Vatican blasts Creationism as "useless"

Again a naked assertion with no textual or theological support. Why don't you actually make an argument? Do you not have one? Have you just blindly bought into something without evaluation?

Exod 20:11 is not an anthropomorphic red herring. It is a major problem for your position, whether you acknowledge it or not. Not to mention that the grammar of Genesis 1 simply doesn't support you.

 

You know the grammer in the Lord of the Rings is a narrative but no one really believes it. Grammer is not an indicator type of literature is.

 

Talk about a red herring. First, it's "grammar" and it is an indication of the type of literature and the way it should be read in biblical studies. Biographies are also narratives and are believed. The Lord of the Rings does not present itself as truth, and does not bear the marks or the promise of inspiration. Scripture does. Surely you can do better than this, can't you?

 

Oh, the argument's very simple, really. I'm surprised I have to spell it out but will do so for your benefit: it is absurd to talk of God having to 'rest' from his labours (just as it is absurd to believe that Jesus really has wings like a mother hen when He weeps over Jerusalem); He is an infinite Being Who has no need of such concepts but lays it out in Scripture fanthropomorphically for our benefit so that we may rest. That's the whole point and message of Scripture: that God stoops to our level so that we may rise to His; this of course has its ultimate consummation in the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, God and Man. It is perilous to forget that God made Man in His image, yet that is precisely what you are doing by trying to impose human concepts (such as periods of time) on how God operates.

Young Earth Creationism is a modernist, theologically untenable position which brings discredit upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ, does a grave disservice to the Word of God and renders Christianity a laughing stock. If you are really, seriously hanging your faith on such a flimsy concept, then God help you - and I mean that utterly seriously.

I am sorry for the strength of feeling in this post, but rest assured I write far more in sorrow than in anger.

 

No one including scripture suggests that God had to rest. God having rested is not anthropomorphically. It is in fact the literal expression of God ceasing from His labors. There is no need to add that God had too.

 

Matt, if it weren't creationism, believe me, the world would find something else to use to make fun of Chirstians who believe the Bible. And they do already. They always will. It never ceases to amaze me how liberal Christians and non-Christians put me in a box (ironic since they always say we are putting God in a box ) as soon as they hear I'm "born again" or believe the bible. Their tone changes pretty fast when they find out I used to be an astrologer and into Eastern religions.

God's "rest" is also prefiguring the rest we have in Christ - I think that's in Hebrews 4. We enter God's "rest."

 

But again, you make a naked assertion with no support. No one believes that God needs to rest. But there is no textual evidence that it is anthropomorphic. Perhaps you are not aware of the difference between an assertion and an argument. You have made the former not the latter.

The Bible says that the creation week of Genesis 1 was for our benefit so that we would know how to order our lives. Did you ever wonder why we don't have a ten day week? Or a 20 day week? Or a 3 day week? Because of Genesis 1. God did it in order to set a pattern (at least if you believe the Bible).

On what basis do you say that the incarnation is not merely an anthropomorphism?

I think you miss the argument, but I will spell it out for you: No one is imposing time on how God operates. God is the one who told us how he operates.

I actually believe you do mean that seriously, and that is frightening. It makes me wonder if you understand young earth creationism, the gospel, or Christianity.

Sin and death have no connection apart from young earth creationism. The Bible says that sin causes death. That is only true in young earth creationism. And if death is not caused by sin, then the gospel means nothing because death doesn't pay for sin anyway. So the gospel goes out the window because Jesus didn't need to die for sin. And if Jesus didn't die for sin, then there is no Christianity.

So your position removes not only the truth and authority of the Bible, but the very heart of the gospel, that the wages of sin is death and Jesus died the death that sin brings so that man can have eternal life.

Well meaning but frightened people have compromised the gospel for the sake of unbelieving science. And we need not do this. Creationism isn't modernist. That's a statement that can only be made out of a lack of understanding of creationism and modernism. Creationism is as old as the universe itself.

It is high time for Christians to get over their fear of unbelievers.

Your post may have had strong feelings, but it was abysmally weak in theology. You should be sorry for that.

 

Ah, the old straw man of "No First Adam=no need for Second Adam". Not so: I think a merely cursory glance at humanity will demonstrate that we are fallen beyond all hope of redemption by our own efforts, and that we are all in need of a Redeemer. In that sense, we are all the First Adam, and we all need the Second Adam.

 

That's no response Matt. You know that. You haven't addressed any issues, much less the ones I brought up.

You talk of a "merely cursory glance at humanity," but don't tell us how you achieved this glance. Nor why your glance reveals what it does, nor how those things got to be the way they are.

That simply won't work. Burying your head in the sand doesn't make these issues go away.

 

WOW, all I can say is WOW.

 

Even more WOW!

 

So you don't believe or understand about the Incarnation or substitutionary atonement, then? Definitely WOW!

 

I've dealt with the issues worth dealing with that you've raised; the others aren't worth dealing with since they're straw men.

 

Matt, the NT speaks of Adam as a real person. Enosh, Seth, and the others listed before them are all historical figures.

the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Lk 3.38


Here Adam is mentioned with Moses – a real person – and as a “type of Him who was to come.” Only a real person can be a “type.” It would be silly for a non-literal Adam to be a “type” prefiguring Jesus.

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. Rom 5.14



Here Adam is clearly presented as historically a real person.

So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL " The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 1 Cor. 15.45

 

You haven't dealt with them. Saying they are "straw men" is not dealing with them. If you don't think they are worth dealing with it shows how theologically uninformed you are. This is a serious issue and it deserves serious thought. You are not giving it that. I have pointed out some irreconciliable conflicts in your argument, both with the text itself and with the theological conclusions we draw from the text.

I think you are like so many who are the victims of bad teaching and then have no idea that you are because you are not a serious enough student of the Scripture to think about these things.

 

Evolution is one of the most ridiculous fantasies ever to be thrust upon the gullible. Fish turning into birds, birds turning into horses, horses turning into chimps, and chimps turning into humans. Good grief, how gullible can some people be?

And not one bit of it has ever been proven. It is pure fantacy.

If evolution were true, and if it took all of these supposed "millions" of years, then where is all the transitional evidence? We should be knee deep in them. Thousands of weird looking fish/bird creatures and thousands of bird/horse creatures and thousands of horse/human creatures, etc etc etc.

Creationism is completly logical and 100% reasonable. And it is the truth.


:godisgood:

 

I actually count six.

 

It is not. And your evolution progression is wrong. I find the most rediculous fantasy to be thrust upon the gullible is Mormonism. But that's just me.