thilipsis

I went to a Catholic school for the second grade, the nun who taught the class was talking to us about how God speaks in the Church one morning. She was asking us what we thought and I said I thought God spoke through other people. She kept saying that God can speak other ways but I insisted, walking home that day I heard something I can only describe as a voice, the actual words escaped me but it was something like your mine, your meant for more then this. I was a little startled and remember turning around, nothing there of course. Years later I went through a time of adolescent depression and I became aware of sin in my life which is troubling me. One evening someone I had never met was sharing the Gospel with me, standard your are a sinner and Christ died for you sin. Someone in the thread said he liked to keep it simple, well the gospel does keep it simple. Later that night I was getting ready for bed, thinking deeply about what he said. I prayed God if this is real you will have to take me as I am and make me what you want me to be. Now I had heard the sinners prayer, prayed it numerous times. This time it was like God reached down and grabbed me and said, again I can't express any exact words but it was like he said you got it. I wasn't expecting that but shook it off and went to bed. I felt drawn to a little green give away pocket New Testament, and started reading the Gospels. I got to the narrative of the cross and it was like I could see the scene, it was dark, touches lit, the soldiers and people standing in a semicircle around the cross. This time I was really shaken up, I tossed the Bible in a drawer and wouldn't touch it for some time. I was working late shortly after that in a shop, the workbench had a Bible laying there. I was getting ready to leave but started to thumb through it. I happened upon Job where God speaks from the whirlwind and again I could see it kind of in my minds eye, this time it was a very peaceful feeling. I think what was happening is God started opening up the Scriptures to me in a way that I could take personally, from him to me. I've never experienced anything like the Bible, most books you read, this one reads you. Religious conviction is a personal thing but over the years I have sought out things like apologetics, studied creationism and Bible study has been one of my core desires. From the night I received Christ I have never really been alone, it's hard to explain but I believe because I have been persuaded from experience and what I could investigate with regards to the existing evidence concerning Scripture. Grace and peace, Mark

I'll never forget walking into a Catholic church one Christmas eve, a nice service, a little play wn the writing of Silent Night. Then came prayer time and the guy leading the prayer says ' we come to you in the name of the blessed virgin', I was floored. Like anything else I checked into it and turns out this started about a thousand AD. Got a book on the subject I couldn't finish because the subject matter was too disturbing.

I already did and you ignored it, that's on you. The only definition I need for an ad hominem is 'subject' your opponent, 'predicate' negative personal attacks. This exercise in illogical argumentation is devoid of substantive step wise logic. It's a fatally flawed line of reasoning that you seem determined to hold to regardless. That tells me all I need to know, it means you have nothing else. You don't really argue for Creationism, Theistic Evolution or even Darwinism, your focus is exclusively whoever posts something you want to make sport of. I think it's Poe's Law in action: Poe's law is an Internet adage that states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers or viewers as a sincere expression of the parodied views. (Poe’s Law, Wikipedia) Some people find it annoying but personally I think it reveals something about the poster when they resort to fallacious rhetoric to the exclusion of the actual substantive issues. Your actually conceding the point when resorting to this kind of illogical argumentation. Like I said, that's on you. Grace and peace, Mark

You could never get a complete list of the canon of Scripture from the Scriptures while the books are being written. The Pentateuch would have been written before the children of Israel entered the promised land but they wouldn't have been called the canon, they were known as the Law. The various additions over the centuries to the Hebrew canon would have been to sole responsibility of the Levitical priesthood culminating after the return to Israel after the Babylonian captivity under the authority of Ezra who effectively closed the Old Testament canon. The New Testament canon was compiled over about ten years from 60 AD to 70 AD. The New Testament books were meticulously copied and circulated among the churches and are presently represented by some 30,000 extant manuscripts. As to the criteria, that's actually a little more complicated but still comprehensive: One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1960, p. 27). Solo Scriptura and the Canon of Scripture are actually two different issues, they do have considerable overlap. Solo Scriptura emerged during the Protestant Reformation in response to the dogma of the ecclesiastical authority of Rome. According to Martin Luther: "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." (Luther at the Imperial Diet of Worms 1521) Specific tests of canon vary somewhat but there are some basic principles that were involved: The Tests of Canonicity Specific tests to consider canonicity may be recognized. (1) Did the book indicate God was speaking through the writer and that it was considered authoritative? Compare the following references: (a) God was speaking through the human author—Ex. 20:1; Josh. 1:1; Isa. 2:1; (b) that the books were authoritative—Joshua 1:7-8; 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 23:25; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Daniel 9:11; Malachi 4:4. Note also Joshua 6:26 compared with 1 Kings 16:34; Joshua 24:29-33 compared with Judges 2:8-9; 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 compared with Ezra 1:1-4; Daniel 9:2 compared with Jeremiah 25:11-12. (2) Was the human author recognized as a spokesman of God, that is, was he a prophet or did he have the prophetic gift? Compare Deuteronomy 18:18; 31:24-26; 1 Samuel 10:25; Nehemiah 8:3. (3) Was the book historically accurate? Did it reflect a record of actual facts?(The Bible: The Holy Canon of Scripture J. Hampton Keathley III, Th.M.) While I'm well aware that there are several excellent answers to the question posed, I thought I would jump in and offer my two cents worth. Grace and peace, Mark

Not sure what you mean so let's take them one at a time. Evolution is a phenomenon in nature, the 'theory of evolution' is a philosophy of natural history. Two very different things. The ancient Hebrews were not into cosmology. God creating the universe on the other hand is something they knew about from the only one who was there, God himself. There are actually two of them in heaven, which is for the healing on the nations, the Revelation tells us. Its only thought to be an apple because of a lithographic print in Milton's Paradice Lost. I never heard of a wheat tree, I always thought something like figs. In tropical environments the can bear fruit year round

I'm saying before you make up your mind what you believe or don't believe you should learn what it says. Internal evidence is what Its called, there's also external and bibliographical testing. Now as far as Collins he has said he believes the New Testament including the miracles. I remember him and Richard Dawkins chatting like old friends about the seventeen dimensions of the multiverse. It just reminded me that Darwinism and String theory are highly convoluted attempts at metaphysics that border on mythology. I go on biologos occasionally, what they call a figurative interpretation is nothing but allergorizing the text. All well and good but don't call it an interpretation without specific reference to the text and what is being compared. The problem is Genesis has no figurative language.

When did essential doctrine become an 'ism', creation is a core Judaeo Christian doctrine. We have no reason as Christians to shy away from the historical narrative that the doctrine is based on. There are a lot of ways to go with this but I can sum up the first point with three words, 'created', 'made' and 'set'. There is a progression of thought in the Biblical account, certain things were 'created', the idea being a new creation generally being understood to be from nothing (ex nihilo). Then there is 'made' which is something made from something else, that's kind of an oversimplification but still the general idea. Then there is set where God makes adjustments to certain aspects and elements. It's commonly believed among creationists that the sun was created on day 4 but a closer look at the words and phrases used indicates that God was simply adjusting the 'firmament' to make the lights in the sky visible on a regular basis from the surface of the earth. The Genesis Account of Creation: Thought I would post up some of my notes from my studies of Genesis 1. One interesting point is that there are three different words used to describe God's activities during creation week. Just hoping someone might take an interest in a more detailed exposition of the text. Day 1: God 'lets' the light in, thus creating the first day (Gen. 1:4). Day 2: God creates the upper atmosphere, called the 'firmament' (Gen. 1:7). Day 3: God separates the land from the seas and creates plant life (Gen. 1:10). Day 4: God then, 'sets', the heavenly lights in the visible sky (Gen. 1:17). Day 5: God creates the birds of the air and marine life (Gen. 1:21). Day 6: Finally, God creates the beasts of the field and Man (Gen. 1:25). The phrase, 'heaven and the earth', is a Hebrew expression meaning the universe. All we really get from this passage is that the cosmos and earth were created, 'in the beginning'. The perspective of creation week is from the surface of the earth, starting with the Spirit of God hovering over the deep (Gen. 1:2). In the chapter there are three words used for God's work in creation. The first is 'created' ('bara' H1254) a very precise term used only of God. Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound thological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...(Vines Expository Dictionary) It is used once to describe the creation of the universe (Gen 1:1), then again to describe the creation of life (Gen 1:21). Finally, in the closing verses, it is used three times for the creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27). The word translated, 'made' (asah 6213) , has a much broader range of meaning and is used to speak of the creation of the 'firmament' (Gen 1:7), the sun, moon and stars (Gen 1:16), procreation where offspring are made 'after his/their kind' (Gen 1:25) and as a general reference to creation in it's vast array (Gen 1:31). Made ‘asah’(H6213) "A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application" (Gen 1:7, Gen 1:16, Gen 1:25, Gen 1:31, Isa. 41:20, 43:7, 45:7, 12, Amos 4:13). (Strong’s Dictionary). "The verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for “create” only about 60 times…only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation." (Vine 52). Then there is a third term when God 'set' (nathan H2414), the lights of the sun, moon and stars so that their light is reqularly visible from the surface of the earth. In this way the narrative shifts from the very precise word for 'created' to the more general 'made', and then the much broader use of 'set'. Set (nathan H5414) A primitive root; to give, used with greatest latitude of application (Gen 1:17, Gen 9:13, Gen 18:8, Gen 30:40, Gen 41:41). Elsewhere translated ‘put’, ‘make’, ‘cause’, etc. The creation account has great significance for the rest of Scripture and how these terms are used in the original and their natural context is essential to really following the text as it was intended to be understood. Original Sin Accepting human evolution from that of apes is not only a rejection of the Pauline doctrine of original sin, it's a myth of human ancestry. When the New Testament writers mention Adam they speak of him as the first man and the reason why all of us are under the curse of sin and death. Paul tells us that 'by one man sin entered the world' and 'by one man's offense death reigned'. (Rom 5:12-19). Paul ties Adam directly to the need for justification and grace in his exposition of the Gospel in his letter to the Romans. Luke lists Adam in his genealogy calling him 'son of God' indicating he had no human parents but rather was created (Luke 3:23-28). My concern is simply this, the myth of human lineage linked to ape ancestry contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture and essential doctrine, specifically justification by faith. Paul is clear that all have sinned in Adam and that is the reason that we cannot keep the Mosaic law. To receive Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship him as Creator. According to Paul: Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19). The Bible is a book of history and our true lineage is found there, not in the modern mythology of Darwinian evolution. Essential doctrine is at stake and while you can accept evolution as natural history in part rejecting the creation of Adam and original sin runs contrary to sound doctrine. Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy but the rejection of the creation of Adam and original sin definitely is. Believing that land dwelling creatures became amphibians, transposed into whales and dolphins are certainly interesting ideas but would have no bearing on doctrinal issues. The doctrine of justification by faith has a central focus, the sin of Adam and it's inextricably linked to special creation. The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12). It looks something like this in Romans, taken chapter by chapter: Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator. Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious. All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ. Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith. Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin. Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life. The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict. Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'. Now I realize I have dumped a ton of stuff in the opening post and this is a casual discussion forum. It's just that what this comes down to are two worldviews competing in this controversy, as Bible believing Christians ours is a Biblical one. I've poured over the scientific literature, philosophy, history even sociology and came to one core conviction, Creationism is an exercise in evidential apologetics. When attempting to defend the Bible as being true and reliable history it becomes essential to realize, the Bible is primary source material, at least, in a Judaeo Christian context. I've debated Catholics, Protestants, Darwinians, Theistic Evolutionists and an army of trollers for years. In this thread I'm inviting you to a Bible study on the subject of creation. The trend in the Church, both Protestant and Catholic, has been toward Intelligent Design. The reason for it is some times scientific but essentially theological. At some point you are going to have to decide what you are going to stand on because the Theory of Evolution and the Bible as Redemptive history are clearly in conflict. You have to wonder what is at stake here because it's more then a philosophy of history, essential Christian doctrine is at stake. I leave you with a couple of choice quotes: Darwinism destroyed the dogma of the Fall upon which the whole intellectual fabric of Christianity rests. For without a Fall there is no redemption, and the whole theory and meaning of the Pauline system is vain. (Wells, H.G., Anticipations of the Reactions of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Thought) Faith in God and in the events of salvation history must necessarily begin with a belief in God's role as Creator. (Benedict XVI, VATICAN CITY, APRIL 23, 2011, Zenit.org) he doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Preface, On the Origin of Species) Grace and peace, Mark

I suspect thats the point As far as I can tell you never read the opening post and this spam of definitions and fallacies, is classic, undiluted projection. You cite things, and there are some interesting quotes, but it bears relevance to nothing substantive. I have no reason to have you chase a red herring, the challenge with you is to get something on topic, which you haven't managed once, and bare assertion, seriously? Your whole argument is nothing more then on long ad hominem attack and as far as I can tell, it's the same one no matter who you respond to. I know what your doing and it has nothing to do with creation. This is nothing but one long ad hominem fallacy and as I predicted, you never recovered from it. You are fairly unique in one respect, you started right off with it, usually it's a downward spiral. Fallacious rhetoric is the bane of debate, it paralyzes the substance of the issues and polarizes normal rationality. What actually fascinates me, what may well have kept my interest all these years, is that there is someone like you in virtually every thread. I honestly don't know what your motive here is, but your arguments are fallacious, that much is obvious. Yet I'm curious, did you ever figure out the difference between an empirical theory and a unified theory. I doubt it but thought I would ask anyway. Grace and peace, Mark

Yea I don't get it either. He has some interesting quotes if you can get through the formatting and the many tangents. I haven't had much luck but I never liked heavy semantics and rationalistic rhetoric much. Guess I never seen the benefit of it. Grace and peace, Mark

Hey jump in any time, like Bonky said, a fresh perspective is always welcome. This stuff has so many twists and turns and the evidence seems to go on forever. The challenge isn't so much doing the reading and the research, it's a thankless time consuming task but that's not the hardest part. It's boiling it down to something conversational and substantive. If you could help us out with that it would be most welcome. Grace and peace, Mark

I agree that your confused but it seems it is due to the fact that you are misreading the quote: First of all Keith is talking about the endocast of the Taung child, "an examination of the casts...", indicates the claim that this specimen being a human ancestor, "will satisfy geologists that this claim is preposterous". Bear in mind this is the leading comparative anatomist of his time. He continues, "The skull is that of a young anthropoid ape... and showing so many points of affinity with the two living African anthropoids, the gorilla and chimpanzee", in other words it's the cast of an ape brain not a human descendent at all. Keith concludes, "that there cannot be a moment's hesitation in placing the fossil form in this living group" (Arthur Keith, letter to Nature Magazine) It wouldn't be considered a human ancestor until it became increasingly obvious that Piltdown was a hoax. He was right, the Taung Child is nothing more then a chimpanzee, arguments to the contrary are still, 'preposterous'. As far as the term, 'Hominid', we are talking about an ancestral taxonomic category not a contemporary one. Expanding it to include gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans is a reference to a taxonomic category at the level of 'family' which includes all genus and species. Hominid is a reference to the genus 'Homo', in this context and I don't think I've been ambiguous on this fact. Again I don't think you are paying much attention to the source material: Dean Falk, a specialist in neuroanatomy, noted that Dart had not fully considered certain apelike attributes for Taung. "In his 1925 article, Dart had claimed that the brain of Taung was humanlike. As it turned out, he was wrong about that. . . . Taung's humanlike features were overemphasized". "Like humans, other primates go through stages as they grow up. In his analysis of Taung, Dart did not fully appreciate that infant apes have not had time to develop features of the skull, such as thickened eyebrow ridges or attachment areas for heavy neck muscles, that set adult apes apart from human. Apparently he did not carefully consider the possibility that Taung's rounded forehead or the inferred position of the spinal cord might be due to the immaturity of the apelike specimen rather than to its resemblance to humans". (Taung Child, Wikipedia) A couple of things here, first, 'the humanlike features were overemphasized' and Faulk points out, ", spinal cord might be due to the immaturity of the apelike specimen rather than to its resemblance to humans". This explains why the Taung Child can be explained as nothing more then an immature chimpanzee thus accounting for the seemingly bipedal forearm magnum. It's much more likely that the Taung Child is nothing more then a chimpanzee ancestor. Oh I think the evidence is more then supportive and the source material is sufficient to demonstrate exactly that. People knew the jawbone didn't belong with the skull and while Louis Leaky knew that it had not dawned on him it was a fabrication of a transitional. It's the alternative explanation for the evidence. As late as 1946 Wilfrid Le Gros Clark was intent on proving the Taung Child was just an ape. 1947 was the first time a prominent academic even entertained the notion publicly and it turned into a complete reversal of all that had proceeded: In early January 1947 at the First Pan-African Congress on Prehistory, he was the first anthropologist of such stature to call the Taung Child a "hominid", that is, an early human. An anonymous article published in Nature on 15 February 1947 announced Le Gros Clark's conclusions to a wider public. On that day, Arthur Keith, who had been one of Dart's most virulent critics, composed a letter to the editor of Nature announcing that he supported Le Gros Clark's analysis: "I was one of those who took the point of view that when the adult form [of Australopithecus] was discovered it would prove to be near akin to the living African anthropoids—the gorilla and the chimpanzee. I am now convinced ... that Prof. Dart was right and that I was wrong." As Roger Lewin put it in his book Bones of Contention, "a prompter and more thorough capitulation could hardly be imagined." (Taung Child, Wikipedia) The handwriting was on the wall, they were scrambling to find a replacement transitional and the solution would be that Taung would be promoted to the status of human ancestor and the Homo habilis followed in it's wake. This isn't a conspiracy theory and I don't really care what their motive might have been. I see the fact that there are no recognized chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record but Taung Child should be. That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface, there are also the contrived tools of Homo habilis and the cerebral rubicon being removed as the cut of for the genus Homo. What is far more important is the genetic basis for the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. This key line of evidence shows a growing body of research indicating highly conserved genes would have to undergo massive overhauls and some 60 de novo genes appearing out of nowhere but uniformly assumed is a symphony of illogic. What is at the heart of the controversy isn't science but the prevailing presuppositional bias against the inverse logic that remains intuitively obvious. Grace and peace, Mark

It's amazing, the Republicans control Congress, the Presidency and a majority of state legislatures. As a matter of fact right wing nationalism is a trend in Europe. But their favorite thing to do is to bash liberals, seems like the topic would be the road forward.

Exactly, a ring of Iridium around the earth is just a ring of Iridium around the earth. Now If there were high concentration, and there would be a lot, around the Yucatan peninsula and say not as much as it spans out It might look like an asteroid. What It looks like is a naturally occurring element. One has to wonder who the genius was who decided an element that can literally be found anywhere else in the world can only be found on meteorites. Only Darwinians could believe that an event so catastrophic it kills virtually every main genus of land dwelling reptillians without killing off the mammals as well. What is far worse is these arguments always come in a condescending tone instead of a logical explanation. That it's what I'm supposed to replace the Biblical account of creation with, some mass extinction dinosaur theory? Seriously?

Like most of these theories it's based on anecdotal evidence and highly speculative scenarios. They find iridium 30 someplace unexpected and we are just supposed to believe the only explanation is a catastrophic event that kills off the dinosaurs. Ok, but this is a little like expecting mutations and viruses being the principle driving force of evolution, environmental challenges can trigger adaptive evolution but they certainly cannot facilitate it. Mass extinction is just that, a huge die off, that's not a formula for adaptive radiation on a global scale. It makes more sense to me that living populations with nearly pristine genomes had the requisite gene pools necessary for accelerated evolution. Some greenhouse effect from an asteroid hardly seems like a viable scenario for a major overhaul of highly conserved genes at the level of genus and phylum. Grace and peace, Mark

The wall in the documentary was helpful and the Bible clearly supports a mid-15th century BC date for the exodus: “In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the Lord.” (1 Kgs 6:1) Working back from Solomon’s fourth year, ca. 966 bc,20 brings us to ca. 1446 bc for the date of the exodus. Another point raised is the name Rameses used in Exod 1:11 is an editorial updating of an earlier name that went out of use. I've been tracking some of the archeology in Israel but this is the first I've heard someone might have found Joseph's house. This was not a typical documentary, when it comes to the Bible they are usually contrary to the Biblical account and rarely follow actual archeology. Thoroughly enjoyed it.

Well I just watched it and I'm impressed, with the film making if nothing else. The house thought to be Joseph's and then many of actual evidences. The time line has me puzzled and it all lines up so well with what I've learned before. I'm going to have to watch it again and do some cross referencing but all in all a solid documentary. I must admit, I'm impressed.

I don't think so dinosaurs were just larger versions of what we have today. Some people lived close to a thousand most likely animals enjoyed simular longivety. I'm also pretty sure the world was a lot more lush for a lot they same reason I think the movie Jurrasic Park is impossibly. How much do you think a T Rex eats? There is also a problem with cumulative mutations. Following the flood the genomes must have been prestige, now a lot less variety.

The question Jesus is answering is what is new birth. Of course he makes reference to the crucifixion but the emphasis is on the Holy Spirit to make the believer a New creature in Christ. This isn't really clear in the Old Testament, they were commanded to obey the Law period. There was just one problem all of us are ' by nature objects of wrath', that old nature cannot receive the things of God. Interesting word 'atonement', William Tyndale actually invented it. It means 'at one moment'. it's the idea of the blood being sprinkled on the mercy seat once a year. It was the only time anyone entered the holy of holies. We are aware that we receive the righteousness of God by faith, but the old wineskin can't hold it. That's why you must be born again. Gods not reforming the old nature he is replacing it.

Its depends on why, many Pauline churches don't baptize. You can go in a dry sinner and come out a wet one. Being baptized identify a disciple with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. What if you don't participate in the Lords Supper, well it depends. In the Old Testament there was a Sabbath but when Jesus worked on the Sabbath his critics quickly faulted him. Jesus says the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. Some Times We should think of these rites as gifts rather then obligations.

Done deal

Maybe you don't like my approach and that's fine, the subject is total depravity at least as far was we have gone at this point. Two natures, that was my point. Repentance is not a change of life style or behavior but a change in nature. There is only one way that happens, God must produce that in you. The earthly, carnal, sinful nature still exists but the believer has a new nature and is empowered by the Holy Spirit. I understand the context of Romans 3 perfectly fine, especially at the point of the heart of the emphasis: But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:21-23) Paul is quoting from the Old Testament and it's directly relevant to what we are discussing. You are incapable of repentance apart from the new nature. The seat of moral reflection is the heart, God must give you a new one. Behavior is the effect, grace is the cause. The lesson gets to the heart of the issue of what repentance really is. I don't think a discussion of justification by grace through faith is unwarranted, l think it is vital. Now I may well be misunderstanding you but when it comes to repentance being grieved over sin is only part of it, you can only truly repent when God gives you new birth. The seed comes to you incorruptible, if the devil doesn't steal it away from unbelief, it doesn't get dried up under testing, if it doesn't get chocked out by the weeds of worldly care and the deceitfulness of riches it bears fruit to the glory of God. That seed becomes the new man and the one clearing, plowing and weeding the soil is God. Not you. Fair enough, the issue is total depravity. I'm not cutting anything off, this conversation is just getting started. Maybe I seem a little confrontational, my apologies if that is the case. I honestly believe that there is no such thing as repentance apart from new birth. When Adam ate we did not fast, just as when Levi paid a tithe through Abraham Levi paid tithes. We are cursed, we are ruined and left to ourselves we will only get worse. I have no animosity toward Arminian theology except for one major point, justification by grace through faith. That simply means that you have to come to realize that you are lost, hopelessly broken and helpless, apart from the grace of God. Adam didn't listen to the warning not to eat the forbidden fruit, there is a simple explanation for that. He didn't believe it or do you have a better explanation? Grace and peace, Mark

I know what your saying, it sounds like you have seen the rabbinical teachings on the subject. I have a tendency to dwell on the literary features, something about Hebrew that makes it compelling. This is one of my favorite verses in Scripture: Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. (Song of Songs 8:6) Those are wedding vows and by the way, the groom doesn't speak, she is telling him what his wedding vows are. But seriously, notice 'death' and the 'grave' are used synonymously. The Old Testament believers knew about the resurrection and seemed to have some awareness of our existence beyond the grave, I think most cultures do. What was revealed in the New Testament was final judgment and Jesus said some astonishing things about hell and final judgment unlike anything you will get from the Law and the Prophets. Speaking of the resurrection Peter had this to say: David said about him: I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest in hope, because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, you will not let your holy one see decay. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.’ Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. (Acts 2:25-29) I'm not expert the the 'the realm of the dead' has to be Sheol, aka the grave. I do realize that the Old Testament was not oblivious to life beyond the grave but Sheol is synonymous with death and the grave, even if there is more to it then the cessation of vital functions. Grace and peace, Mark

It's encouraging to hear you say that, I was wondering if anyone actually read the opening post. I actually got started on this subject almost by accident, I was on a secular board and mentioned in passing that I was opposed to teaching creationism in the public schools even though I'm a Young Earth Creationist and I was inundated with flaming retorts. Even the moderators jumped on me and long story short, I ended up in Christian Forums. It flowed like a chat line and I became acquainted with a number of real world scientists, all evolutionists of course. For the longest time I confined myself to the scientific literature almost exclusively and while the inevitable flames were tiresome I always learned something that was just fascinating. I happened upon a formal debate between two Christian apologists who were arguing the merits of Evidential Apologetics vs. Presuppositional approaches. I messaged the Evidential guy and he called my approach ad hominem, using source material your opponent would never dream of arguing against. My purpose is not to win a debate, most of them go in circles anyway. I think our true history is found in the pages of Scripture, past, present and in the very near future. I think the animosity against anything theistic is symptomatic of our culture drifting into a naturalistic frame of reference I think is unhealthy spiritually. Thank you so much for your kind words of support and BTW, if your ever interested in a Bible Study let me know. Don't let the drama from the Darwinian Theater of the Mind trouble you, I know from personal experience it's mostly just bad acting. More importantly, don't be afraid to explore the life sciences, in the last century we saw the rise of a brand new science. Genetics went from chromosome theory to the Human Genome project and about half way through the century, we saw the rise of the DNA double helix model unveiled. Genesis is vital as history, science is about tools mental and physical and with regards to creation and evolution, Genetics is the prize. The truth will prevail. Grace and peace, Mark

Just for the record I wanted to provide the citation for this quote, mainly because it's an excellent essay from a very interesting series. A Century of Nature reprints twenty-one seminal contributions from Nature and adds commentary by leading scientists. This essay accompanies "Australopithecus africanus: the man-ape of South Africa" by Raymond A. Dart published in 1925. "Nature's eminence attracts papers of revolutionary import, making this volume of twenty-one articles of wide interest. This anthology's aura of discovery will absorb avid science fans."—Booklist. (Raymond Dart and our African origins C. K. Brain from A Century of Nature: Twenty-One Discoveries that Changed Science and the World) Just a kind of footnote.

I know what you asked me, I'm not interested in chasing this around the mulberry bush. There are testable hypothesis that is a normal part of empirical methodology and then there are unified theories. The former is inductive investigations of natural phenomenon, I'm talking about Darwinism as a unified theory of biology, aka a synthesis: We didn’t sit down and forge a synthesis. We all knew each others writings; all spoke with each other. We all had the same goal, which was simply to understand fully the evolutionary process…By combining our knowledge, we managed to straighten out all the conflicts and disagreements so that finally a united picture of evolution emerged. The theory of evolution quite rightly called the greatest unifying theory in biology. (Ernst Mayr) It's largely philosophical, it in invariably traced back to Darwin and Larmarck. This one statement sums it up for me: in 1815, in the Introduction to his (Lamarck) "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species) There is a difference evolution as a phenomenon and the 'theory of evolution', readily discerned. I'm not into all the formatting and smiley faces. I take the subject matter seriously and I have made every effort to address your issues. If we don't get past this, I don't see us making any progress. Grace and peace, Mark