-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
BIBLE STUDY: Theistic Evolution: Is This the Same God?
- Thread starter john6:63
- Start date
The Galatian
Active Member
The site seems to confuse theistic evolution with Deism.
You should find a site that understand what it is.
You should find a site that understand what it is.
The Galatian
Active Member
Yeah, this one just misrepresents what theistic evolutionists think. Obviously, the site is YE creationist, and the writer seems to think that he has something to gain by building a strawman.
It's just one more "liar for Jesus". I don't know where they get the idea that God likes that, Martin Luther advocated lying to help God, but I doubt of very many of these guys know that.
It's just one more "liar for Jesus". I don't know where they get the idea that God likes that, Martin Luther advocated lying to help God, but I doubt of very many of these guys know that.
The Galatian
Active Member
It's very simple. A theistic evolutionist is a person who accepts the fact that God and evolution are consistent.
It kinda shades off into OE creationism, depending on how much tinkering you think He had to do to get it to work...
It kinda shades off into OE creationism, depending on how much tinkering you think He had to do to get it to work...
The Galatian
Active Member
Personally, since I'm not an OE creationist, or a YE creationist, there's no need in my view for God to have tinkered at all.
He could have, if He wanted to, but there's no evidence for it. It appears that He created nature, and did it all that way, with few exceptions.
He could have, if He wanted to, but there's no evidence for it. It appears that He created nature, and did it all that way, with few exceptions.
There is really only one argument within this article, ‘My God is bigger than your god’. I don’t agree! The author, Peter Bartz, is limiting God to an image he can understand. A God that creates by instantaneous creation is no less powerful a God than one that uses other means. God works in many ways; He works in wondrous ways I will never fully understand.
According to the Bible, nature (the entire material universe) was created and is directed and sustained by the actions of God (Hebrews 1:3). The universe, by its very existence is a miracle. Sustaining His universe partly involves designing matter that operates according laws that He fashioned. If God designed a product or form using “natural” means, it is no less powerful a miracle.
The author exhibits not only a poor understanding of T.E. but also a poor understanding of God. The author includes all forms of old earth creationism under the title of ‘Theistic Evolution’. Mr. Bartz is apparently ignorant of the distinctions between the differing forms. This is just another biased article by someone who mistakenly has confused Evolutionism with Theistic Evolution.
I will bend the lead articles’ conclusions when I ask: Can we imagine a God who so carefully planned His creation that over thousands of millennia (and even into the future) it didn’t require further creative interventions?
Can we imagine the same God developing a love for a creature of His creation and desiring a relationship that far surpassed any creative act ever performed?
If you can imagine this, you too may be a theistic evolutionist.
Rob
According to the Bible, nature (the entire material universe) was created and is directed and sustained by the actions of God (Hebrews 1:3). The universe, by its very existence is a miracle. Sustaining His universe partly involves designing matter that operates according laws that He fashioned. If God designed a product or form using “natural” means, it is no less powerful a miracle.
The author exhibits not only a poor understanding of T.E. but also a poor understanding of God. The author includes all forms of old earth creationism under the title of ‘Theistic Evolution’. Mr. Bartz is apparently ignorant of the distinctions between the differing forms. This is just another biased article by someone who mistakenly has confused Evolutionism with Theistic Evolution.
I will bend the lead articles’ conclusions when I ask: Can we imagine a God who so carefully planned His creation that over thousands of millennia (and even into the future) it didn’t require further creative interventions?
Can we imagine the same God developing a love for a creature of His creation and desiring a relationship that far surpassed any creative act ever performed?
If you can imagine this, you too may be a theistic evolutionist.
Rob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Hence the 'perfect match' between what has been "claimed" here and what the link above stated.
All the grousing of the form "you can't pin me down to that" - died out pretty fast when it came to "the details" and John's quote above - slams it home - in the can. Case closed.
So now that - that smoke screen has died out - back to the point of the link.
Essentially the point is the "contradiction" between the "details" given for the God of the Bible and "what is tolerated" in the theistic approach.
Notice that about a half dozen EXAMPLES are given IN the link - but NONE of the "details" are touched by the evolutionists on this board.
Fascinating!
The link was direct and to the point. The response here have "avoided the point" like the plague.
Why not actually speak to the "details"? PICK and example (Colossians 1, John 1, Rev 14, Exodus 20:11........etc) and DEAL with it.
Bob
Details, details, details…..
In Exodus 20:11, the emphasis is on a pattern, not equivalence. It is a unit for unit comparison between the creation days and our days. It doesn’t necessarily mean that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six `days,' any more than the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth) proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days (Lev. 23:39-43) The seven days of our calendar week simply follow the pattern established by God. God's `work week' gives us a human-like picture we can grasp. "The high priests of Israel served at a sanctuary that is `a copy and shadow of what is in heaven' (Hebrews 8:5 NAS).
Concerning Job 38-41, we all should read it and tremble.
Ephesians 1:4 ---predestination/foreknowledge, this is a strongpoint of T.E.! The article says that T.E. is weak in its strongest point. Strange!
The “proofs” mentioned in the article are a mish-mash of old ideas presented by an author that has not studied the field of Theistic Evolution, and who is pointedly trying to sway his audience to believe what they already want to believe.
Rob
No argument here, I think anyone holding a theistic viewpoint could agree. No mention of the time it took.
We can agree here too, again no mention of time.
We can agree here too, again no mention of time.
In Exodus 20:11, the emphasis is on a pattern, not equivalence. It is a unit for unit comparison between the creation days and our days. It doesn’t necessarily mean that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six `days,' any more than the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth) proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days (Lev. 23:39-43) The seven days of our calendar week simply follow the pattern established by God. God's `work week' gives us a human-like picture we can grasp. "The high priests of Israel served at a sanctuary that is `a copy and shadow of what is in heaven' (Hebrews 8:5 NAS).
The charge the author makes about T.E. limiting God’s power and wisdom is just plain wrong. Theistic Evolution magnifies God’s immanence and providential wisdom (foresight). It can be argued that T.E. distances God from His creation but this is overcome once man is created.
This verse deals with God’s knowledge and care for man, again no problem here.
Concerning Job 38-41, we all should read it and tremble.
it seems to prove your point here, Death could never have happened until man sinned. ….but of course there is more to the verse…..”and so death spread to all men, because all sinned…” not quite a slam dunk. God is speaking of death in relation to man, not the animal kingdom. 1 Corinthians 15 agrees. Again, no problem between T.E. and the Bible.
Ephesians 1:4 ---predestination/foreknowledge, this is a strongpoint of T.E.! The article says that T.E. is weak in its strongest point. Strange!
The “proofs” mentioned in the article are a mish-mash of old ideas presented by an author that has not studied the field of Theistic Evolution, and who is pointedly trying to sway his audience to believe what they already want to believe.
Rob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Bob Said --
Why not actually speak to the "details"? PICK and example (Colossians 1, John 1, Rev 14, Exodus 20:11........etc) and DEAL with it.
Peter responds - [quote
I am not into theology, thank you very much. [/quote]
The entire point of a Christian Evolutionist comparison to Christians that accept the YE views of scripture - is to see it in the CONTEXT of the doctrines, faith, gospel of Christianity and the Christian faith in God's Word - the Bible.
Otherwise we could just do the vanilla evolution vs Creation - (and toss out Christianity as It applies to the subject).
In Christ,
Bob
Why not actually speak to the "details"? PICK and example (Colossians 1, John 1, Rev 14, Exodus 20:11........etc) and DEAL with it.
Peter responds - [quote
I am not into theology, thank you very much. [/quote]
The entire point of a Christian Evolutionist comparison to Christians that accept the YE views of scripture - is to see it in the CONTEXT of the doctrines, faith, gospel of Christianity and the Christian faith in God's Word - the Bible.
Otherwise we could just do the vanilla evolution vs Creation - (and toss out Christianity as It applies to the subject).
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colossians 1:16,17--- For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text above claims He created EVERYTHING.
And you seem to "admit" that this really does mean "everything" but that the Bible does not address "how much time" it took to actually - divinely - directly "CREATE Everything".
But as we see above - the Bible clearly DOES address that point - directly, explicitly and without obfuscation.
AS for the Bible Authors being "old writers" -- well who can argue with that.
The Bible is "The Word of God" and God was not "born yesterday".
In Christ,
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colossians 1:16,17--- For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TIME it took "For IN SIX days the Lord CREATED the HEAVENs and the EARTH the SEA and ALL that is IN them". Exodus 20:11.
The text above claims He created EVERYTHING.
And you seem to "admit" that this really does mean "everything" but that the Bible does not address "how much time" it took to actually - divinely - directly "CREATE Everything".
But as we see above - the Bible clearly DOES address that point - directly, explicitly and without obfuscation.
AS for the Bible Authors being "old writers" -- well who can argue with that.
The Bible is "The Word of God" and God was not "born yesterday".
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
quote:Web Link
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 1:1-3--- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And of course the TIME that you claim the Bible "does not address"..
"For IN SIX days the LORD MADE the Heavens AND the Earth the SEA AND ALL that is IN them" the ALL things that CAME into BEING that are in fact DESCRIBED in the Genesis 1-2 "account".
By ignoring this point - you seem to be able to find a level of Agreement with John 1 - as long as we remember to "forget" the timeline that God himself places on the "event".
In Christ,
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 1:1-3--- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also appears to "admit" that God DID creat ALL THINGS and that NOTHING came into BEING that has COME into BEING apart from Him. And clearly this is not a statement restricted to "hot gas and plasma" but RATHER ALL things that have come into BEING.
And of course the TIME that you claim the Bible "does not address"..
"For IN SIX days the LORD MADE the Heavens AND the Earth the SEA AND ALL that is IN them" the ALL things that CAME into BEING that are in fact DESCRIBED in the Genesis 1-2 "account".
By ignoring this point - you seem to be able to find a level of Agreement with John 1 - as long as we remember to "forget" the timeline that God himself places on the "event".
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
quote:The LINK quotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation 14:6.7---I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people; and he said with a loud voice, “Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- the Exodus 20 format is NOT in the form "pick any day in 7 as rough approximation to the 7 somethings of creation week".
(Notice that Lev 23 does NOT state FOR IN 8 days you traversed the desert SO for 8 Days you shall observe the feast of Tabernacles. An equivalence you would "need" if trying to equate this to the LANGUAGE and LOGIC employed in Exodus 20:11)
In the Sinai "event" God says "Tomorrow IS the Sabbath".
And the DIRECT equivalence is made IN THE time frame that we DO NOT see in Lev 23 for the 40 years in the desert. In fact at the giving of the Law in Lev 23 they are at the START of that 40 years and do not yet even KNOW that it IS 40 years. NO mention of the time is given in Lev 23.
To "pretend" that we do not see "the Time" mentioned in Exodus 20 - just as it is missing from Lev 23 is "silly" and is not "exegesis" in the "remotest" sense.
I ask that you pay attention to the details.
Nothing can "obfuscate" the fact that Exodus 20 DOES explicitly identify the timeline and uses the SAME exact term for DAY "Yom" for BOTH the weekly Sabbath and creation week. It is the Same Author, the Same term, the Same context, the Same primary audience the SAME subject. Impossible to obfuscate. Impossible to swap meaning in the midst of the text.
From that standpoint of exegesis - it is iron clad.
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation 14:6.7---I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people; and he said with a loud voice, “Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However INSTEAD of using that nonsequitter you propose the text of Exodus 20 is explicit on timelines.
- the Exodus 20 format is NOT in the form "pick any day in 7 as rough approximation to the 7 somethings of creation week".
(Notice that Lev 23 does NOT state FOR IN 8 days you traversed the desert SO for 8 Days you shall observe the feast of Tabernacles. An equivalence you would "need" if trying to equate this to the LANGUAGE and LOGIC employed in Exodus 20:11)
In the Sinai "event" God says "Tomorrow IS the Sabbath".
And the DIRECT equivalence is made IN THE time frame that we DO NOT see in Lev 23 for the 40 years in the desert. In fact at the giving of the Law in Lev 23 they are at the START of that 40 years and do not yet even KNOW that it IS 40 years. NO mention of the time is given in Lev 23.
To "pretend" that we do not see "the Time" mentioned in Exodus 20 - just as it is missing from Lev 23 is "silly" and is not "exegesis" in the "remotest" sense.
I ask that you pay attention to the details.
Nothing can "obfuscate" the fact that Exodus 20 DOES explicitly identify the timeline and uses the SAME exact term for DAY "Yom" for BOTH the weekly Sabbath and creation week. It is the Same Author, the Same term, the Same context, the Same primary audience the SAME subject. Impossible to obfuscate. Impossible to swap meaning in the midst of the text.
From that standpoint of exegesis - it is iron clad.
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
quote:The Web Link quotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 10:28-30 Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible on the other hand - obviously points to a bloodless, deathless, peaceful "creation" in 7 days - of Living systems "coming into being" in ONE "Evening and Morning"
The "point" was that the Genesis "account" is "consistent" with the God that CARES for each living creature - right down to the sparrow.
The Evolutionist "model" is that God "advances" life by ever progressing cycles of extermination, starvation, death, carnage - until his "system-o-death" reaches it final triumph - "ADAM squatting on his cave floor bashing in his ration of monkey brains".
My point is that observing the 'details' of the argument will be 'very instructive'.
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 10:28-30 Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You did not respond to "the point" the web link makes here. You charge that God employed a "creation method of carnage, exterminiation, starvation and death" to CREATE the "Heavens and the Earth and Sea and ALL that is in them".
The Bible on the other hand - obviously points to a bloodless, deathless, peaceful "creation" in 7 days - of Living systems "coming into being" in ONE "Evening and Morning"
The "point" was that the Genesis "account" is "consistent" with the God that CARES for each living creature - right down to the sparrow.
The Evolutionist "model" is that God "advances" life by ever progressing cycles of extermination, starvation, death, carnage - until his "system-o-death" reaches it final triumph - "ADAM squatting on his cave floor bashing in his ration of monkey brains".
My point is that observing the 'details' of the argument will be 'very instructive'.
Bob