using an
approach that is largely in contrast with Jesus' own teaching methods.

As to Gen 1 and 2, however, I think there is internal reason not to
take them literally. Gen 1 says that humans were created last. Gen 2
says that they were created before plants and animals. I said in my
original posting that conservative interpreters had to take Gen 2 non-
literally. Loren denies it, and then proceeds to give a non-literal
interpretation. By that I mean one that takes Gen 2 as a series of
comments on creation, but not a chronological account. I think a
better reading is that the editor intended us to understand that he
didn't have a chronological account of creation, and thus that Gen 1
should be taken the same way as Gen 2.

Loren is rightly concerned about the consequences of teaching certain
ideas in public. I'm concerned that Loren is falling into Dawkin's
trap. He's setting up Christianity in opposition to science.
Historically this is quite wrong: while there were problems from time
to time, in general Christians have seen the Bible and science as
complementary. I believe the result of Loren's work is that people I
care about don't even bother considering Christianity. If we're wrong
about things they understand, why should they bother considering the
possibility that we might be right about things they don't understand?
They consider it a remnant of older tradition that will eventually go
away.

l***@hotmail.com

2008-09-16 01:24:50 UTC

Loren speaks against use of empirical evidence in interpreting =A0
Scripture. This is obviously the most serious difference between us. I =

=A0

hold to the traditional "two books" view, in which both nature and the =

=A0

Bible tell us about God. There are things we can't get from nature, =A0
since we have no way of knowing much about God unless he tells us. But =

=A0

to the extent that we can find things from nature, I am willing to =A0
accept it, and use it to guide interpretation of Scripture.
This was the issue with Galileo: the Bible appeared to say that the =A0
sun went around the earth. Was it legitimate to use science to =A0
indicate that this interpretation of the Bible was wrong? I think so.
The problem I see with Loren's approach is that it can't explain =A0
current interpretations. Loren rejects evolution, but the same =A0
principles would lead to rejecting the earth going around the sun.

Because I am teaching 3 classes now besides holding down a full
time job and now having to consider the flooding in our area, I don't
have adequate time to answer Charles' reply. Please forgive.

A quick point. Your presupposition is incorrect even as Galileo's
was- that the bible appears to teach that the cosmos circles
earth. Many conservative apologetic reference works detail this
error so I'm not going to present a detailing of an exegetical
look at the various passages which actually infer what we have
now come to accept, that the earth revolves around the sun.
If you want an extremely deep treatment of this, I suggest you
look for a copy of "Dimensions in Time". If you don't have a
good grasp of physics, you're going to struggle with their dis-
coarse.

In another area, he rejects relativizing Paul's condemnation of =A0
homosexuality while much of the church (I assume also Loren, but don't =

=A0

know for sure) accepts taking of interest and rejects slavery, using =A0
arguments very similar to those that would accept homosexuality. In =A0
the past, literalism was used to reject taking of interest and to =A0
justify slavery.

Don't you remember all the posting that was done on this topic?
You placed many of my posts in your FAQ files. If not, google them.
I hardly treated this in anything less than a scholarly investigation
with a realization that we all are tested in our assigned ways. But
that being the case does not negate God's standards.

I understand that it's comfortable to have criteria that are objective =

=A0

enough that everyone can accept them, without need for a kind of =A0
judgement on which not all will agree. But I don't think it's =A0
possible. It's in the nature of the Bible, in its use of story for =A0
much of its teaching. I believe the conservative Protestant movement =A0
is trying to use the Bible as a combination of textbook and lawbook, =A0
whereas it isn't intended for that. In doing this, they are using an =A0
approach that is largely in contrast with Jesus' own teaching methods.

Because all men strive against sin, there will always be mishandlings
of the word. THIS is exactly why there has to be precise established
hermeneutical standards. I simply don't find such standards outside
of the historic/grammatic methodology. Perfect? No. But God didn't
provide revelation so that it would return to Him void of its original
intent and meaning. It is propositional. It requires the
distinction
between interpretation and application. Some passages only have
direct application to its immediate readership, while others have
secondary and tertiary applications. But interpretation must not be
confused with application.

As to Gen 1 and 2, however, I think there is internal reason not to =A0
take them literally. Gen 1 says that humans were created last. Gen 2 =A0
says that they were created before plants and animals.

Come on Chuck, reply to what I quoted. Just today in church we
had reference to Mt 19:4,5 in reference to Mal 2's reference to
divorce.
Christ's use of Gen 1:27 and then 2:24 present these two passages
as a unity. One must bring his preconceived suppositions into this
passage to take away any sort of non-literal, non-historic treatment.
Scripture, not empirical evidence, interprets scripture. How many
illustrations of so called empirical evidence proving such and such
proofs only by preconceived interpretive suppositions do you need
before you admit that empirical evidence is also subject to
interpretation? And as mentioned before, how much of your paradigm
is based upon the empirical evidences interpreted by men of a natural
disposition?

I said in my =A0
original posting that conservative interpreters had to take Gen 2 non-
literally. Loren denies it, and then proceeds to give a non-literal =A0
interpretation. By that I mean one that takes Gen 2 as a series of =A0
comments on creation, but not a chronological account. I think a =A0
better reading is that the editor intended us to understand that he =A0
didn't have a chronological account of creation, and thus that Gen 1 =A0
should be taken the same way as Gen 2.

This is simply bad bible exegesis. Genesis is consistent in its
revelatory paradigm. For instance, in the case of Esau and Jacob the
story of Esau is first presented. It really is the least significant
aspect of the over all story. Then the story of Jacob ensues. It is
detailed and given primary differentiation. This is the paradigm
of Genesis. Gen 1 is really, from man's orientation, the least
significant part of the story. Gen 2 distinguishes man from
non-man gives a detailing of why's and wherefore's. Really,
Genesis is all about differentiation. Gen 2:18 differentiates
man from all other. Truthfully, Gen 1:1 presents the original
ex nihilo creation while everything which follows details how
God differentiated the formlessness of that one original ex-
hibition.

It is really, really hard to dismiss the fact that Christ not only
presents Adam and Eve as true historical individuals, but that
were in fact the first human pair.

Loren is rightly concerned about the consequences of teaching certain =A0
ideas in public. I'm concerned that Loren is falling into Dawkin's =A0
trap. He's setting up Christianity in opposition to science. =A0

No. If you had paid attention to those posts which you disallowed,
you would remember that I used scientific evidences which, when
interpreted from a Christian mind, gave significant proofs for 1) a
young earth, and thus 2) the evolutionary model failing significantly
in its consistent application of the Laws of physical science.
Would you like me to repeat some of them?

I'm in opposition to the natural man's interpretative conclusions of
the scientific to that of the regenerate / biblical interpretation of
those things. Is this not part of the Pauline argument in Rom 1
and the Petrine notion in 2 P 3:5? "For when they maintain this,
they are willfully ignorant -i.e. deliberately stupid- that by the
Word of God the heavens existed long ago.... " Vs 4 mocks
uniformitarianism of which the evolutionary model rests.

Historically this is quite wrong: while there were problems from time =A0
to time, in general Christians have seen the Bible and science as =A0
complementary. I believe the result of Loren's work is that people I =A0
care about don't even bother considering Christianity.

Are you surprised that the natural man finds foolish those things
that are only spiritually discerned? Again I think you reveal a
very basic naivette to the nature of a life oriented by faith. I've
tried to explain this when conversing about the incomprehensibility
of God and the nature of knowledge itself in relation to finite
man.

If we're wrong =A0
about things they understand, why should they bother considering the =A0
possibility that we might be right about things they don't understand? =

=A0

They consider it a remnant of older tradition that will eventually go =A0
away.

But this is why I think it is wrong to use "Creationism proofs" as
a basis for evangelism. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel
for IT is the power of God for salvation...." Not empirical
scientific
evidences. First things first. General revelation only equips man
with evidences that condemn. Only special revelation, God's
perspective of the true reality of the cosmos He ordained and
created, equips men to believe. It really is just that simple.
Foolishness to the perishing.

l***@hotmail.com

2008-09-18 01:33:29 UTC

I think we need to return to the original intent of this thread - a
theological discussion of the biblical unorthodoxy of the
evolutionary model.

First off, Charles has not, as far as I have noticed, ever actually
gave even a cursory outline of his position. Perhaps wrongly, but
I've been operating off of the assumption that it is the theistic
evolution model, undefined. It is really difficult to debate an issue
when one has to presume what his opponents position actually is.

Methodologically speaking, having trumped Divine creationism with a
wedding of the two partners of biblical text and empirical
scientificism, liberal protestantism sits itself down in the same pew
as with ancient Graceco-Romanism, high five'n each other as bed
mates. RCism has fairly described their position while the Eastern
unOrthodox church, with much less precision, seems to have sat down in
at the far end of the pew, still in the same pew, but remaining
steadfastly aloof. All theologically make man start off as a bottom
feeder with an ever higher spiraling ascent, moving steadily in the
direction of perfection; man grows further and further away from his
animal kingdom cousins, presumably to some point in time where God
determines accepts and marks man with some sort of stamping of the
divine image. Naturally, this school of thought has to adhere to the
creationist theory of the entrance of the immaterial part of man being
wed to the ascended ape-man.

As alluded to at the onset of this discussion, one's position in all
this necessarily touches on a host of other doctrinal locus. For
instance, there are grace hurdles to jump if one's positions
necessitates the creationist view as to the origin of the soul. For
if the soul of man is an immediate creation of God, as creationism so
teaches, the where, exactly, does its inclination toward a radically
twisted nature which is instinctively, yet deliberately and
ineradicably God-defiant or God-denying, come from? The bible is
clear that man has a sinful nature even in while in the womb and that
once out and upon the scene, never seeks after God, never does good
let alone accumulate enough "good works" to merit any sort of divinely
acceptable righteousness. "There is NONE righteous, no not EVEN
one." (Ps 14; 53; Rom 3:10ff)

It is obvious that the biblical account is that man started at the top
and then fell from there. This paradigm is so interlinked with the
doctrines of redemption, atonement and salvation that to even
introduce a bottom-to-top model irretrievably destroys the biblical
account.

This synthesis of biblical story telling and humanistic scientific
evolutionism with its resultant doctrine of the evolution of man from
animals and the denial of man's special creation by God, automatically
involves one in a denial of the biblical doctrine of the fall which
bears the natural (bastard) child with regard to the doctrine of
salvation. Man no longer remains a special unity within God's
creative fiat.

Note the distinction that Genesis makes where man is not commanded to
create after any "kind" nor to reproduce after any "kind." He is
immediately distinquished from all other differentiations within the
Divine creation. Man is immediately differentiated from non-man
because he was "formed of the dust of the ground" and he was given
life directly by the in-breathing of God "the breath of lives (Heb is
plural) and man became a living soul." There is not only a
distinction of elements but a distinction as to animation and an even
greater distinction as to the enlivenment of the immaterial aspect of
man. He is radically distinct from non-man, i.e. animals and all the
rest of creation. God directly made man's body and directly imputed
His life into him. Immediately he is declared as lord over the enter
creative kingdom in which he was placed.

Gen 2:8 & 15 declare that God "placed" and "put" (NASB) into the
garden. The Hebrew word actually pictures God "resting" man in the
garden to worship before Him and to obey His commands (v. 16). When
Adam inclined himself away from this original bias, (3:11, 17) he
forfeited his right to "rest" in God's presence (3:8). And ever since
that moment, man has been gathering fig leaves to try and cover his
nakeness before God, including evolution.

h***@geneva.rutgers.edu

2008-09-18 01:33:29 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
First off, Charles has not, as far as I have noticed, ever actually
gave even a cursory outline of his position. Perhaps wrongly, but
I've been operating off of the assumption that it is the theistic
evolution model, undefined. It is really difficult to debate an issue
when one has to presume what his opponents position actually is.

That's not far off, although I'm not sure I'd define it quite that
way. I'm not sure I see the need to have theistic evolution, any more
than theistic physics or theistic everything else. Obviously I think
God's providence is over everything, whether evolution or anything
else. But to me one implication of creation is that God created a
world that is at least in a qualified way separate from him. I'm sure
he knew and intended what was going to result, and that he intervenes
from time to time, but by and large the world functions according to
predictable principles for which he is responsible.

(I'm speaking here of the non-personal world. He is much more
involved with us.)

Post by l***@hotmail.com
teaches, the where, exactly, does its inclination toward a radically
twisted nature which is instinctively, yet deliberately and
ineradicably God-defiant or God-denying, come from? The bible is
clear that man has a sinful nature even in while in the womb and that
once out and upon the scene, never seeks after God, never does good
let alone accumulate enough "good works" to merit any sort of divinely
acceptable righteousness. "There is NONE righteous, no not EVEN
one." (Ps 14; 53; Rom 3:10ff)

I don't think anyone has a real answer to that. Even in the
conventional account, we have the question of why Adam and Eve
believed the serpent. They were perfect before the fall, but only in
the sense that they hadn't sinned yet. When they met their first
serious temptation they blew it.

l***@hotmail.com

2008-09-19 02:33:49 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
First off, Charles has not, as far as I have noticed, ever actually
gave even a cursory outline of his position. =A0Perhaps wrongly, but
I've been operating off of the assumption that it is the theistic
evolution model, undefined. =A0It is really difficult to debate an issue
when one has to presume what his opponents position actually is.

Do you think of yourself as having some semi-pelagic presuppositions?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
teaches, the where, exactly, does its inclination toward a radically
twisted nature which is instinctively, yet deliberately and
ineradicably God-defiant or God-denying, come from? =A0The bible is
clear that man has a sinful nature even in while in the womb and that
once out and upon the scene, never seeks after God, =A0never does good
let alone accumulate enough "good works" to merit any sort of divinely
acceptable righteousness. =A0"There is NONE righteous, no not EVEN
one." =A0(Ps 14; 53; Rom 3:10ff)

I don't think anyone has a real answer to that. Even in the
conventional account, we have the question of why Adam and Eve
believed the serpent.

Only Eve was deceived, remember. And as I have explain, the Jewish
belief was that Adam and Eve were clothed in the Shekhinah glory so
Adam knew all too well what he was doing. This again goes back to
your understanding of whether man rose up from a lower former or
whether you believe the biblical record the man was born great and
fell. If the later, then the fall has true meaning. If the former,
then you have man rising from an impure state (how many banned animals
under the Law did man evolve up through?) just to fall back down.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
They were perfect before the fall, but only in
the sense that they hadn't sinned yet. When they met their first
serious temptation they blew it.

You are still not answering the many theological points that I have
made. Yes,
the fall is part of the biblical record but what type of man (Adam)
fell. You haven't responded to why man wasn't ordered to replicate
after his own kind and a host of other points raised.

h***@geneva.rutgers.edu

2008-09-19 02:33:50 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Do you think of yourself as having some semi-pelagic presuppositions?

No.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Only Eve was deceived, remember. And as I have explain, the Jewish
belief was that Adam and Eve were clothed in the Shekhinah glory so
Adam knew all too well what he was doing. This again goes back to
your understanding of whether man rose up from a lower former or
whether you believe the biblical record the man was born great and
fell. If the later, then the fall has true meaning. If the former,
then you have man rising from an impure state (how many banned animals
under the Law did man evolve up through?) just to fall back down.

...

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You are still not answering the many theological points that I have
made. Yes,
the fall is part of the biblical record but what type of man (Adam)
fell. You haven't responded to why man wasn't ordered to replicate
after his own kind and a host of other points raised.

I haven't responded to everything because I'm beginning to repeat
myself, so I don't think it's worth doing. Much of your argument seems
to hang on a reading of Genesis that doesn't make sense to me. You
want mankind to be unique. I believe we are. But our uniqueness lies
in a set of capabilities that allows us to have a relationship with
God. Whether we got those by evolution or direct creation doesn't seem
significant to me.

As to where man came from, yes, I think he came from less complex
animals. I don't see that this is worse than being made from the dust,
and in fact Gen 2:7 is not a bad metaphor for what happened.

I believe we're fallen, in the sense that fallen means we fail to meet
God's original ideal for man. The only way I differ from older
theology is that I don't think we ever had that ideal. So far it has
only been fully embodied in Christ. I have no problem with the idea
that God created us so that we needed his grace. Indeed Rom 11:32
implies that this is God's plan.

I noted before that even when taken literally I don't think Gen 3
implies that Adam and Eve were ever morally perfect. They sinned
the first time they were tempted.

And no, I don't think evolution is going to perfect us. I believe God
will do that; I don't have a significant difference from other
Christians in that.

Matthew Johnson

2008-09-22 00:15:26 UTC

In article <hcEAk.472$***@trnddc04>, ***@hotmail.com says...
[snip]

That may well be the Jewish Tradition, but it is NOT in Scripture. So by
appealing to this belief, you are discarding your own precious principle of
"Scripture interprets Scripture".

[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You are still not answering the many theological points that I have
made.

And Charles gave a perfectly good explanation of why he did not answer them.

[snip]

l***@hotmail.com

2008-09-22 23:55:45 UTC

Only Eve was deceived, remember. =A0And as I have explain, the Jewish
belief was that Adam and Eve were clothed in the Shekhinah glory so
Adam knew all too well what he was doing.

That may well be the Jewish Tradition, but it is NOT in Scripture. So by
appealing to this belief, you are discarding your own precious principle =

Post by Matthew Johnson
"Scripture interprets Scripture".

Not only having both OT & NT thoroughly memorized but knowing all
spiritual truth, you know this as an unequivocal fact? As Winston
Churchhill once commented, "There but by the grace of God, goes god!"

I suggest you actually study the matter before making such rash
replies.

Matthew Johnson

2008-09-25 02:13:18 UTC

In article <5gWBk.754$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, ***@hotmail.com
says...

Only Eve was deceived, remember. =A0And as I have explain, the Jewish
belief was that Adam and Eve were clothed in the Shekhinah glory so
Adam knew all too well what he was doing.

That may well be the Jewish Tradition, but it is NOT in Scripture. So by
appealing to this belief, you are discarding your own precious principle =

Post by Matthew Johnson
"Scripture interprets Scripture".

Nice try, Loren, but no cigar. One does not need to have memorized all of
Scripture to know that it is NOT in Scripture.

Besides: the burden of proof is on you. It was YOU who claimed it is true, it
was YOU who claims to follow Sola Scriptura, so show us where it is, or retract.

[snip]

l***@hotmail.com

2008-09-26 03:10:22 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
says...

Only Eve was deceived, remember. =3DA0And as I have explain, the Jewi=

belief was that Adam and Eve were clothed in the Shekhinah glory so
Adam knew all too well what he was doing.

That may well be the Jewish Tradition, but it is NOT in Scripture. So =

appealing to this belief, you are discarding your own precious princip=

le =3D

Post by l***@hotmail.com
of

"Scripture interprets Scripture".

Not only having both OT & NT thoroughly memorized but knowing all
spiritual truth, you know this as an unequivocal fact? =A0As Winston
Churchhill once commented, "There but by the grace of God, goes god!"

Nice try, Loren, but no cigar. One does not need to have memorized all of
Scripture to know that it is NOT in Scripture.
Besides: the burden of proof is on you. It was YOU who claimed it is true=

, it

Post by Matthew Johnson
was YOU who claims to follow Sola Scriptura, so show us where it is, or r=

etract.
Buy the book. "Adam Christology As The Exegetical & Theological
Substructure of 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:21." You'll find my name on the
inside cover.

Matthew Johnson

2008-09-29 02:37:34 UTC

In article <yoYCk.1583$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, ***@hotmail.com
says...

[snip[

Post by Matthew Johnson
Nice try, Loren, but no cigar. One does not need to have memorized all of
Scripture to know that it is NOT in Scripture.
Besides: the burden of proof is on you. It was YOU who claimed it is true=

, it

Post by Matthew Johnson
was YOU who claims to follow Sola Scriptura, so show us where it is, or r=

etract.
Buy the book. "Adam Christology As The Exegetical & Theological
Substructure of 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:21." You'll find my name on the
inside cover.

That sounds to me like a good reason NOT to buy the book.

Besides: you are still dodging the question: how can you simultaneously insist
on "sola scriptura" and still insist on the NON BIBLICAL position that Adam was
"clothed in 'shekinah' glory"?

"Buy the book" is a very unconvincing dodge. Especially when you have
contradicted yourself SO openly.

l***@hotmail.com

2008-09-30 01:23:19 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
says...
[snip[

Nice try, Loren, but no cigar. One does not need to have memorized all=

Scripture to know that it is NOT in Scripture.
Besides: the burden of proof is on you. It was YOU who claimed it is t=

rue=3D

Post by Matthew Johnson
, it

was YOU who claims to follow Sola Scriptura, so show us where it is, o=

r r=3D

Post by Matthew Johnson
etract.
Buy the book. =A0"Adam Christology As The Exegetical & Theological
Substructure of 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:21." =A0You'll find my name on the
inside cover.

That sounds to me like a good reason NOT to buy the book.
Besides: you are still dodging the question: how can you simultaneously i=

nsist

Post by Matthew Johnson
on "sola scriptura" and still insist on the NON BIBLICAL position that Ad=

am was

Post by Matthew Johnson
"clothed in 'shekinah' glory"?
"Buy the book" is a very unconvincing dodge. Especially when you have
contradicted yourself SO openly.

Matthew, Matthew, Matthew, you who so advocate deification.

I write this to all, what does pursuit of doctrinal purity matter if
it hasn't first been made manifest in the heart? Yes, we must study
to show ourselves approved, to become cognizant of the revelation of
God, but the notita is only the first step of the journey. That
knowledge, those doctrines, must be experienced in order for true
conviction to be worthy of the Throne. For it is by learning of Him,
being convicted in the soul by the reality of that truth, that is
prerequisite of true and meaningful adoration. Cognition, conviction,
adoration. There is sequence. Man, made after the image of God that
some might become the likeness of Him to the glory of Him.

How sad our present experience is. Until we grow into a theocentric
orientation, we will never share in what we were made for. We, those
who have been called by the love of the Father to be drawn to the
redemption of the Son and enlightened by the Spirit, stand as a unity
as He Himself is a unity, hand-in-hand, soul-in-soul, as if in an
invisible sphere suspended between the members of the Three-in-One,
outside of space, mass or time, left only to worship and glorify His
excellencies. Truly our hearts should be beyond humility when
pondering the question before the Sovereign Self-Sufficiency, "what is
man that Thou are mind full of him?"

Matthew Johnson

2008-10-02 00:13:44 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
says...
[snip[

it is true , it was YOU who claims to follow Sola Scriptura, so
show us where it is, or retract. Buy the book. "Adam Christology
As The Exegetical & Theological Substructure of 2 Corinthians
4:7-5:21."You'll find my name on the inside cover.

That sounds to me like a good reason NOT to buy the book.
Besides: you are still dodging the question: how can you
simultaneously insist on "sola scriptura" and still insist on the
NON BIBLICAL position that Adam was "clothed in 'shekinah' glory"?
"Buy the book" is a very unconvincing dodge. Especially when you have
contradicted yourself SO openly.

Matthew, Matthew, Matthew, you who so advocate deification.

Loren, Loren, Loren, you who advocate contradiction and chaos,
especially while still dodging perfectly reasonable questions.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I write this to all, what does pursuit of doctrinal purity matter if
it hasn't first been made manifest in the heart?

You call THAT a sentence? "To all WHAT"? More importantly, no matter
what that was meant to mean, how is that an explanation for your
continuing to dodge the question?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Yes, we must study to show ourselves approved,

Do you even know what 'approved' means in this context? You have
given me much reason to doubt it. Especially since you are still
continuing to dodge the question.

Now let's look at the verse you misquote:

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who
has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. (2Ti
2:15 RSVA)

All your dishonest attempts to cover up your dodge, Loren, show you as
a workman very much NOT approved, very much worthy of shame.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
to become cognizant of the revelation of God, but the notita is only
the first step of the journey. That knowledge, those doctrines, must
be experienced in order for true conviction to be worthy of the
Throne. For it is by learning of Him, being convicted in the soul by
the reality of that truth, that is prerequisite of true and
meaningful adoration. Cognition, conviction, adoration. There is
sequence. Man, made after the image of God that some might become
the likeness of Him to the glory of Him.
How sad our present experience is. Until we grow into a theocentric
orientation, we will never share in what we were made for.

So stop running away in the wrong direction! Answer the question!

Post by l***@hotmail.com
We, those who have been called by the love of the Father to be drawn
to the redemption of the Son and enlightened by the Spirit, stand as
a unity as He Himself is a unity, hand-in-hand, soul-in-soul, as if
in an invisible sphere suspended between the members of the
Three-in-One, outside of space, mass or time, left only to worship
and glorify His excellencies. Truly our hearts should be beyond
humility when pondering the question before the Sovereign
Self-Sufficiency, "what is man that Thou are mind full of him?"

You love to TALK about "hearts beyond humility", but you insist on
showing the opposite of humility in every post. This is a perfect
example of how you run away in the wrong direction.

Of course, I am not going to post a detailed proof of how you reveal
your arrogance in every post. But in this latest post of yours, you
revealed it with your presumptuous tone, starting the post w/ "Matthew,
Matthew, Matthew", AND by refusing to address the topic at hand,
resorting to off topic twaddle, disguised with a thin veneer of false
piety.

The burden of proof IS still on you. You shoulder the burden badly.

l***@hotmail.com

2008-09-22 23:55:45 UTC