I was looking up some old RI posts of mine from approximately 2002. Interesting things I had to say as a high school student.
On Creationism
I think that what makes this debate so tricky is that secular scientists base their theories on the premise that nothing occurs that is supernatural. Christians tend to lean towards the other side and say that everything is supernatural and no natural phenomena can be used by God in the creation process. So, secular scientists say that life must have occurred naturally (since nothing occurs supernaturally.) Looking at the principle of natural selection and the evidence for microevolution, they deduce that life forms evolved. Christians look at the same situation and because of their world view, come up with their various arguments against evolution–the theory of the unsupernatural.
I believe that a balance must be found between the two viewpoints–naturalism and supernaturalism. Christians must not attack things just because they include a natural explanation for a phenomenon, and Secularists should not discount other theories just because they include the supernatural. As Christians, we ought to look at the individual claims of secular science and compare them to Scripture instead of saying “Evolution is wrong” therefore natural selection can not be right or (worse yet) “Evolution believes that the earth is older than 6000 years” and “the Big Bang believes that the earth is older than 6000 years” “Evolution is wrong, therefore the Big Bang theory is wrong.” It is this kind of reasoning that gets the Christian community labeled as unscientific.
I believe something similar to what Crimson does but not the same as she. I believe that God created the Universe ex nihilo (per the Big Bang) and that since that point he has been directing the course of the earth through the natural laws. However, I do not believe that organisms were created by random mutations but by the guiding hand of God (therefore I don’t believe in evolution) and that He breathed his life into them to make them living beings (at least, those organisms that are living).
I disagree with ya’ll on the kind/species thing. If you look at the timescale most Christians uphold (that the earth is ten thousand years old at the most), you will find that for the incredible variety of species “evolved” (micro) there is an intensely small amount of time. In order for the kind/species hypothesis to be true (in the timescale normally held by Christians), micro-evolution would have to occur at a macro-evolution scale that even staid evolutionists doubt (that is, they wouldn’t dare try to say that something evolved so quickly.)
Ah, but Mattio, the great amount of breeds created within the last hundred or so years did not come from two dogs (that is the common ancestor for these different breeds is much farther back than just a hundred years). Dog breeds today are not so much an example of genetic mutation than of singling out a particular gene (or several particular genes.) As for the question about people and what I believe about whether God created two St. Bernards, two miniature schnauzers, etc., what if I told you I didn’t believe in this time scale Christians seem to hold as theology? And what if I told you that I didn’t believe that the flood of Genesis covered the whole “globe” but that it was global in that it covered the entire known world?
Forgive me for interjecting those last two statements and not clarifying them. Because of my beliefs concerning 1) the age of the earth and 2) the limitedness of the Genesis flood, I do not find it necessary to go into such a “frenzy” over the microevolutionary standpoint. I have generally heard the argument concerning microevolution used to explain how the earth got populated with so many species when only a few of them could possibly have fit inside the ark. While it is proven that microevolution does happen and I accept it as a fact, my views on the flood and on dating make microevolution not so much of a “theological” issue (It doesn’t have to happen at an accelerated rate–by any standards–for my philosophy concerning the beginning and the flood to be true.)
I hope that makes more sense. And, no, I’m not that much a glutton for punishment. I most certainly did not interject those two statements in order to get anyone riled or because I wanted someone to get mad at me. And, thank you for not getting riled before asking what I meant by it. I forgot that y’all were discussing the issue absent of any mention to the flood. I just got to thinking about that because of brainly connotations (you know how it goes, this subject leads to creation, creation leads to microevolution, microevolution leads to kind/species debate, kind/species debate in my mind brings up flood…), only I forgot that not everyone knows what’s going on in my head! :-)
As far as my belief regarding the age of the earth…
I believe that the universe is approx. 15.1 billion years old, in accordance with the closest astronomically calculated age to date (This was determined by a study of type Ia supernovae–a very interesting phenomenon.) I believe that the Big Bang model and the Bible are consistent with one another and that the Big Bang model does in fact point to an immensely loving creative God.
I have to admit that your explanation for the appearance of the universe being old is intriguing. However, the Boomerang experiment whose results were published in 2000 indicates a flat or nearly flat universe. The study involved temperature shifts and angular resolution–I have no clue exactly how though. However, the data clearly shows evidence of a flat universe. It also fits with red-shift.
Dating with Type Ia supernovae is a neat practice. The thing that sets type Ia’s apart from all other supernovae is that they are standard candles (always burn at the same luminosity.) Thus, by using the apparent luminosity against the actual luminosity, some of the most accurate dates in all of astrophysics can be set. (I think this is a pretty straightforward procedure, but if you’d care for it, I have a paper I wrote–actually on the cosmological constant but which explains this procedure more closely. I also have some articles I could reference you to.)
As far as theistic evolution–NO WAY! I do not believe that we or any other creature on this earth (with the exception of bacterium, but that’s a different matter) evolved. I believe that this whole universe was specially designed and created by the creative work of God’s hand–not by any element of “chance.”
Where does the time go? Definitely before the flood. A lot of it actually went before the creation of man. Here’s how I see it. The word “day” used in the first book of Genesis can mean any one of three things. It can mean day as in the period in which it is light (as we would say, “It’s night time, call me sometime during the day.) It can also refer to a twenty four hour period of time (“Today is Friday.”) The third translation of the word is as a long period of time (“In my day…” “In that day…” etc.) I believe that Genesis one may be accurately read with the third definition of day. Each day is a long period of time in which God worked His miracle of creation. At the end of the sixth day, after creating Adam and Eve, He rested for a day from His creative and formative work. He is still in the seventh day. (Notice that all the other days have a definitive beginning and ending but that the seventh begins but does not end.) This particular interpretation is a valid interpretation and is even supported by not only astronomy but by geology as well. The fossil record shows a high rate of extinction of species and creation of species up to the time that man was created. After the creation of man, animals continued to go extinct but no new species were created.
You are absolutely right, Cryptid, that using the genealogies one could come up with a date of about 6000 years for the creation of the earth. Ussher developed a timeline as such to go along with the King James Version Bible–Only his creation date was set in 4004 B.C. Difficulties soon arose, because Chinese lineage records dated back farther than Usshers date. Many “adjusted” dates have been given since than, but still the theory remains the same–the universe is 6000 years old according to the Bible. However, scholars have reasons to believe that the genealogies given in the Bible were not always father to son as it has often been assumed. The Israelite society was a mainly clannish type society in which the head of the clan was put down on a genealogy (not necessarily the son of.) Many generations could easily have been skipped in this. Obviously, something must be as it does not seem to our finite minds if the “Biblical” date (which is still interpretation–mind you) and the Oriental lineages are to be lined up.
And, Cryptoid, once again you are right in saying that evolutionists often add more time to their theories when they get stuck. However, the problem is that the debate between old and new earth creationism is dealing with a mere 15 billion years–no where near enough for evolutionists to get what they want. As a matter of fact, the heated arguments within the Christian community in which one member calls the other heretical are laughable. Astrophysicists are seeing in the big bang the fingerprint of a loving creator God who can only be the God of the Bible and are coming to Christ through the Big Bang discovery. I quote a disgruntled astronomer from the University of California at San Diego, Geoffrey Burbidge complained that his fellow astronomers were rushing off to join “The First Church of Christ of the Big Bang.” (Now, realize that this is not a literal church–this atheist was poking fun at the conclusion so many of his fellow astronomers were making from their observations of the Big Bang.)
I shall begin with the post after my last post in which Cryptid spoke of his opinion that the long period of time interpretation of the Scripture doesn’t work. You said, Cryptid, that I should read the Scripture’s myself. I have, and I read them again. However, I don’t believe that that my view contradicts the Scriptures you quoted from Genesis 1. You did bring up the “evening and morning” clause. I believe that “Evening and morning” signifies the closing of the days. It is not to say that all this happened in “one evening and one morning” but that on that day (long period of time) it occurred, then come one day (24 hour period-or close to it) the sun set and rose again and the next day (long period of time) had arrived. You also mentioned the plants/sun issue. Haven’t we all wondered at that, from either interpretation? In order to answer this paradox, I must bring up the third verse of Genesis one “ANd God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” It is not the sun, necessarily, but light that is necessary for plants to live. Some old earthers would also bring up the two different Hebrew words used in Genesis one for “create”–one means “made out of nothing-an entirely new thing” while the other means “unveiled or created as a craftsman would.” However, I know very little about this particular view and so will be content to say that there was light. Also, I appreciate your desire to study more about the age of the universe. May I suggest The Genesis Debate? In this book, three views on the days of creation are set forth by proponents of each–The 24-hour view (which you hold to) by J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall, the Day-Age View (which I hold to) by Hugh Ross and Gleason L. Archer, and the Framework View (another interesting view) by Lee Irons with Meredith G. Kline. If you are interested in reading a bit more about my own view, Dr. Hugh Ross’s Creator and the Cosmos is good (however, it is not mainly apologetics-type reading but rather a proof for design in the universe). Hugh Ross also has a lot of other good books on this view (although some of his other books can get highly technical). Another good book on this view is Bruce and Stan’s Guide to How it all Began which is a sort-of Dummy’s guide to old-earth creationism. As far as websites go, the most authoritative out there on the day-age view is www.reasons.org–by the way, did anyone check out that debate Daniel posted about? I didn’t have a chance to hear it myself but it was supposed to be pretty good.
Mattio, wonderful point on death before the fall. Once again, the age-old question comes into play. “What does that death mean?” Genesis 2:17 says “but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat f it you will surely die.” We would assume that means physically, soulishly, and spiritually. But, in verse 22 of chapter 3, God says “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” And so God banished them from the garden. But, if the death spoken of in Genesis 2:17 was a death of all three “parts” of man, how could he live forever as is spoken of in Genesis 3:22? I believe that the death from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was soulish and spiritual death (separation from God who is the life-giving Spirit) and that the life from the tree of life was physical. After all, nothing but the shedding of blood could cause the remission of the death sin had caused mankind. Therefore, the tree couldn’t undo whatever death that was. So at least one of the realms of death had to have not been included in the death from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The most likely of those is the physical (since to claim that spiritual death was not caused by the fall would be apostasy.) (I am not saying that there were not physical consequences of the fall–sin causes things like STD’s and some genetic stuff that could have been diverted had man followed God’s principles concerning incestuous relationships.)
Fishy. Here’s what the deal is. We’ve all got our biases, whether old earth or new earth. No one can read anything without bias. It is absolutely impossible. Sure, I am biased towards the old earth view, but you are none less towards the new earth (and you probably didn’t just come up with those biases yourself–they were taught to you–just as mine may have been to me.) My opinion is that my view is a legitimate interpretation of the Bible and that it also lines up with science (which re-aligns with the Bible since “the heavens”–which is where most of this big bang stuff comes from–”declare the glory of God”) And to clarify once again. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION! I believe that God created this universe and everything within it–creatio ex nihilo (iow, created out of nothing). I do not debate who created (it was God–the God of the Bible), nor that He created it in a display of awesome power, just when He chose to do it.
Eric, you are absomolutely right. If God is not all powerful, He’s a liar, and if He’s a liar He’s not God. But, remember do, that I’m not trying to make God any less powerful than He is. As a matter of fact, I could give you a list of the hundreds of ways that the big bang proves the need for a big, all-powerful, personal God. (Or you could read Hugh Ross’s Creator and the Cosmos–one of the main themes is of how the universe “shows forth the character of God” (don’t ask me for a reference on that one)
On Demons
I believe that demons are real and that they are active. I also believe that people can be demon possessed in this day and age. However, I do not believe that a Christian can be demon possessed. As Christians, we are filled with the Spirit of God. We are no longer our own. We have been bought from the dominion of Satan and have become bondservants to Christ. Therefore, Satan has no authority over our spirits, and only what authority we allow him over our souls and bodies. (Although I’m not sure exactly if we give satan authority over our bodies or if that’s something that just comes with humanity or if God “allows” satan to do whatever he wants on certain occasions or what…it seems there are Scriptures to back up all of the preceding points of view.)
On Divorce
That is very true, Mike, that if an unbeliever leaves his (or her) wife (or husband), the believer ought to let him (or her) go in order to “keep peace.” Scripture does say that. But does that make it right for a Christian to get a divorce? Paul was not rationalizing, but making an important point that Christians are to be an example to the rest of the world. By raising a ruckus and forcing your unbelieving spouse to stay with you, you are not being a good witness (of course this should only apply to those who got saved after they got married because of the verse about not being yoked with unbelievers.) But, to get a divorce when both spice (plural of spouse) are believers is to violate the spirit behind this verse. A believing couple who has divorced has no testimony. I understand that some people have tough times, but God told husbands/wives to love their spouse just as Christ loved the church. Now, think back to the book of Hosea. That’s the kind of unconditional love our God has. For a Christian couple to get a divorce is for them to say that their God is not love.
John,
I was not meaning that my post be judgmental towards anyone, least of all your mother. The point I was trying to make is that the testimony of a “consenting divorced” Christian couple is tarnished. My main purpose in that post was to counteract the idea I’ve seen portrayed in some “high” and also “lower” Christian figures who have talked of their divorce as being a good thing–It really freed me for ministry–It was God’s will–We just didn’t love each other any more–God wouldn’t want me to be unhappy–(or the best one) It’s a bad testimony for Christian’s marriage to be a mess, isn’t it? I am not saying that we must not forgive and love those who are going through the pain of a divorce, I am simply saying that for believers to get a divorce hurts their testimony. In the case of your parents (which I assume you were talking about “What do you propose when one so-called “believer” starts (and continues) to act in very unChristian ways?”) I would say that as a Christian the “victim” ought to love the “victimizer” but should the one acting in unChristian ways desire a divorce, the “victim” ought to allow it. I understand how you felt when your parents finally divorced, the feeling of thank God the fighting is finally over. But is divorce the best way to stop a fight? As Christians who are a city on a hill, should we have a higher divorce rate in the church than in the world? Can we continue to legitimize sin? I think not. It is true that Christians ought to forgive and show love towards those who have been divorced, but that does not mean that we condone divorce. Divorce is a sin. God does not like it–It goes against His nature of unconditional love.
On the End Times
I don’t consider the literal 7-year, pre-trib rapture interpretation to be the only literal translation of the book of Revelation. If you look at the Scriptures, you will find that very few of our modern-day “doctrines” concerning the tribulation are laid out plainly. There are no Scriptures that say “You will be raptured (taken away) before the tribulation.” In fact, the believers were warned that they would endure severe tribulation and that they were to remain strong. Another common question with the modern day interpretation is that the Bible no where makes mention of two raptures. The pre-trib model asks for a rapture before (for those saved during the “easy years), and a rapture after (for those tribulation believers). The tribulation time frame has been largely assigned by certain “end-times scholars” and is based only upon some very sketchy verses.
Now, please understand. It’s not that I have a problem with taking the Bible literally. When the Bible says that Jesus said, “Come to me all you who are thirsty.” I believe that he said that and that it is still a call to the thirsty of today. When He said “Love your neighbor as yourself,” I believe indisputably that he meant it ENTIRELY LITERALLY, no ifs, ands, or buts. However, there are some areas in which I believe the Christian community of today places more stock on scholars than on Scripture in the interpretation of the Bible. This is one of those areas. I don’t care if you keep your present opinion, but I’d sure love it if you checked out the Bible and asked yourself “What is this saying?”
On Morality
Without God, there would be no morality. God is the definer of morality. Whether something is moral or not is a test of how it lines up with the character of God. Therefore, in my opinion, I can find nothing to be “moral” about apart from God. The Bible is the best indicator of morality because in it the nature of God is revealed. I believe that the Bible ought to be my standard of morality, because the Bible shows us the ultimate standard of morality–God. However, that does not mean that I will do something just because the Bible didn’t tell me not to. I believe that as a standard of morality, the Bible should be consulted in order to gain God’s principles concerning any dilemma. I see nothing in Scripture to advocate the idea that we are responsible for caring for all wild animals. However, I do see principles that would condemn a person who takes pleasure in torturing things. These issues are not always as clear cut as we would like to think. By making sweeping statements like “Killing animals is wrong” or “We are responsible to care for animals” we may be missing out on some more relevant issues with our broad morality. We may be missing the “attitude of the heart.”
I think of “The Scarlet Letter” (which I just finished reading.) When Hester was made to stand upon the scaffold, her deeds were shown to be “wrong.” She knew that in the eyes of the people, what she had done was wrong. Therefore, she changed her actions–she didn’t even hardly talk to Dimmesdale for seven years. But her heart had not been changed. She thought that the only wrong was in the punishment and if she could escape that–go back to the Old World or run away into the wilderness–she could do whatever she wanted to and not have problems. If the heart is not dealt with, punishment is only temporary. So if only the surface is dealt with on these issues, only the surface of man will be touched. If it becomes a reality to that person that their love of torturing animals is wrong, their heart will be affected and they will either change their ways or they will remain in them and their heart will ever burn within them (like Dimmesdale’s A.)
On Predestination
There’s a difference between choosing to sin and choosing to follow God. Man in his own right can not choose to follow God; therefore, he is predestined by God. God draws him unto Himself. But man can choose to do right and wrong, that is the “free will” we have been given. We can not blame our actions upon “fate” as you will, because we have control over our actions. However, we can not glorify ourselves for our salvation, because we have absolutely nothing to do with our salvation except that God chose us. And, I don’t know about you, but I’ll say that’s something to sing about. Come on, y’all, let’s party. Swing your pardner. *Grabs the next person on the post and whirls them around in an impromptu square dance* See, that wasn’t hard! Now let’s all join in!
I think we can choose to reject God’s grace but cannot choose to accept it. It sounds really weird, but the way I see it, no one can come to the Father unless the Spirit draws him, meaning that no one can choose God (apart from God’s first choosing them.) But, man can reject the truth and cling to the lie, deceiving himself. In that he has a “choice”, basically, will I believe what God has said? Will I believe that when he says “He who believes in his heart and confesses with his mouth shall be saved” (don’t quote me on that one though, the jist of it is somewhere in Scripture but I don’t know where). That man will then choose either to align himself with the truth God has revealed or to turn his back on God’s word.
