-
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!
Can the universe be accounted for without a creator?
- Thread starter Plain Old Bill
- Start date
David Ekstrom
New Member
Just got back from vacation. Sorry, Mercury, to not answer your post earlier.
BTW, we went to Hilton Head. Because I love to hike, I took a couple hours hiking through a "Forest Preserve." It was more like a jungle. The area is so lush with life. Praise our Creator!
Mercury, I affirm your approach to Gen 1-2 vis-a-vis science. If the text doesn't preclude the conclusions scientists have made through careful inquiry, we are foolish to take a stand on traditional interpretations. No less than Charles Hodge says the same in his Systematic Theology regarding the age of the earth.
Re: the sin of infants. Rom. 5 says that the very sin of Adam is imputed to all of his race. Infants are counted guilty of the sin of Adam before they ever commit a sin themselves. They also inherit the "flesh," which is a corruption of their nature which draws them to sin. Those born in the flesh can perform "civil righteousness" but that righteousness will contain no merit in God's eyes at the Final Judgment. A bank robber cannot say to the judge, "I only robbed 23 banks in the last two years. Most of the time I wasn't robbing banks." Those in the flesh cannot submit to God nor can they please God (Rom 8). They are dead in sin and dominated by evil spirits (Eph 2:1-3).
Jesus was made in all points like we are "yet without sin." He suffered the effects of fallen men. Evil is of two kinds. Moral Evil consists of acts that are contrary to God's will. Natural Evil consists of suffering and hardship that has entered the world because of Adam's sin. Jesus suffered, just like we do, under Natural Evil. He was not at all contaminated with Moral Evil.
The hurricane striking New Orleans is an example of Natural Evil. Most assume, I think, that had Adam not sinned, such events would not occur. I imagine they would cite Romans 8 about creation groaning as proof. I rather suspect that hurricanes are a natural part of our planet. They are evil to us because we can't control them or live in harmony with them. I suspect that had Adam not sinned, we would know how to live with hurricanes, either by channeling their power productively, or by knowing how to interrupt their formation, or by simply knowing how to stay out of their way. The same with tornadoes, earthquakes and volcanoes. Specifically, thorns and weeds were said to be a punishment for Adam's sin. Had Adam not sinned, would God had made known to him how to use natural herbicides? At any rate, it's really impossible for us to know what our existence on earth would be like had Adam not sinned.
Because Natural Evil is a result of sin, we should fight it. Therefore, we should not scoff at scientific attempts to restore our harmony to creation. We are all thankful for polio vacines. The original mandate to hold dominion over the earth was not nullified.
I'm rambling here so I'll shut up.
BTW, we went to Hilton Head. Because I love to hike, I took a couple hours hiking through a "Forest Preserve." It was more like a jungle. The area is so lush with life. Praise our Creator!
Mercury, I affirm your approach to Gen 1-2 vis-a-vis science. If the text doesn't preclude the conclusions scientists have made through careful inquiry, we are foolish to take a stand on traditional interpretations. No less than Charles Hodge says the same in his Systematic Theology regarding the age of the earth.
Re: the sin of infants. Rom. 5 says that the very sin of Adam is imputed to all of his race. Infants are counted guilty of the sin of Adam before they ever commit a sin themselves. They also inherit the "flesh," which is a corruption of their nature which draws them to sin. Those born in the flesh can perform "civil righteousness" but that righteousness will contain no merit in God's eyes at the Final Judgment. A bank robber cannot say to the judge, "I only robbed 23 banks in the last two years. Most of the time I wasn't robbing banks." Those in the flesh cannot submit to God nor can they please God (Rom 8). They are dead in sin and dominated by evil spirits (Eph 2:1-3).
Jesus was made in all points like we are "yet without sin." He suffered the effects of fallen men. Evil is of two kinds. Moral Evil consists of acts that are contrary to God's will. Natural Evil consists of suffering and hardship that has entered the world because of Adam's sin. Jesus suffered, just like we do, under Natural Evil. He was not at all contaminated with Moral Evil.
The hurricane striking New Orleans is an example of Natural Evil. Most assume, I think, that had Adam not sinned, such events would not occur. I imagine they would cite Romans 8 about creation groaning as proof. I rather suspect that hurricanes are a natural part of our planet. They are evil to us because we can't control them or live in harmony with them. I suspect that had Adam not sinned, we would know how to live with hurricanes, either by channeling their power productively, or by knowing how to interrupt their formation, or by simply knowing how to stay out of their way. The same with tornadoes, earthquakes and volcanoes. Specifically, thorns and weeds were said to be a punishment for Adam's sin. Had Adam not sinned, would God had made known to him how to use natural herbicides? At any rate, it's really impossible for us to know what our existence on earth would be like had Adam not sinned.
Because Natural Evil is a result of sin, we should fight it. Therefore, we should not scoff at scientific attempts to restore our harmony to creation. We are all thankful for polio vacines. The original mandate to hold dominion over the earth was not nullified.
I'm rambling here so I'll shut up.
I dunno about you, but whenever I launch a boat, I'd be lost without an understanding of the laws of inertial motion. Whever I build a house (part of my volunteering service), I'd be lost without an understanding of the laws concerning structural intergrity, gravity, and an ability to bear a load.The laws of science and the theories thereof, given to us by God, govern our earthly existence.
Plain Old Bill
New Member
I wait for science to catch up to God.I would not abandon science but realize that science is an ongoing process of knowledge and learning.Things we thought of as hard scientific fact 50 or a hundered years ago have been proven wrong.Am I surprized that a scientist would be a theistic evolutionist,of course not.But I have also learned there is more than one school of thought on theistic evolution.The fact that highly educated and sophisticated scientists acknowledge God at all or give him credit for anything is what I find interesting. We are taught in the public school system that to be truly intelligent one must be an evolutionist.We are taught in the public school system that to have a belief in God is foolish and a sign of weakness as well as lack of basic intelligence.
Sounds like a great vacation! I also really enjoy visiting places that are less touched by humans. We don't always mess creation up, but we still can't compete with God's artistry!
While we still see the sin nature differently, as long as you acknowledge personal responsibility for sin -- rather than placing the entire blame on a distant ancestor -- I don't think the difference is critical.
I think we sin in Adam much the way Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek in Abraham (Hebrews 7:4-10). I don't think it's a strictly literal or physical statement.
I agree with pretty much all the rest of your post.
Plain Old Bill
New Member
That was driven most energetically by 8th grade science teacher Mr. Kohler by name.
David Ekstrom
New Member
Mercury, I would beg to differ in saying that the difference isn't critical. We are born as sinners and are unable in any way to save ourselves. From earlier posts, I don't think you believe in Total Inability.
Plain Old Bill
New Member
Amen!
Funny you should say that David, because the real Yeshua backs you up on that when he told the Pharisees:
"And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female," Mt. 19:4
It is quite obvious that Jesus took a literal approach to the Gen. 1 creation account. He also took a literalistic approach to the Flood account in Scripture (Mt. 24:37-39), and to the account of Jonah in the whale or fish (Mt. 12:39-40).
And check your concordances for the term 'beginning' and see how you can squeeze in theistic evolution to Gen. 1 anywhere as it applies to the creation of man.
Referring to the disciples, Jesus said:
"And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning." (John 15:27)
I prefer to use context to determine the meaning of a word. In Matthew 19:4, it is speaking about the beginning of humanity, not necessarily the beginning of time. In John 15:27, it is speaking about the beginning of Jesus' public ministry, not the beginning of time.
David Ekstrom
New Member
I don't see how Matt 19:4 demands a literal reading of Gen. 1 or how it impacts my view. As I've said before, I hold a somewhat literal reading of Gen 2, which I think Matt 19:4 might require. At any rate, I do think that Matt 19:4 does require a literal Adam and Eve, which I do firmly believe in.
What I have said is that a literalistic reading of Gen 1 doesn't do the chapter itself justice. I am agnostic on the age of the earth. If scientists think planet earth is 5 billion years old, well, I don't care one way or another.
I deny macroevolution but microevolution seems so evident that it seems impossible to deny. In other words, I think that Darwinism is a great explanation for how Darwin's finches all had different shaped beaks. But where the finches came from in the first place, well, Darwinism seems to be a blanket that's leaves one with cold feet. It's just too small to cover.
The proofs for Darwinism that I have seen all deal with micro-evolution.
What I have said is that a literalistic reading of Gen 1 doesn't do the chapter itself justice. I am agnostic on the age of the earth. If scientists think planet earth is 5 billion years old, well, I don't care one way or another.
I deny macroevolution but microevolution seems so evident that it seems impossible to deny. In other words, I think that Darwinism is a great explanation for how Darwin's finches all had different shaped beaks. But where the finches came from in the first place, well, Darwinism seems to be a blanket that's leaves one with cold feet. It's just too small to cover.
The proofs for Darwinism that I have seen all deal with micro-evolution.
Plain Old Bill
New Member
I would tend to agree with Jesus.