Why do we need salvation?

[mcgyver]

First, there is no evidence in the fossil record to prove the reality of macro-evolution. No transitional forms, etc. If we say that birds come from lizards, then we should see a lird or a bizzard, and it is just not there. Before someone mentions "Judy", don't forget that the fossils were found almost 5 miles apart on the African savanna.

Secondly, evolution goes back to the fact that there had to be a beginning (Big Bang theory, anyone?), and in doing so declares God's word untrue. Sorry, you can't have it both ways......

Thirdly, with evolution, we attempt (IMHO) to create God in the image of man, instead of vice versa...To wit, if we can't understand it, don't accept it; make up a story instead.

Fourthly, Evolution strikes to the heart of who God is. Do we have a God who, (before sin entered the world) allowed the suffering and death of untold thousands of species until He "got it right"?

If you want to talk probabilities....what is the mathematic probability that one who was stone-cold dead would rise three days later?

Sorry, but I don't think that we have a rubber bible...."stretch to fit". Either God is who He says He is, has done what He said He has done, or we have to throw the whole thing out of the window and start again.

The very fact that Jesus spoke of a literal flood, ark, et. lends a credence that can not be discounted. We don't have to totally understand things for them to be true!

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
...I have directly answered Mike G.’s question...

I must have missed something somewhere. Do you mean there was a "good" period or not?

Mike

 

[Craigbythesea]

[personal insult deleted]

[ March 25, 2005, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[mcgyver]

Taking a break to go to Good Friday evening service.......

Praise God for His work on the cross; in this, can we not agree?...

 

[Craigbythesea]

Do you mean there was a "good" period or not?

Yes, there was a "good" period—the 1940's in America.

ACCENTUATE THE POSTIVE

Lyric by Johnny Mercer, Music by Harold Arlen
1944

You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between

You've got to spread joy up to the maximum
Bring gloom down to the minimum
Have faith or pandemonium
Liable to walk upon the scene

(To illustrate his last remark
Jonah in the whale, Noah in the ark
What did they do
Just when everything looked so dark)

Man, they said we better
Accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between
No, do not mess with Mister In-Between
Do you hear me, hmm?

(Oh, listen to me children and-a you will hear
About the elininatin' of the negative
And the accent on the positive)
And gather 'round me children if you're willin'
And sit tight while I start reviewin'
The attitude of doin' right

(You've gotta accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between)
You've got to spread joy (up to the maximum)
Bring gloom (down) down to the minimum
Otherwise (otherwise) pandemonium
Liable to walk upon the scene

To illustrate (well illustrate) my last remark (you got the floor)
Jonah in the whale, Noah in the ark
What did they say (what did they say)
Say when everything looked so dark

Man, they said we better
Accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between
No! Don't mess with Mister In-Between

 

[Craigbythesea]

How did I personally insult Mike G. by saying "Amen" to what he wrote? You have done EXACTLY the same thing in this very thread. Several times Mike has questioned my salvation on the message board, and even accused me of being an imposter trying to turn others away from their faith (and he has accused brother Ute of doing this also). You did not edit those posts, and all that I wrote was one word, “Amen.” to Mike’s exact words about himself. By falsely accusing me of personally insulting another member, you are personally insulting me. Please don’t force me to report you to the administrators of this board again.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Do you mean there was a "good" period or not?

Yes, there was a "good" period—the 1940's in America.

ACCENTUATE THE POSTIVE

Lyric by Johnny Mercer, Music by Harold Arlen
1944
...</font>[/QUOTE]Is that as good as it gets? Europe was in the middle of World War II. Then there was Pearl Harbour in 1941.

Now you are filling the board with lyrics because you can't give a straight answer to my question.

Mike

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Several times Mike has questioned my salvation on the message board...

On another topic I suggested that about half the church might be unsaved, and it ran to 21 pages. See Can an evolutionist be saved?

www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2621.html

Mike

 

[Craigbythesea]

Is that as good as it gets? Europe was in the middle of World War II. Then there was Pearl Harbour in 1941.

Some people look at the 1940's in America and think about the people who died in World War II; I think about the 1940's and think of the spiritual revival that took place in America because of World War II. It all depends upon one’s perspective. Obviously I am not God, and since Genesis says that He was the one who “saw that it was good,” I shall leave that up to His judgment.

The bottom line here, as I see it, is that both you and I have sinned. Jesus died and shed His blood on the cross for your sins and for mine. We have both accepted this by faith and we have both been forgiven. Whether or not Adam, Eve, and Noah were real people or only characters in epic literature changes absolutely nothing.

If you felt offended by my “Amen!” to your post, I apologize. Obviously Phillip totally misunderstood my post, and possibly you did also. I certainly had no intention of insulting you or anyone on this message board.

 

[Craigbythesea]

On another topic I suggested that about half the church might be unsaved, and it ran to 21 pages. See Can an evolutionist be saved?

And all I said was "Amen" to something that you said about yourself. Well, I must admit that “Amen” is a 4-letter word.

May you and your family have a blessed Easter.

 

[UTEOTW]

"First, there is no evidence in the fossil record to prove the reality of macro-evolution. No transitional forms, etc. If we say that birds come from lizards, then we should see a lird or a bizzard, and it is just not there."

Just what would you expect a "lird" or "bizzard" to look like?

As it turns out, we have many fossil dinosaurs in various stages of evolving feathers. We have creatures that could fly, but only gliding. We have creatures that had attained powered flight but which maintained many primitive, reptilian features. And we can trace these creatures on up until what everyone would consider to be birds. You asked for creatures with mixtures, well they are there. You just must not have seen them. Creatures like Prolacerta, Protorosaurus, Proterosuchus, Euparkeria, Erythrosuchus, Riojasuchus, Postosuchus, Ornithosuchus, Gracilisuchus, Terrestrisuchus, Sphenosuchus, Scleromochlus, Marasuchus,Lagerpeton, Staurikosaurus, Herrerasaurus, Scipionyx, Sinovenator, Microraptor, Sinornithosaurus, Huaxiagnathus, Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Alxasaurus, Incisivosaurus, Shenzhousaurus, Caudipteryx, Nomingia, Protarchaeopteryx, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Iberomesornis, Liaoningornis, Yanornis, Enaliornis, Graculavus, Telmatornis, Cimolopteryx, Palintropus, Lithornis, Palaeotis, Juncitarsus, Presbyornis, Gallinuloides, Salmila, Procariama, Colymboides, Psittacopes.

Oops. It is a shame that here are 50 transitionals in the specific group in which you said there were none.

We could go to other groups. How about the transition from fish to amphibian? Psarolepis, Achoania, Styloichthys, Porolepis, Kenichthys, Gooloogongia, Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Elginerpeton, Ventastega, Acanthostega, Hynerpeton, Ichthyostega, Pholidogaster, Pteroplax.

"Before someone mentions "Judy"[sic], don't forget that the fossils were found almost 5 miles apart on the African savanna."

Well, I think your source has not been truthful with you. "Lucy" was found in one location though there was another fossil from a different individual was also found a mile of so away. The correct source is the original.

Johanson, Donald C. and Maitland A. Edey, 1981. Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. New York: Simon and Schuster.

"Secondly, evolution goes back to the fact that there had to be a beginning (Big Bang theory, anyone?), and in doing so declares God's word untrue. Sorry, you can't have it both ways......"

This makes no sense. Whether God spoke the universe into existance in six days or spoke it into existance starting inflation, in both cases there is a beginning.

"Thirdly, with evolution, we attempt (IMHO) to create God in the image of man, instead of vice versa"

This makes no sense either. We are in the image of God in the sense that He has given us a soul, the ability to be aware, to have free will, to know right from wrong, to choose to follow Him or not. Science has nothing to say about the image of God.

"Fourthly, Evolution strikes to the heart of who God is. Do we have a God who, (before sin entered the world) allowed the suffering and death of untold thousands of species until He "got it right"?"

Again, why would we judge God's creative process and attempt to decide whether God would see it as good or not. Do we question how He set up gravity to work and ask if it is good or not? Is the living and dying of creatures not in God's image in a process that bring's about God's will bad in your eyes? How do you know it was not good in God's eyes, a creation working according to His laws?

"If you want to talk probabilities....what is the mathematic probability that one who was stone-cold dead would rise three days later?"

The two are separate concepts.

We accept the resurrection of Christ on faith as the basis of our beliefs. It was a supernatural occurance.

The creation of the universe was, too. But the universe in which we exist is carefull crafted to indicate that it was formed over billions of years, that the earth has been shaped through billions of years of natural processes, and that all life on earth shares common ancestry.

Now God could have easily formed the earth and universe and life with these characteristics at any point in time. But it makes the most sense that He must have used the processes indicated by the creaton itself. Otherwise there is no reason for the observations we have of the creation.

 

[mcgyver]

Sorry, the so called transitional forms that you just listed are not transitional...they're dead ends, simply extinct species that came and went.

I'll get you the ref. for Lucy tomorrow when I dig it up (no pun intended).

I would remind you that the Coelacanth was hailed for many years as a transitional specie, until it was found in the diet of West African indigents about 1947.

The thing that concerns me, the thing I fail to grasp from those who are obviously intellegent and educated is the variable logic that is invariably used in promoting the evolutional agenda.

You sir, are very erudite and seem to be quite intelligent (and I say that as a complement). How then can we on one hand state that we believe in a God who works miracles in one sense, and the categorically deny His working in another?

On one hand, we say that we believe the bible to be true, and then turn around and allegorize those portions with which we have difficulty. There simply is no uncontested, empirical proof for evolution; and as I mentioned earlier many in the physical sciences are abandoning their positions based on evidence coming to light with the advances in technology. Look at the other disciplines and see for yourself.

In the book of beginnings (Genesis) we are given a clear account of the creation of the world as well as our first Messianic prophecy. Logically, can we then systematically pick and choose what part is correct and what part is not? If so, what is the criteria?

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
As it turns out, we have many fossil dinosaurs...

I can't even go to bed at night because by the time I get up, the forum is full of irrelevant science.

Mike

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Obviously I am not God, and since Genesis says that He was the one who “saw that it was good,” I shall leave that up to His judgment.

If you had lived before the fall and said that you don't know what God considers to be good, you could have got away with it because we were not supposed to know good and evil. But we are in the unfortunate position of knowing good and evil and we have to find out what it means. If we don't know what God considers to be good, how can we know what was the evil that caused God to destroy the world in a flood (which you don't believe in anyway). Now we have lost more than just the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Gone are the law and the prophets, and even the teachings of Jesus because he specifically wanted us to know what God considered to be good before the fall and he told us that in the beginning there was no divorce. (Matt. 19:8)

If you felt offended by my “Amen!” to your post, I apologize. Obviously Phillip totally misunderstood my post, and possibly you did also. I certainly had no intention of insulting you or anyone on this message board.

I never complained to Phillip about your “Amen!”. He edited your post of his own accord. But if you don't know the difference between good and evil, why should you apologise?

Mike

 

[UTEOTW]

"Sorry, the so called transitional forms that you just listed are not transitional...they're dead ends, simply extinct species that came and went."

Then define transitional.

All species come around and then go extinct eventually. These that are listed just happen to be each somewhere along the line from reptiles to birds, the types of fossils you specifically said cannot be found. These are widely accepted fossils. If you do not believe them to be transitional, then you have a burden of proof to show why not. You cannot simply assert it as so.

So, what is a transisitonal? What would you expect to find in a creature intermediate between reptiles and birds? How can dinosaurs with increasingly developed feathers that eventually lead to gliders and then powered flight NOT be considered transistional?

"I'll get you the ref. for Lucy tomorrow when I dig it up (no pun intended)."

But I like puns...

"I would remind you that the Coelacanth was hailed for many years as a transitional specie, until it was found in the diet of West African indigents about 1947."

The ancient Coelacanth was not really that similar to the one being found today. They are different enough that they are not even considered to be in the same taxonic family as the fossil versions. For one physical difference, the fossil Coelacanths were from minnow sized up to about 10 inches long with the largest being just over a foot long. The modern version is nearly 5 feet long.

And none of this takes away from the importance of the Coelacanth as a transitional. It is not likely a direct ancestor of tetrapods, but it is closely related by being in the group of lobe finned fish known as Crossopterygii. If you look at the second list I supplied above, it is the transition from fish to amphibian. This transition came out of the lobe finned fish.

As another example of the importance of the Coelacanth as a transitional, you should go look up the coelacanth genus Laugia. During the transition to land creatures, the lobe fins turned into legs. In the Laugia, the fins have changed position. The pelvic fins have moved forward until they connect with the shoulder girdle. This is the beginning of the transition to tetrapods. The pectoral fins have also moved dorsally.

"The thing that concerns me, the thing I fail to grasp from those who are obviously intellegent and educated is the variable logic that is invariably used in promoting the evolutional agenda."

I have no agenda to promote. My agenda in involving myself in this discussion is that my experience as a YE person who went looking for YE material showed me that the YE materail is no better than junk. I, personally, find it as worse than junk because you often run across cases of purposeful distortions of the truth such as changing numbers and misrepresenting results. And don't get me started on the evil practice of quote mining.

I also am of the opinion that most scientists have no agenda other than learning what happened.

"You sir, are very erudite and seem to be quite intelligent (and I say that as a complement). How then can we on one hand state that we believe in a God who works miracles in one sense, and the categorically deny His working in another?"

I do thank you for the complement.

I find no contradiction. I am simply using everything that God has made available to us to attempt to discern the truth. I do not claim to be attempting to pick and choose what I want to believe. I think that it is clear enough that when God revelas to us through His creation how He created, that it is only appropriate that we understand that the creation account is not literal. All the important things remain unchanged, IMHO, which ever interpretation you choose.

"There simply is no uncontested, empirical proof for evolution; and as I mentioned earlier many in the physical sciences are abandoning their positions based on evidence coming to light with the advances in technology."

But you know that there is never "proof" in science. It is a matter of what best explains the data.

There are still many things to be learned in biology and geology and astronomy or else people would quit researching. But what we have found thus far is well explained by the theories. And that is the problem with YE. There is not plausible theory to explain what we observe in the creation other than to simply say that GOd created the whole universe recently but looking like He used long term processes. I just don't buy that.

I would be curious which disciplines you think are abandoning old beliefs in favor of young earth.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Mike Gascoigne:
]I can't even go to bed at night because by the time I get up, the forum is full of irrelevant science.
Mike

You asked for this conversation.

I guess saying that it is irrelevant is your way of saying that you do not have a response. Typical.

"There are not transitional species."

"Uh, what about these?"

"Irrelevant!"

So do you think all those scientists are incompetent and we need you, the non-biologists or geologists or astronomer to point them in the right way? Or is this the grandest conspiracy ever? And to what end? Because I ma sure all those scientists who are CHristian have a goal of bringing down your interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Okay, Mike, you have your wish. If any posts are made from this point on that are not related to the topic, they WILL be edited...

Phillip,

Your warning is being ignored. Can you delete all the science posts, from that point onwards, otherwise we will get to the 20-page limit without any reasonable opportunity to discuss the opening topic.

Mike

 

[UTEOTW]

YOur opening post seems to have wanted this discussion. Yu even said in it "The alternative is that God made the world in its present imperfect state, or it came into existence through purely natural processes and God never had much to do with it. "

You invited this sort of discussion from the beginning. Even though Phillip mentioned stopping posts that continued along those lines he also has asked questions along those lines since then and has allowed posts from both sides. I think it would be a shame to go back and edit the flow of the topic at this point.

For a few days you got a scattered number of posts that said basically "Yeah, I agree." No real discussion. It got interesting when a difference of opinion was brought in. So you are now encouraging the moderator to delete posts that you yourself seemed to want from your opneing post because they disagree with you. Very odd.

You could have just abandoned this thread or asked from the beginning that no one who disagrees with you post or even started another thread way back before now. Instead you just want the posts of those who do not agree with you deleted.

[sarcasm]This thread would have been real interesting if it had continued with the occasional "You're right" posts that you are now saying you wanted.[/sarcasm]

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
or it came into existence through purely natural processes...

The question was about the theological consequences of evolution, not about evolution itself. I would have welcomed some theological discussion from people I would disagree with, but it has not yet happened. All I got was some vague generalisations about how the first eleven chapters are "literature", whatever that means. Maybe there are some evolutionists out there who are willing to address this issue, but I'm obviously not going to get anything from either you or Craig.

Mike

 

[Craigbythesea]

Maybe there are some evolutionists out there who are willing to address this issue, but I'm obviously not going to get anything from either you or Craig.

I answered your question, but your responses to my answers suggest that you did not understand my answers. Perhaps you lack the background in this subject to understand my answers, or perhaps I was not clear. You are asking,

The question was about the theological consequences of evolution, not about evolution itself.

Here is my answer again, restated in an effort to make it more clear:

The teaching of evolution belongs to the realm of science, and it has no consequence to theology except for those whose theology has been distorted by Christian fundamentalist extremist teachings by those who do not adequately or correctly understand soteriology or the principles of biblical hermeneutics and New Testament exegesis. Rather than invest seven or eight years of their life in study at a seminary internationally recognized for it academic excellence, they invest that seven or eight years watching sports on television, playing video games, and arguing with those people who have made the better investment with those seven or eight years.

The passage in the Bile that causes Christian fundamentalist extremists the most difficulty in reference to Genesis 1 – 11 is Rom.5:17,

12. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
13. for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
16. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
17. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
20. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
21. so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
I have explained in detail

I have, in another thread, shown how the teaching of evolution does not conflict with this passage of Scripture, and since hundreds of commentaries (I have 233 of them in my personal library) have been written on the epistle from which this passages is taken, and very many of these commentaries are readily available to the reading public, it would not be prudent for me repeat myself here in this thread.

I find it very sad that the more a Christian sacrifices to get a good education at a good school, the louder the Christian fundamentalist extremists shout “liberal,” but the only way in which I am liberal is in the time and money that I have spent in getting a good education. The Christian fundamentalist extremists have told me over and over again that much learning has made me mad, apparently alluding to Acts 26:24.

But if they would bother to carefully read to Acts 26:24, they would see that Festus, an unbeliever, was saying those words to the Apostle Paul!

Act 26:24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. (KJV)

So much for the understanding of the New Testament on the part of Christian fundamentalist extremists.

(All scriptures, unless otherwise noted, are from the NASB, 1995)