Jump to content
IGNORED

Let's Start a Dialogue


ByFaithAlone

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  21
  • Topic Count:  237
  • Topics Per Day:  0.11
  • Content Count:  6,773
  • Content Per Day:  3.24
  • Reputation:   4,724
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/23/1954

5 minutes ago, ByFaithAlone said:

Once again, I would agree with you 100% if I agreed that Christ and his disciples viewed Genesis as a literal telling of God's creative work. I would argue that they likely did not view Genesis with such literalism. Why would I argue that? Mainly due to contemporaries of Christ (Philo of Alexandria for example) did not view Scripture in that way nor did a majority of the early church (once again see Origen of Alexandria, Augustine, etc.) Those in theistic evolution camp (myself and many of the early church included) would argue instead that Genesis is allegorical and shows the relationship between God and creation (Infinite Creator and Finite Created) and that when Paul, Christ and the early church talk about the death caused by the fall they are talking about our death in terms of sinfulness. Paul uses this metaphor several times for example talking about how we die with Christ and are raised anew with him through baptism. This does not mean that we literally die when we are baptized or perhaps there are some ministers and priests that need to be actually tried for hundreds or thousands of murders.

The problem in my mind for those who interpret Genesis in a literal manner is two-fold. Firstly, they assume that Christ, his apostles and the early church viewed it in such a way. As I mentioned above, based on the writings we have discussing the subject this is likely not the consensus among those closest (historically) to Christ. Secondly, it assumes that God has deceived humanity through nature by allowing for such vast misinterpretation of the scientific evidence. This contradicts my theological understanding of God (as well as the early church - once again see the writings of Augustine, Origen, etc.).  For both these reasons, I would argue against such an approach to Genesis.  

Your error and that of those you quote is that you interpret Scripture to match what man claims science has proven. This can only lead to arbitrariness and inconsistency because the Theory of Evolution fails to provide a foundation for laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and morality, and does not provide justification for assuming these.

The natural and straightforward reading of the Bible using grammar and history to understand the meaning of the text results in a consistent appreciation of the Author's intention.

Gen 8:22
(22)  While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Rom 1:20
(20)  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
 

 

  • This is Worthy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  730
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/19/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1993

2 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

Your error and that of those you quote is that you interpret Scripture to match what man claims science has proven. This can only lead to arbitrariness and inconsistency because the Theory of Evolution fails to provide a foundation for laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and morality, and does not provide justification for assuming these.

The natural and straightforward reading of the Bible using grammar and history to understand the meaning of the text results in a consistent appreciation of the Author's intention.

Regarding your first statement, you have either not been reading what I am writing or are deliberately misinterpreting my statements. Those who I quote are Origen, Philo, Augustine and many others in the early church. They held these positions long before modern cosmological models or evolutionary biology were understood. So you are incorrect that these claims were made to match with science. Rather, it was a historical position of many members of the early church and Jewish thinkers from the time of Christ. Now you are free to disagree with these thinkers. Just realize that by doing so you are disagreeing with some of those closest to the disciples in terms of both time and historical views on Scripture and you are criticizing those who shaped the Creeds we espouse today. 

As to your second point that the Theory of Evolution alone cannot provide a basis for universal moral law I would agree. Hence the theistic part of theistic evolution. In my worldview, God is still responsible for universal moral law.

As to your closing statement, I would argue that using historical sources (the members of the early church) in combination with analysis of text and our understanding of God's creation through science, an allegorical approach would be the most logical and straightforward approach to Genesis (as opposed to the literalism you espouse). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  21
  • Topic Count:  237
  • Topics Per Day:  0.11
  • Content Count:  6,773
  • Content Per Day:  3.24
  • Reputation:   4,724
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/23/1954

4 hours ago, ByFaithAlone said:

Regarding your first statement, you have either not been reading what I am writing or are deliberately misinterpreting my statements. Those who I quote are Origen, Philo, Augustine and many others in the early church. They held these positions long before modern cosmological models or evolutionary biology were understood. So you are incorrect that these claims were made to match with science. Rather, it was a historical position of many members of the early church and Jewish thinkers from the time of Christ. Now you are free to disagree with these thinkers. Just realize that by doing so you are disagreeing with some of those closest to the disciples in terms of both time and historical views on Scripture and you are criticizing those who shaped the Creeds we espouse today. 

As to your second point that the Theory of Evolution alone cannot provide a basis for universal moral law I would agree. Hence the theistic part of theistic evolution. In my worldview, God is still responsible for universal moral law.

As to your closing statement, I would argue that using historical sources (the members of the early church) in combination with analysis of text and our understanding of God's creation through science, an allegorical approach would be the most logical and straightforward approach to Genesis (as opposed to the literalism you espouse). 

I could take an allegorical approach to what you have written, BFA, rather than taking its natural meaning, in which case I would be emmulating Origen who indeed did include matching philosophy and theology to the science of the day, as per this quote: 

Gregory tells us that Origen taught the following subjects at Caesarea: logic by Socratic method; the natural sciences with a view to demonstrating divine providence; ethics, centered on the four cardinal virtues; theology, including the thought of all philosophical schools but the atheists; and the Scriptures. This was not exactly a catechetical school, nor a course in theology; it seems it primarily functioned as a missionary school for pagans interested in Christianity. {8}http://www.religionfacts.com/origen

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

15 hours ago, Michael37 said:

Anyone who subscribes to theistic evolution places themself in conflict with these Bible verses:

Rom 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:  

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

When I look at the larger contexts of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, it seems much more likely to me that the juxtaposition of death (brought through Adam) to life (brought through Jesus Christ), that this is referring to spiritual life and death. Personally, I believe in Adam and Eve as historical people - brought into a new life of spiritual connection to God through His miraculous work. From (and through) Adam and Eve, humanity gained a capability of spiritual connection to God and unfortunately, the curse of sin that leaves all of us incapable of achieving that connection by ourselves. It is repentance that now opens us up to the gift of God through the sacrificial death and victorious resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Although I do believe in Adam and Eve as true figures of history (the genealogy in Luke argues very strongly for this, imho), there are many people I respect that see otherwise. Regardless, what we are accountable for is our own sin and our own response to it at the urging of the Holy Spirit. The Bible very clearly does not include "belief in a literalistic interpretation of Genesis" as a requirement for accepting His saving grace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  730
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/19/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1993

 

10 hours ago, Michael37 said:

I could take an allegorical approach to what you have written, BFA, rather than taking its natural meaning, in which case I would be emmulating Origen who indeed did include matching philosophy and theology to the science of the day, as per this quote: 

Gregory tells us that Origen taught the following subjects at Caesarea: logic by Socratic method; the natural sciences with a view to demonstrating divine providence; ethics, centered on the four cardinal virtues; theology, including the thought of all philosophical schools but the atheists; and the Scriptures. This was not exactly a catechetical school, nor a course in theology; it seems it primarily functioned as a missionary school for pagans interested in Christianity. {8}http://www.religionfacts.com/origen

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. I agree with you that Origen talked with many pagans. And he did reference philosophy, Scripture, logic and science in his discussions with these pagan intellectuals. Origen was part of the Alexandrian school of early Christian thought. Alexandria is thought to have been evangelized by St. Mark and held a special place in the early Christian Church (hence why the Catholics/Orthodox/Coptics/some Anglicans refer to Alexandria as the See of St. Mark the Evangelist) as it was a center for Christian theology.

As your little snippet above mentions, Origen saw science, logic and philosophy as all pointing towards the divine providence of God. Augustine and later Aquinas, Moore, Bacon and others would also share this view. The most famous example is probably the writings entitled "Against Celsus" which was sort of an open letter between him and the aforementioned Celsus debating the merits of Christianity with Origen championing the Christian cause. However, I am not entirely sure how this is relevant other than proving that Origen was an early evangelist and intelligent man. If you are trying to claim that science somehow warped Origen's view, please see below. 

In your statement earlier you said the following regarding an allegorical interpretation of the creation account in Genesis. 

15 hours ago, Michael37 said:

Your error and that of those you quote is that you interpret Scripture to match what man claims science has proven.

I rebutted this by saying that Origen, Augustine, etc. (early Christians) and Philo (a contemporary Jewish scholar) all held this allegorical view of the Genesis account. This was long before they could have ever known about evolutionary biology or modern cosmological ideas of a past-finite inflationary universe. There was no science available to them that could have suggested the age of the Earth or the universe as a whole. They held these views of Scripture long before any scientific input you claim is used to "misinterpret" Genesis.

Instead, we need to an acknowledge that an allegorical interpretation of Genesis was around long before modern science could tell us the age of the universe or before we had access to the genomes of plants and animals. It is a historically authentic, theologically consistent and perfectly orthodox way of viewing Scripture held by some of the greatest and most influential minds in the Early Church. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  730
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/19/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1993

1 hour ago, Vince said:

My main objection is that there are not any philosophical arguments for the existence of God that lead to proof.  If a person can be talked into believing in God by philosophical arguments then they can be talked out of belief by them as well.  Faith comes from hearing the gospel.  I think we should make sure we get to this in any discussion we have with a non believer.  

I am not saying that we should not pursue these arguments.  I agree that it is a starting point with some people.  At some point though the question arises, why do we need complicated philosophical arguments to prove the existence of God if he indeed does exist?  Especially when the consequences are so dire and when these don't answer which God exists.

I would agree to this in part. I would say that some people may find certain philosophical arguments for God's existence compelling and others will not. As you say, at the very least it is a starting point. For others, it may encourage a theistic or deistic approach to the universe if perhaps not a Judeo-Christian one. I very much follow in the footsteps of Augustine, Aquinas, Bacon and others who thought reason and science was one way for us to experience God in our lives. As you say, this is not the only way to experience God nor do I claim it is the best way. All I know is that it works for me and I am grateful for that. 

1 hour ago, Vince said:

Jesus did view Genesis as literal:

And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.    Matt 23:35 ESV

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.  Matt 24:36-39 ESV

It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,”Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’[So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”  Mark 10:5-9 ESV

These verses indicate that Jesus considered Able a real person, that he thought the flood really happened and that God created the world and people as humans.  He never treated Genesis as allegory.

I think I always specified that it is the creation account as allegorical. If I misspoke once and said the entirety of Genesis please forgive me. When Origen, Augustine and others talk of the allegorical nature of Genesis, they refer to the creation account. Also remember that just because a specific name is used by Christ don't assume that the person is historical. Context is key. For example, when Jesus tells the parable of Lazarus and the rich man most Christians do not assume that particular Lazarus existed (obviously there is the other Lazarus who was a friend of Christ who's story is not told in allegorical form). He does not need to state that Lazarus and the rich man are not historical figures as this was and is understood. Rather, they are part of a parable by which Christ taught about humility, salvation and the afterlife among other things. If we apply the context of the Jewish thinkers at the time and the Church Fathers it seems to indicate that many prominent Jews, apostles and the earliest followers of the Christian faith took an allegorical approach to the creation account.  

With regards to the specific individuals you mention, theistic evolution in general does not deny the possibility of a historical Adam or historical descendants. Some theistic evolutionists believe Adam and Eve to be historical while others view them as allegorical. Either way, most theistic evolutionists would argue that it is unlikely that they are the only humans given that in Genesis it notes that Cain was fearful of being killed by those "in the land of Nod."  One.opinion linked an article on this thread or perhaps the other active thread regarding a historical Adam and theistic evolution coexisting. Nor do theistic evolutionists deny the possibility of a historical flood although most if not all would argue that the flood was a localized event and that water covered "the whole land" is a better translation into English then the translation water covered "the whole world."    

In regards to God creating humanity, a theistic evolutionist would agree that this is true. However, we would contend that this creation is within the framework of biological evolution. In other words, God created man through that process and imbued humanity with the imago deo (Image of God). The Image of God and our relationship with the creator is what makes humans unique. Thus, theistic evolutionists do not deny God's creative power and still place God as the Uncaused Cause or Prime Mover in Thomistic terms. Once again, such an interpretation seems consistent with the Jewish thought on the matter at the time (see the work of Philo) and early Christian thinkers that were taught either directly by apostles or by the followers of the apostles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  21
  • Topic Count:  237
  • Topics Per Day:  0.11
  • Content Count:  6,773
  • Content Per Day:  3.24
  • Reputation:   4,724
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/23/1954

3 hours ago, SelahSong said:

Hello…:)

Has anyone here considered that there existed an age before Genesis?

—Selah—

Another of Origen's heresies as per this exerpt from  HERESIES THEN AND NOW

Despite his defense of orthodoxy, Origen developed several heretical doctrines that were eventually condemned in 553. His most notable deviant teachings involve the preexistence of human souls, the subordination of the Son to the Father, and universalism. Few groups currently adopt all of Origen's teachings. Nonetheless, groups influenced by Joseph Smith believe in both the preexistence of souls and the essential subordination of the Son to the Father, and many other groups believe in both the preexistence of souls (usually in the form of reincarnation) and universalism.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • This is Worthy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  730
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/19/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1993

19 hours ago, Michael37 said:

Another of Origen's heresies as per this exerpt from  HERESIES THEN AND NOW

Despite his defense of orthodoxy, Origen developed several heretical doctrines that were eventually condemned in 553. His most notable deviant teachings involve the preexistence of human souls, the subordination of the Son to the Father, and universalism. Few groups currently adopt all of Origen's teachings. Nonetheless, groups influenced by Joseph Smith believe in both the preexistence of souls and the essential subordination of the Son to the Father, and many other groups believe in both the preexistence of souls (usually in the form of reincarnation) and universalism.

I am not saying Origen was perfect. None of us have a perfect theological understanding and obviously I don't agree with everything Origen had to say. Obviously, some of his views should rightly be considered to be flawed. However, let us note that even in the quote you post above it mentions that he also defended "orthodoxy" and Christian groups still hold to some of his ideas just not all of them. Also note that the allegorical interpretation of the creation account was not one of the theological positions condemned in 553. Instead you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In debate one might call this an ad hominem attack or an attack on the character of the person (i.e. because one thing someone said is incorrect, everything else they say must also be incorrect). 

As I mentioned before, he is not the only one in the Early Church to hold such views on Genesis and the creation account. Irenaeus of Lyons who wrote "Against Heresies" and criticized certain dogmas of the Alexandrian school of thought (which Origen belonged to) also commented on the allegorical nature of the creation in Genesis. St. Augustine who is probably one of, if not the most, respected theologian and Church Father in the Western tradition also uses allegorical interpretation.

Simply pointing out that certain members of the church were wrong about one or multiple aspects of theology does not indicate that we should reject them altogether. After all, I am sure we are all wrong about some matters of theology. My point is that it is a well documented historical and common interpretation of the Early Church  that the creation account was allegorical in nature and none of these views were condemned by any of the Early Church councils when all Christians were still unified.      

Edited by ByFaithAlone
spelling errors
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  21
  • Topic Count:  237
  • Topics Per Day:  0.11
  • Content Count:  6,773
  • Content Per Day:  3.24
  • Reputation:   4,724
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/23/1954

5 hours ago, ByFaithAlone said:

My point is that it is a well documented historical and common interpretation of the Early Church  that the creation account was allegorical in nature and none of these views were condemned by any of the Early Church councils when all Christians were still unified.      

Your comment reminds me of the constantly recurring fallacy of composition some adherents of Evolution give as their reason for believing as they do, "It's a widely accepted theory so it must be true."

Origen lacked faith to believe that when God said "Let there be light", there actually, literally was light, supernatural light prior to the rest of God's Creative acts, the order of which incidently doesn't match the evolutionists supposed order...so much for the allegory and the science of Origen, Aristotle, Darwin et al. 

Quote

 

  For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.  
— Origen, On the First Principles IV.16

 

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  730
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/19/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1993

On 1/13/2019 at 2:17 AM, Michael37 said:

Your comment reminds me of the constantly recurring fallacy of composition some adherents of Evolution give as their reason for believing as they do, "It's a widely accepted theory so it must be true."

Origen lacked faith to believe that when God said "Let there be light", there actually, literally was light, supernatural light prior to the rest of God's Creative acts, the order of which incidently doesn't match the evolutionists supposed order...so much for the allegory and the science of Origen, Aristotle, Darwin et al. 

Sorry about my delay in response. I've been away for a bit. So let's deal with the fallacy of composition argument. Later, Michael aslo mentions a slightly different fallacy (argumentum ad populum) although he doesn't mention it by name. Just for those who do not know what they are and may need a reference, here are some definitions. 

Fallacy of Composition - the error of assuming that what is true for a member of the group is true for the group as a whole.

Argumentum ad populum - the fallacious argument that says the proposition must be true because most people believe it to be true 

Michael is arguing (and please correct me if I am wrong) that just because Origen and others believed that the allegorical view of the creation account Genesis is correct does not mean that the entire Early Church believed it to be the correct interpretation (that would be a fallacy of composition as he rightly points out). On this, he and I completely agree. I have never argued that everyone in the Early Church viewed the creation account as allegorical. I have merely pointed out that it is a well-known, orthodox and historical viewpoint held by many members. Origen is one but as I mentioned there are other early Christians and contemporary Jewish scholars who held that view of Genesis (Augustine, Irenaeus of Lyons, Philo, etc.). There are of course people who thought it was literal as well. St. Basil is probably the oldest example that comes to mind. I think he is slightly outnumbered by those in the Early Church who wrote about the allegorical nature of the creation account but there were certainly people who voiced support for a literal six day creation. Now, I would never call Basil or anyone else who believe in a literal six day creation a heretic for doing so. However, I would still disagree with him as I believe that an allegorical view of creation is supported by science (the study of God's creative work) and by an orthodox interpretation of Scripture.  

Michael then goes on to mention that I am arguing that it is a widely accepted theory and thus it must be true. This would be a slightly different fallacy mentioned in my second definition - argumentum ad populum. When it comes to evolution this idea (or an appeal to authority) is a common objection thrown out by detractors. The main difference between such logical fallacies and the field of evolutionary biology is that in the scientific field evidence is required before a hypothesis is given enough support and weight to be called a theory. So scientists do not tend to hold the belief that evolution is an accurate theory for explaining the current state of life because of the vast amount of people that believe it but rather due to the scientific evidence that we have gathered over the last century or so.   

The last thing to discuss is the matter of Origen. As I have already mentioned Origen was certainly not flawless when it came to his theological beliefs. Some beliefs he had were hotly debated during his lifetime and afterwards with some of them being later viewed as unorthodox and even antithetical to the beliefs of the Church. My point behind addressing Origen, Augustine, Philo, etc. was to show that this was a historical view of creation that was never viewed a heresy by the Early Church nor was it considered to be a "lack of faith" as Michael thinks it to be. An allegorical view of the creation in Genesis does not mean that someone's faith is lacking. Rather, in more Thomistic terms, it means that the theistic evolutionist can accept both God's revelation through Scripture and his revelation through nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...