You wrote:
> Part of believing in Christ is believing that he paid a penalty for sin.
> Without sin (which the Bible says was due to the Fall) there is no need for
> Christ's sacrifice. The logic as outlined by H.G. Wells says it pretty
> well.
[Actually I interpret Rom 5:12-13 to suggest that sin pre-existed the fall,
but it was not imputed until the transgression with the fruit.]
> "If all the animals and man have been evolved in this ascendant
> manner, then there would have been no first parents, no Eden, and
> no Fall. And if there had been no Fall, the entire historical
> fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin and the reason
> for an atonement, upon which current teaching bases Christian
> emotion and morality, collapses like a house of cards."~H. G.
> Wells, The Outline of History, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1961), p.
> 776-777
> That is a significant portion of the importance of this issue for me. Wells'
> logic is sound IF evolution is incompatible with the first parents and the
> fall. Wells' assumption is wrong. Evolution can be compatible with Adam and
> Eve and the Fall. This is also why people lose their faith over this issue.
H.G. Wells is wrong irrespective of whether or not there was an Adam and
Eve or a garden. Back to Romans 5:12b-14:
... and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when
there is no law. 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.
i.e. there was enough sin to go around.
I agree that evolution *is* compatible with Adam and Eve, however
the perceived age of the earth is *incompatible* with the genealogy given
for Adam, which is very specific with who begat who after how long.
My own view is that the fall was about 6000 years ago, but Adam and Eve
may well have been created thousands or millions of years before that
(i.e. Adam's age is dated from the day he became mortal by losing access
to the tree of life). [Besides the chronology, I like the 6000 years also
because it fits with the coming millennial sabbath].
I don't know how others resolve the chronology problem, except to
believe the genealogies are in error, or that the earth is not so old.
Or to not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, in which case *if* H.G.
Well's logic were correct, their Christianity should collapse.
> I posted on this before but here it is again. If the Bible is inspired, as
> it claims and the story of creation is wrong why could this be the case?
...
> My views on what an untrue creation story does to God's character explains
> why I disagree that the only conflict is science saying it is all there is.
> The problem is more fundamental. If it is not, show where my logic above is
> in error.
It depends a lot on what you mean by wrong. Is it wrong in something
essential, or in irrelevant details? Is it wrong only if taken literally
about the physical realm? Is it wrong only in that it contradicts a false
interpretation that we hold? Genesis 1 is a little too ambiguous for us
to be sure that it is wrong in the sense of specifically asserting something
important to be true that is in fact false. My favorite Scripture on
this topic is:
Rather, let God be found true, though every man {be found} a liar,
as it is written, "That Thou mightest be justified in Thy words,
And mightest prevail when Thou art judged." [Rom 3:4]
Thus the Scripture is true. It is either the evidence that is wrong,
or my interpretation that is wrong.
If Genesis 1 were wrong because of one of the reasons you suggest, then
indeed the authority of Scripture is undermined. But given the ambiguities
involved, I don't think anybody should lose their faith over this. At
worst they should confess that they don't know what to think about creation.
[I still think the chronology is a bigger issue, because it is far
less ambigous. We pretty much know what it means to 'begat'].
***
If there were no literal Adam and Eve, and no garden, and no specific
point in time of the fall, and no miracles in our time, and no virgin
birth, and no angels, and ..., I would have to rethink a lot of things,
but I would still be convinced about the One whom I have come to know.
The only thing really essential to my Christianity is that He will raise
*me* up on that day. Even if I am wrong in the details about how *this*
is true, this is the only truth that ultimately matters.
***
You write:
> Intervention takes numerous forms. And God is not necessarily confined to
> intervention in the way we want to think of it. What does Revelation 13:8
> mean when it speaks of the "Lamb that was slain from the creation of the
> world"? Jesus was slain in approximately 33 A.D. It would appear that God's
> "intervention" was planned into the universe.
If God's specific intervention was pre-planned (i.e. by virtue of his
omniscience, since He acts as if He was responding to us), then are
you suggesting it was carried out by what we perceive as `natural processes'?
The universe may be sensitive to the initial conditions, but I really
doubt that it is *that* sensitive. Plus if God could not control
every aspect of creation at any given time, then He would not be omnipotent.
So perhaps God's intervention would have to be defined as being somewhat
preplanned by setting the initial conditions for the natural processes,
but where subsequent events are insensitive to the initial conditions,
He intervenes again. This is too convoluted. I think it more likely
that He intervenes continually.
However there are certain general plans with respect to history. Some
of them have a specific schedule, others have built-in indefinite
waits (like between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel [2 Pet 3:8-10]).
Other plans are conditional.
(BTW, just because He `foreknew' us doesn't mean that He `preordained'
us to exist, in case you are heading in that direction.)
***
I wrote:
>>My pet peeve is Christians who view each new scientific discovery, or
political trend, or technological advance as validation of their faith
in Christ. We should not be looking to *external* witnesses. Period.<<
And you responded:
> However, our should be compatible with what we observe. Faith in an object
> simply can't be faith in isolation of all other knowledge. If it reduces to
> that, then it is totally existential. Your faith is no better than the faith
> of the people who believe in the cargo cult.
Nope. My faith is better. It shall be objectively proven true (no
later than the resurrection). If this were not so, then indeed my
faith would be worthless:
and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are
still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ
have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of
all men most to be pitied. [1 Cor 15:17-19]
Many `heroes' have gone to their grave without external validation
of their faith:
And all these, having gained approval through their faith,
did not receive what was promised, [Heb 11:39]
Yet it is possible to have continuing subjective validation of faith:
... for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is
able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day. [2 Tim 1:12b]
***
There is something very significant going on. We are a demonstration...
in order that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known
through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly
{places.} {This was} in accordance with the eternal purpose which He
carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, [Eph 3:10-11]
The contrary ways of Christianity lead to a victory not otherwise
attainable.
For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the
victory that has overcome the world -- our faith. And who is the one
who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of
God? [1 John 5:4-5]
The goal is not to `prove' God, but to validate His ways.
If you accept Isaiah 14 as being descriptive of the devil, then verse 13
But you said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God,
is very significant when contrasted with
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who,
although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with
God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a
bond-servant, {and} being made in the likeness of men. ... He humbled
Himself ... to the point of death ... Therefore also God highly
exalted Him ... [Phil 2:5-9]
Having no external evidences goes right along with the `foolishness'
of the cross.
***
You wrote.
> ... We do believe through faith. And at the end of the day, there
> is no logical assurance that we won't be disappointed.
Yes. Exactly. This is how it is *supposed* to be.
Now faith is the assurance of {things} hoped for,
the conviction of things not seen. [Heb 11:1]
For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for
why does one also hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do
not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. [Rom 8:24-25]
***
You wrote:
> This hits close to home for me. Now I am glad I didn't bail out of
> Christianity, but I was most certainly tempted.
Your experience is not one that you can deny others. Faith that is
untested is full of impurity, and cannot endure as well. Endurance
will be rewarded:
Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been
approved, he will receive the crown of life, which {the Lord} has
promised to those who love Him. [James 1:12]
In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if
necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, that the proof
of your faith, {being} more precious than gold which is perishable,
even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory
and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not
seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe
in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.
[1 Pet 1:6-9]
Blessings upon you!
--DaveAnd my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom,but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith shouldnot rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. [1 Cor 2:4-5]