ByFaithAlone

Not theologically necessary? Really? Then how do you account for sin first entering the world? The idea of sin does not need to necessarily be based on a first man named Adam surely. The theological stance merely would be that man as a group of hominids (represented by the allegorical figure of Adam) freely chose against God's will thus leading to sin and spiritual death entering the world. This is perpetuated in the manner of original sin. In this way they chose the temptation of the Devil (represented allegorically by a snake in Genesis) over God's desire for them. Does this explain it? Which other parts of scripture would you consider as unnecessary? A historical Christ must be necessary for example. The historic early church. Both of these things also have reasonable support from scientists and historians I might add. Let me repeat myself. Please tell me which parts of scripture you consider unnecessary? My apologies. I misread your previous statement. I do not regard any Scripture as unnecessary. All of it is necessary and true. However, the light in which we read Scripture must change with the historical context in which it is written. OK, give me your take on the book of Esther then? Including the historical context? To be honest, I haven't studied Esther in as much detail as I have other books. However, the way in which it is written is not the epic allegorical style of Genesis which means to me that the historical narrative of the Jewish people during the time of the Persian King Xerxes (given the context of the historical time the Jews were under Persian control and other factors this is most likely Xerxes the first). Persecution and division of other faiths was common in ancient empires as a means of quelling dissent so the book of Esther matches historical context. All of these factors indicate to me (writing style, context, etc.) that Esther is historical in nature. Once again, I haven't studied the book in great detail but that would be my idea.

What point are you trying to make with this passage? Could you explain that why, in the context of which it was written (describing the future glory of heaven, etc) it is relevant to the conversation regarding free will? I am confused...

I wouldn't say the "majority" I would say ALL of the bible characters are in fact real people. The only logic I can draw from this view point, is someone was baffled when someone asked for documented proof of the existence of individuals in the bible, and to me this lead to the term "allegorical" which provides a "way out" of providing a foundation for the claims. The bible in fact is poetic in a sense- but to think it is all based on non legitimate characters is fallacious and contradicting to what the bible teaches. As Tinky said- if one tittle is out of line, then the bible is not inerrant. The bible presents these people as being REAL, LIVING, and DYING people, so we have to take it as such. I think I have a problem with your definition of inerrant. I don't see a problem with allegory effecting the truth of the Bible. If I consider the manner in which it was written, the people to whom it was written and the purpose for which it is written, I see no reason why the Genesis account must be taken any more literally than the prophets when they say a Lamb will come to take away our sins. Obviously they don't mean a literal lamb. From the writing, context, purpose of the writing and numerous other factors we can clearly see this. Why should Genesis be any different? I would also like to note that the idea of this literal creation 6-day account has risen significantly with the rise of evangelical fundamentalism. The ancient church including famous theologians St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas almost universally held to a allegorical interpretation of Genesis (with St. Basil being the one notable exception). My justification is taking God at His word- rather then coming up with a fictitious claim to provide something "substantial" to something that could be presented with a simple "I do not know." All through the bible we come to find out that through the fall of mankind (Adam and Eve) came the sin of mankind, this relation is something I presented earlier, and was brought forth in scripture in relation to that of Adam and Christ. But lets take a look at the verses in full. Romans 5:12-21 Taking God at his Word in my opinion would be to understand the context in which it was given and the way in which it was written. If you accept the idea presented by many scholars of the Old Testament that Genesis is written in this epic narrative style then taking God at his Word would be understanding Genesis in a non-literal manner and not vice-verca. Looking at the verses, I see no reason to discount the scholars arguments as Paul's writings do not make it clear in the slightest that Adam was actually a real person but merely mention him as the representative by which mankind fell into sin. He could have existed or he could have not existed but the main point, as exists in Genesis is that man needs a Savior which is Paul's main point writing in Romans as well. Therefore, I will stick with the Old Testament scholarship I have read. Once again, just to mention this I would like to say that I don't care either way if a literal Adam exist I would just claim that it is not theologically necessary.

Childeye - you appear to be dancing around semantics at this point and I am having difficulty trying to pin down your position. Based on the definitions I provided (which are standard philosophical conditions) what is your view on free will? Definitions are below. I'm saying that morally speaking there are lies posed by an active and cunning liar, that cause men to sin, and Truth is required to be free. A Living Truth must deal with a living liar. There are spiritual powers higher than ourselves which work upon the moral wills of men. So you are implying that lies are posed by Satan and Satan is responsible for all evil actions in the world? Or is it man freely choosing to act on the lies presented by a freely choosing Satan? Excellent. I just wanted to clear that up as I wanted to make sure. You will have to expand on this. Does this mean that humans have no impact on how events are ordered? If so, that puts you in the hard determinist camp. I don't know. Which hell are we talking about or what exactly is hell? I would say God can do whatever He wants. What I mean by hell is the common Christian perspective of isolation from God and his glory after death. However, hell can really be anything besides heaven. The hard determinist would have to argue that a just God would actively determine that some people would not share in the reward of heaven not based on their free decisions alone (libertarianism) or their free decisions combined with soft determinism (predestination, etc.) (compatibilism) but purely based on his random choice. Not necessarily. For these are suppositions about eternal things from a temporal view. God gave life and He can take it away and there is nothing unjust that has been done. But I don't think we are robots. If God wants companions, a robot won't cut it. Perhaps we are Pinnochios on our way to being real boys. There would be nothing unjust about not treating people equally or giving the freedom to choose (even if it involved a combination of determinism)? I don't see how you could possibly arrive at that conclusion. On what basis would we worship or adore God if he had already decided everything. Nihilism is the only worldview possible. Actually doesn't scripture say that all sins will be forgiven except for blaspheme of the Holy Spirit? And what about the possibility of every sin carrying it's own punishment upon the person who commits it? It says every sin can be forgiven except that sin. Not that they necessarily will. Anyway, this does address the issue and creates a strawman. You neglect to answer the idea that hard determinism leads to moral nihilism.

Matthew 4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." It doesnt get any clearer than: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Jesus is God saying you live by His every word. Jesus is the Word. Jesus is the Life. I couldnt make this stuff up if I tried.You say these scriptures support free will but they dont. If God says you live because I say so how is that free will? Irrelevant to the conversation and taken grossly out of context. You are using a passage that is was written when Jesus was being tempted by Satan. In this case note that Jesus is resisting worldly temptation even if it costs him some sort of pain. Jesus obviously was not talking about physical death but rather a spiritual one. Scripture does not literally feed us in the physical sense but rather in the spiritual one. Jesus is saying that man is both a physical and spiritual creature. Therefore, we do not live (in both the spiritual and physical sense) by bread alone. Note that Jesus does not say that bread (or food in the general sense) is not important to maintain our physical health but he is saying that it will not help our spiritual well-being if we fall into temptation as a result of a physical hurt or need. I agree that God has free will in that he acts freely according to his (all-loving, etc.) nature. This however, I don't think is debated by anyone. You are misrepresenting the idea of God's sovereignty (God is able to be in control) with the idea of hard determinism. However, sovereignty does not imply determinism. For a counterexample, some Calvinists believe that man has free will but acts according to his sinful nature and God knows our sinful nature and can therefore know what we will do. This is a compatibilist position in which man retains the will to act but God's sovereignty and therefore some level of determinism is not hindered. See my definitions for free will, hard determinism, hard incompatibilism and compatibilism given in my previous post. That should clear up your problem.

I believe in a free will that is set free from sin by the Truth of the knowledge of God. I therefore also identify an enslaved will. Since righteousness is based upon faith that God is the Eternal Spirit of Love, He is therefore our righteousness and all godliness are His attributes seen and witnessed in those He has created. I see no reason why determinism would not be applicable here. You are dodging the philosophical question here by defining and redefining free will constantly. The remainder of your post just attacks the straw man that you have made by redefining free will and hard determinism. Free will is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). There are technically four views of free will 1. Libertarian free will is the idea that free will is what exists and determinism (the idea that events are determined by the actions committed in the past) is illogical or incompatible with free will. 2. Compatibilism states that both free will and determinism are both possible in coexistance. 3. Hard determinism states that determinism is possible and free will does not exist. 4. (not widely held) Hard incompatibilism both free will and determinism are illogical and due not exist. You say, "I believe in a free will that is set free from sin by the Truth of the knowledge of God." When you say free will in this instance you mean the will of the Christian to do good is now freed from sin. (Question 1: Does this mean that, from your perspective, it is impossible for a nonbeliever to do good?) This is a form of compatibilism as you both believe in deterministic nature of the sinful nature of man (i.e. you believe man is controlled by his sinful ways and will choose to do evil more often than good due to this nature) and you believe that God enables us through grace to be irresistibly drawn to him and do good as a result. Congratulations, you appear to be holding the compatibilist view of most Calvinists. You also say " I see no reason why determinism would not be applicable here" I guess it depends on what you mean by determinism. Determinism can be compatible with free will unless we are talking strict hard determinism. Here are some of the problems with hard determinism as Cobalt has already pointed out. 1. God has actively determined who will be saved and actively determined who will go to hell for eternity. What does this mean? A hard deterministic God is not just. Such a Being would condemn us for doing what he had already determined we will do no matter what actions we might believe to be freely chosen. We are merely robots to be destroyed by our creator. This leads to an unloving God, not the loving one spoken of in the Bible. 2. Our actions are not our own. We are incapable of doing anything else but what we do. What does this mean? We cannot be held responsible for our actions. Murder cannot be condemned, nor can rape or any other atrocity you would like to name. Moral nihilism is our only option at this point. There are other problems with hard determinism of course but these are a few.

I have to clear something up. Saying that man has free will does not mean that he must therefore be responsible for his own salvation. Salvation can still be a gift to the saved. Predestination, etc (if you are worried about such things) can still be affirmed if one believes in free will. One would simply hold to a compatibilist view of free will in which free will and determinism can coexist. It seems like people are missing this and quoting verses which can easily be upheld by a compatibilist view in order to assert that humans do not have free will.

I am confused on childeye's responses. In some cases it seems like he doesn't believe in any type of free will and some times it appears that he does. To set the record right, I would like to ask directly. Childeye, do you believe that (a) free will does not exist (hard determinism), (b) free will and determinism are compatible (note a compatibilist can still believe in predestination, God's sovereignty, etc) © free will exists and is incompatible with determinism (libertarian free will)? These are the three philosophical positions on free will although many positions can exist within each of them (such as Molinism and 5-point Calvinism within compatibilism). In which camp do you stand? If you claim hard determinism, I would ask you, as Cobalt has asked before, to explain how you believe an all-loving God could condemn one for actions already determined by God. How do you reconcile this injustice? Thanks for clearing this up.

I try to keep things interesting around here It is good to see you too. There are some issues that it still has but I would agree with you that it is very promising. One problem that I personally struggle with is the idea of the actualization of the best possible world that Craig postulates. Craig says that God would actualize a particular world in which the maximal amount of free creatures would choose him (or at least this is my interpretation of what he says, it may be wrong). It seems that I would have a problem with this namely why don't we see a better actual world? Any thoughts?

I am curious, what happened to change you? In regards to Christianity? I grew up a Christian but had a crisis of faith during my early teenage years. I turned back to Christianity after exploring various arguments of God's existence (cosmological, teleological, modal ontological, objective moral, etc.) and talking with many Christians that did not have the (in my opinion) closeminded view that modern science (evolution, big bang, etc.) are incompatible with God. So in short, logic, science and philosophy brought me back to God. In this case, you were phrasing your argument badly and I would like to just ask one question before trying to clarify the Molinist position. Are you a hard determinist? If you are, then there is nothing called disobedience as in hard determinism, you would always be obeying what is determined to be true. It also raises serious issues for the justness of God as God would be punishing us for something we had no freedom to choose to go against. This presents a serious stumbling block to your position. On the other hand, Molinism is the idea that God is completely sovereign by knowing what free creatures would do in any possible situation and any possible world. It does not get rid of freedom but still allows for sovereignty.

I must have misinterpreted what you said, my apologies. What do you mean by the Prophets being non literal? Along with that, the Psalms? As for Genesis- there is no room for interpretation when God says He did x,y,z. If He says He created the Heavens and the Earth, He did! For example, the Prophets represent Jesus as a Lamb or the Chief Cornerstone and David calls God a shepherd that guides him. We understand these not in a literal sense but in a metaphorical one. This does not mean the passages are unimportant. In fact, they are critical to the understanding of who our Savior and God is. Similarly, in the Genesis account, I take the 6-day creation story as allegorical for God's actually method of creation. I agree with you completely that God created the heavens and the earth. We may disagree on the method by which he created however. I don't see what purpose that would serve- the people depicted in the bible REALLY lived and REALLY died. These expressions through man to man- makes the stories not only more life like but even more so relateable To me, that would be like making the same towards Jesus Christ- did not really happen but is a nice thought. . .also shows the Love of God. . .but the bible makes it clear Jesus REALLY lived, REALLY died, and REALLY was resurrected. So an allegory in this instance- seems fallacious. As for Greek mythology and the likes: your applying imaginative thinking and biblical truths, which in my opinion its like trying to mix water and oil. They neither compliment nor enhance the other. Your closing statement is interesting though, makes me wonder why you believe the story is allegorical, especially in the instance that it does not violate any "rule" or "science." For perhaps a majority of people in the Bible this is true. However, given the writing style of Genesis (similar to Mesopotamian epics), it would seem to me that Genesis was not intended as literal. Adam is possibly literal (once again, it matters little to me either way). The Gospels are written in an entirely different manner and the Resurrection of Christ seems to be supported by other historians from the same time period. NT Wright, an author I mention frequently is highly regarded and explains this well. You might also want to check out biologos - an organization of christian scholars who also support this idea and have written numerous articles on it. Where did he say that they were actual people? He mentioned them, but I could just as easily mention Achilles or Hercules. Your argument is simply a slippery slope argument with no justification.

Therefore you do not believe the bible is inerrant? "Formulated" by many Christians seems rather presumptuous and fallacious. If the bible is not complete in word- then the described words are by merely men- and not that of lead by the Holy Spirit. Leaving us with the conclusion that there is inevitably room for interpretation. . .which in terms leads down a road that contradicts the book itself. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "ALL scripture is breathed out by God useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." As for the creation account- I do agree with you, there are many hidden things that are rather poetic. . . But in fullness- and by the leading of the Holy Spirit are these things uncovered How does what I say mean that I do not believe the Bible to be (by the guidance of the Spirit) inerrant in its original form? I claim it to be non-literal just as Psalms is non-literal or the Prophets are non-literal. This does not make them in error so why should Genesis be in error if it is considered allegorical. I see numerous flaws as to this, especially in the sense that you said, that they were taken literal by both Jesus and others. And how about this verse? Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" The only way to have this work in favor is completely dodging what Paul is saying- and twisting what is said. Something also to consider, is that if the account of Adam and Eve is completely allegorical, then the "sin nature" really not what we make it out to be, which again contradicts what Romans 5:12 says. So the point in saying there is not philosophical or theological problem stands as long as scripture is set aside. I am interested in how you perceive this? Scripture and your thoughts would and will be great. God bless you! Love to you in Him! I personally lean neither way on the existence of a literal Adam. I merely would claim that it is possible for Adam to be an allegorical Adam to exist and for people to still be able to reference him. As I mentioned I can reference literary characters that serve as an allegory for an actual thing. An example, which I mentioned would be Achilles. Another would be Aslan from the Chronicles of Narnia. I could go on if you want but I think you get my point. Just because Christ alludes to someone does not make them real any more than myself alluding to Achilles. That being said, a literal Adam could exist and nothing would be wrong with that from an evolutionary perspective either.

Thank you. How do you see this pertaining to the 6 day creation event that is mentioned? Simply put, for various reasons I see the Genesis creation account to be allegorical like many other scholars (again I would refer you to NT Wright's work on the subject). The context and manner in which it was written seems to make it a figurative account of creation from my perspective.

So You And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31 Are Now A In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3 Bible Believer Too? And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. Revelation 21:1-5 I have been for a while now Joe but thanks for noticing. I just view the theology differently then you do perhaps.

This is a misrepresentation of Molinism. God does not "look into the future" from the Molinist perspective but rather he actualizes a world (from all possible worlds) in which some people will freely choose him. Why he actualizes this world is not because of our choices in the "future" but because he wants to actualize this particular possible world. God therefore does not choose someone based on some quality but rather he actualizes a world in which people choose him. In the Molinist perspective, God is still the one in control not the human as God has to actualize the world for the human to exist in the first place.

Which other parts of scripture would you consider as unnecessary? A historical Christ must be necessary for example. The historic early church. Both of these things also have reasonable support from scientists and historians I might add. Let me repeat myself. Please tell me which parts of scripture you consider unnecessary? My apologies. I misread your previous statement. I do not regard any Scripture as unnecessary. All of it is necessary and true. However, the light in which we read Scripture must change with the historical context in which it is written. Can you explain what is meant in bold to me? Sure. For example, I believe that the early chapters of Genesis (the creation account) is allegorical for various reasons based on the early world's understanding of science and creation, the writing style which many people have characterized in the poetic/epic style (for more on this look up NT Wright's analysis of Genesis). In other books (such as Psalms) allegory is more clearly seen as it is even more poetic than Genesis (think of the creation in Genesis as the Odyssey type epic poem while Psalms is more of what we would think of as a poem or song such as a sonnet). Other books (such as Matthew) do not have this feel. In terms of context, I think there are a variety of issues - Jewish purity laws, the location and dress of worshipers, etc. all of which are viewed in light of the historical context in which they were created to keep the Jewish people safe from the idolatrous influence of other nations.

Now this is a view I haven't seen in awhile. You truly believe in a hard determinism God? This seems strange to me. I would outline a few problems with this position below: Firstly, this statement: "We dont have free will. There is the will of the Father and weve disobeyed. Sin isnt a result of free will. Sin is the result of disobedience." This is a contradictory statement. If we disobey the will of the Father we have gone against his will thus leaving us with free will. This means that your statement does not support your own idea of a deterministic God. The act of disobeying indicates we have free will in ourselves and therefore hard determinism cannot be true. Secondly, if hard determinism were true there would be no just basis for condemnation as we would have no other choice but to obey the will of God. Thus, God would not be justified in sending anyone to hell as he would have determined the previous actions long before hand. I would then conclude that your deterministic view of God is philosophically bankrupt. I would suggest that instead you hold a compatibilist view in which free will and determinism can coexist in some form. Such a view would be held by a variety of philosophers such as Calvin, Molina and even Arminius to some extent. All of the verses you quote are perfectly in line with what Molinism teaches as a Christian philosophy in which both totally free creatures and God's foreknowledge can exist. I agree with you that we do not know our Creator's thoughts before creation (if we can even say there is such a "time before spacetime") and thus it is difficult to know what philosophy is correct. However, I would also say that some views are simply not well founded while others (such as Molinism in my opinion) seem to make a bit more sense from what we know of God.

Interesting view but I would respectfully disagree with this view. Science and scripture should be used jointly along with other methods of truth seeking (history, philosophy, etc.) to understand the world in which we live. For me, it was science and philosophy that brought me back to Christ in combination with what I knew of scripture.

Which other parts of scripture would you consider as unnecessary? A historical Christ must be necessary for example. The historic early church. Both of these things also have reasonable support from scientists and historians I might add. Let me repeat myself. Please tell me which parts of scripture you consider unnecessary? My apologies. I misread your previous statement. I do not regard any Scripture as unnecessary. All of it is necessary and true. However, the light in which we read Scripture must change with the historical context in which it is written.

I agree with Steven in that we must try to investigate the Scriptures thoroughly when deciding if it is in some parts literal and in other parts allegorical. That is why I noted that various scholars have also supported the allegorical Genesis creation view for various poetic/epic type narratives that occur within the book. Which other parts of scripture would you consider as unnecessary? A historical Christ must be necessary for example. The historic early church. Both of these things also have reasonable support from scientists and historians I might add.

The claim that objective truths exist is in itself a philosophical statement so I would say philosophy has everything to do with the objective truths we desire to learn through theology. Definition: Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

So a lot of people talk about Calvinism vs. Arminianism but what about the other doctrines that exist. Some of them are not that well known but one that is gaining a large amount of popularity thanks to the support of famous Christian apologists William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga is Molinism. I will give a brief background on the subject before opening it up to discussion. Molinism was a term coined to describe a particular view of compatibilism of God's providence and free will held by a Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina. It tries to deal with some of the philosophical problems with what Molina considered the extremes (Calvinism and Arminianism). Molinism asserts the following. God has three types of knowledge. The first is natural knowledge (knowledge of self, what is necessary) which is accepted by most Christians. The last is God's free knowledge (knowledge of the actuality of the world or the ontology of the world). Molina posits a middle knowledge which is not temporally prior to the free knowledge per se as God would exist outside of space and time but is called middle knowledge as it holds that God would, from his natural knowledge of necessary truths know what a creature would freely choose to do under a given set of circumstances. This allows for a degree of providence but also allows for free creatures to exist at the same time. Thus, the free will defense remains valid as an explanation for actual evil in the world and several philosophical ideas are satisfied. Thus, it is very appealing to philosophers. Here is the wiki page if you want more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism So... what are your thoughts. Is this heresy, interesting or are you just confused at this point? :-)

Well this is my first time back in a bit and I was just talking about this in church. Therefore, I am going to throw in my two cents. As I am a theistic evolutionist, I would consider Genesis to be in some parts at least, allegorical for various scholarly reasons formulated by many Christians. The creation account is one such moment. As to the literal Adam and Eve, I would say it is difficult to know. There are two major questions that often arise if Adam and Eve are considered allegorical. The first is, does the doctrine of original sin still hold if Adam and Eve are allegorical? Secondly, why does it appear that Jesus and Paul referred to them in a literal sense? To the first question, I see no real philosophical or theological problem. Original sin could still exist as a result of the earliest humans represented by Adam and Eve just as easily as if there was a literal Adam and Eve which were the first homo sapiens. On the second issue, I think it is a mistake to claim Jesus claims Adam to be literal. Adam is certainly referenced but does that make him any more real than a character such as Achilles in the Odyssey? I would think not. I could reference something (such as pride) as a fault of Achilles just as easily as I could reference a figurative Adam as a representation of original sin. However, with all that being said, it is equally possible that a literal Adam existed but, as I say, I don't see it as a necessity.

Interesting to note that most early Christians viewed the creation account as allegorical or theologically critical but not scientifically literal. I think, as I said before, that the important thing to Christians should be the fact that God is the Creator of the universe and by his methods (whatever they may be) everything else in the universe.

I think Christians for the most part believe that the world is more than 6000 years old and are either old earth creationists or some type of guided theistic evolutionists. Which is right is a topic for another thread but I think the important thing for a Christian to recognize is that the universe was created by God ex nihilo. This is what every single one of the early Christian teachers stressed on the subject.