tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post7083495179566876096..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: The Great Blue Ox of History, um, I mean MythologyPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-54618103604124905622010-08-29T21:45:40.024-07:002010-08-29T21:45:40.024-07:00I like it that there are "no theologians"...I like it that there are "no theologians" here in Steve's view. That way we can discard his views as "not theology" and just never bother to find out what they are.<br /><br />Comments are closed.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-25716807278924138722010-08-29T20:39:21.672-07:002010-08-29T20:39:21.672-07:00Steve,
You obviously don't know what the word...Steve,<br /><br />You obviously don't know what the word theologian means then, and you certainly seem to put little value on the power of the Living Word.<br /><br />Why are you here?LeeChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05540608568274871363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-37945352536308393092010-08-29T14:48:03.351-07:002010-08-29T14:48:03.351-07:00To ask a question of any who would fall in with Dr...To ask a question of any who would fall in with Dr. Longman on this issue: What have you to gain by agreeing to the possibility of an evolutionary creative process? Do you have anything to gain biblically? Does the glory of God have any stake in your position? Ask those questions seriously. Don't assume your heart is fine on this issue. Frankly, I would much rather err with a heart that is willing to trust what has historically been regarded as an orthodox doctrine of creation than any number of these other positions. Evolution is a set of spectacles that many, many people are blinded by. How sad a thing when we seek to replace one lens of Scripture's spectacles with a lens from the world's. Again: what have you to gain and how is God glorified through this process? These should be the pressing questions. Not whether Dr. Longman, Tim Keller, or B.B. Warfield hold/held a particular position, and most certainly whether or not it will provide a "serious hearing" in intellectual circles.Christopher Tillmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13648831909580540696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43717971297357578122010-08-29T13:10:53.387-07:002010-08-29T13:10:53.387-07:00"..I don't see much point arguing over sp..."..I don't see much point arguing over specific passages of Scripture."-Steve<br /><br />I would love to know what your theologians say about Luke's genealogy of Jesus, with the last few verses:<br /><br />"...the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."<br /><br />This with out a doubt shows that Adam was the son of God, not parents, doesn't it.<br /><br />I mean wouldn't God write and Adam the son of Adam Sr., if there was another father?donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-53105058314389145292010-08-29T11:22:39.888-07:002010-08-29T11:22:39.888-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Steve Gentryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03641751408024300010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-54289716315155730552010-08-29T11:18:47.601-07:002010-08-29T11:18:47.601-07:00LeeC said" Don't discuss Scripture Mike, ...LeeC said" <i>Don't discuss Scripture Mike, it makes Steve squirm...</i><br /><br />Lee, I'm not going to get into an argument with you over what you think the Bible says versus what I think it says.<br /><br />I realize that there are many issues that have to be resolved around original sin, a literal Adam, what Paul believed, etc. Keller makes a start. I think it's important that conservative theologians be involved in this discussion over at BioLogos.<br /><br />There are no theologians posting at this blog and I don't see much point arguing over specific passages of Scripture. You'll quote your favorite theologian and I'll quote mine. At the end of the day I'll believe what I started with and so will you.Steve Gentryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03641751408024300010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88637587938320047052010-08-28T21:24:49.092-07:002010-08-28T21:24:49.092-07:00Just reading Keller's white paper where he sta...Just reading Keller's white paper where he states, "Any theory that makes it impossible to trust our minds is self-defeating" (p.6, last line). Hmm. Just how does that occur? If we don't trust our minds, how can we trust our minds ... that we aren't trusting our minds? Reminds me of the line of reasoning that produces "there are no absolutes." Absolutely!<br /><br />Satan's "theory" that God didn't have Eve's well-being in mind in the Garden of Eden certainly turned out to be "self-defeating" to put it mildly (Gen 3:5). But Eve was fooled into trusting her own mind (1Ti 2:14), demonstrating that this is not always such a grand thing after all. But has that not been the Deceiver's m.o. all along (Joh 8:44)?<br /><br />But what do I know ... quoting Scripture and everything? I wonder if the genre of Jeremiah 17:9 allows for the prophet to be taken literally or not ["The way to respect the authority of the Biblical writers is to take them as they want to be taken" (Keller, p.3, Answer)] when he states, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"scndfddlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12812069841744186097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-29712841807509101412010-08-28T13:00:04.597-07:002010-08-28T13:00:04.597-07:00Don't discuss Scripture Mike, it makes Steve s...Don't discuss Scripture Mike, it makes Steve squirm...LeeChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05540608568274871363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41049532761889117602010-08-28T11:39:01.998-07:002010-08-28T11:39:01.998-07:00One of the things that vexes me most about the the...One of the things that vexes me most about the theistic evolutionist position is that it has to do dramatic violence to passages of Scripture that praise God for creating the world in a divinely supernatural way.<br /><br />Just one example, Psalm 33:6-9, reads as follows:<br /><br />By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host. He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses. Let all the earth fear Yahweh; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.<br /><br />But in the TE's Bible, it's got to say:<br /><br />By -billions of years of evolutionary processes- the heavens were made, And by -their own spontaneous developments- all their host. He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses -but He couldn't have, ya know, flooded the world with them or anything. A part of the world, sure. But c'mon, the whole world?- Let all the earth fear Yahweh; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it -took a really long time, but eventually got there... or, is getting there;- He commanded, and -billions of years later- it stood fast -...er, is standing sorta fast, or... continuing to evolve... or something.-<br /><br />See, God means to get glory from the reality that He said, "Let there be," and there was. He spoke, it was done. Let everyone stand in awe of the Creator who does such things. And so among all the other things that have been discussed in these past few weeks about the dangers and damage of theistic evolution, you can add, "Treacherously robs God of His glory" to the list.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-90659166135737176272010-08-28T07:48:11.529-07:002010-08-28T07:48:11.529-07:00John, yup. It boggles the mind, the egregiousness ...John, yup. It boggles the mind, the egregiousness of the error, and it's incredulity.<br /><br />We just don't live in a time where we can assume truth is a robust currency in the epistemic economy of ideas. <br /><br />Instead of buying the gold of Biblical truth, they've invested in man-made get-rich quick schemes, and they don't see that the market is crumbling, and they're panic-investment is going broke. <br /><br />ok, that's all the metaphor I'm capable of this morning.Pierre Saikaleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09409964448078910855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-6611056402078277802010-08-28T05:13:46.344-07:002010-08-28T05:13:46.344-07:00#1 @SirAaron - YES!!! A Turk Lunchbox would be the...#1 @SirAaron - YES!!! A Turk Lunchbox would be the epitome of nerd cool.<br /><br />#2 For all the "scientists" at Biologos and elsewhere begging us to take science seriously, I only respond that they need to take philosophy seriously. There is a reason for the dramatic upswing in theistic philosophers in the last two decades, and one of those reasons is that Plantinga and others have offered excellent arguments for why evolution can't work.<br /><br />#3 Are we really <i>really</i> discussing whether Adam was historical on a <i>Christian</i> blog? Do you not recognize what this proposition necessarily entails? Kenton Sparks, at least, is intellectually honest.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15147021671506048314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-4058538116125282592010-08-28T04:46:52.682-07:002010-08-28T04:46:52.682-07:00lol Cephas!
Makes me think of the Geico commerci...lol Cephas! <br /><br />Makes me think of the Geico commercials. Some cavemen just can't catch a break!Tom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-33029081296632191762010-08-27T21:32:26.409-07:002010-08-27T21:32:26.409-07:00Wouldn't you hate to be the hominid right befo...Wouldn't you hate to be the hominid right before Adam who was deemed not "human" enough to be "made in the image of God?"Cephashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01592542043149242433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-53574222412235306892010-08-27T20:36:52.972-07:002010-08-27T20:36:52.972-07:00Just a quick note to say I really like your blog! ...Just a quick note to say I really like your blog! Keep up the good work...<br /><br />Steve<br />Common Cents<br />http://www.commoncts.blogspot.comcommoncentshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14497825816313122743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-15602976132712554012010-08-27T19:07:00.863-07:002010-08-27T19:07:00.863-07:00Tom Chantry, romey, Stefan, and LeeC (and others) ...Tom Chantry, romey, Stefan, and LeeC (and others) - Just wanted to say thanks for making some excellent points!<br /><br />Steve Gentry:<br /><em>"Fred says, "Enough with B.B. Warfield. He was wrong on this issue. Plain and simple."<br />So you say. I've heard your argument before. Disagreed with it then, disagree with it now. Just because you say he's wrong, don't make it so."</em><br /><br />No-no, he doesn't have to prove anything here -- he wasn't the one who brought B.B. Warfield into this. B.B. Warfield was raised by the OTHER side as an argument as an attempt to prove (or at least add some significant merit to) THEIR position.<br /><br />The correct comment to make is, "Just because they use his name, doesn't make them right."<br /><br />Frank: The thought of smelling a t-shirt brewing makes for a clever double entendre.Jacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17084189036334133951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-26553293048692164102010-08-27T19:04:40.241-07:002010-08-27T19:04:40.241-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-52148513658821061732010-08-27T19:03:34.736-07:002010-08-27T19:03:34.736-07:00"..mountain of evidence.."
Steve, I gue..."..mountain of evidence.."<br /><br />Steve, I guess this is where the rubber meets the road.<br /><br />You say "mountain". I Don't see any mountain brother.<br /><br />I see the Scriptures say that Adam was a "son of God", not that he had a mom and dad,who were evolved apes.<br /><br />Can you enlighten me here bro?donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68921609972231923502010-08-27T18:47:41.022-07:002010-08-27T18:47:41.022-07:00threegirldad says: What the written record does no...threegirldad says: <i>What the written record does not show is him having "no problem with the creation of Adam’s body by a long evolutionary process and the creation of his spirit by a divine in-breathing."<br /><br />No quibbling over semantics on that score. You're flat-out wrong.</i><br /><br />Peter Wallace in his essay on <a href="http://www.peterwallace.org/warf.txt" rel="nofollow">Warfield and the Darwinian Controversy</a> provides this information:<br /><br /><i>In the face of James Orr's insistence that body and mind must develop together--eliminating the possibility of human evolution, Warfield uses this approach to suggest that animal ancestry for man would be quite possible: "If under the directing hand of God a human body is formed at a leap by<br />propagation from brutish parents, it would be quite consonant with the fitness of things that it should be provided by His creative energy with a truly human soul."</i><br /><br />It is true that Warfield's postition isn't the same as that of BioLogos, but Warfield didn't have the mountain of evidence that we have today either.<br /><br />The real point though is that Warfield was willing to engage the science of his day instead of trying to make up his own creation science. Today, we need conservative (orthodox) theologians to address the theological issues that evolutionary theory raises.<br /><br />The BioLogos project is a good start although I would like to see more conservative theologians join the conversation.<br /><br />I'm through discussing Warfield. What he believed or didn't believe isn't the issue. His willingness to try to reconcile theology and science without doing violence to either, is the real issue.Steve Gentryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03641751408024300010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86703619207529936162010-08-27T15:57:30.979-07:002010-08-27T15:57:30.979-07:00Rachel:
Thank you for sharing. It gives me hope ...Rachel:<br /><br />Thank you for sharing. It gives me hope for my own children to hear how you are succesffuly dealing with the situation at school.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-85152542105726907372010-08-27T15:05:22.450-07:002010-08-27T15:05:22.450-07:00Steve Gentry,
For a brief period in his younger y...Steve Gentry,<br /><br />For a brief period in his younger years, it seems that Warfield accepted the then-current notions of Evolution more readily. Later on, he was openly skeptical but "allowed" that it might prove true, and that there might be ways to accomodate a specifically constrained version of it. What he was "open to" bears no resemblance at all to what BioLogos promotes.<br /><br />What the written record <em>does not show</em> is him having "no problem with the creation of Adam’s body by a long evolutionary process and the creation of his spirit by a divine in-breathing."<br /><br />No quibbling over semantics on that score. You're flat-out wrong.threegirldadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10514416693800430357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81939955215914949172010-08-27T13:52:33.759-07:002010-08-27T13:52:33.759-07:00"It is particularly damaging to insist that o..."It is particularly damaging to insist that our young people make this kind of false choice as they are studying biology in secondary school or college. If we do so, we will force some to choose against the Bible and others to check their intelligence at the classroom door. This is a false dilemma created by a misuse of the biblical text."<br /><br />As someone who's taking advanced science courses I don't agree with this at all. I find no issue holding a creationist view point while in biology. In fact, having a creationist view point only <i>enhances</i> my belief that evolution didn't occur. <br /><br />With how many things had to line up exactly right for the earth to support the vast array of organisms it does there's no other way for it to have happened than for God to have created it. And God being God could easily have done it in 6 days because God defies all science laws.<br /><br />So when I read passages that say, "It had to have taken billions of years for this to happen." I replace it with, "God made the earth in six days because with God all things are possible." I also don't get into arguments with my teacher when he says something took billions of years. I find it to be a useless argument because all it will do is distract from the class and make a super uncomfortable environment for me to learn in. He's either saved and doesn't believe the creation story or unsaved and in any of the categories from athiest to pagan. <br /><br />What I find rather cool is my lab partners are Christian ladies. They're wonderful, and he's aware we're Christian so he's extremely respectful about our faith, which I appreciate. If he hadn't been I'd have requested he just stay far away from any commentary concerning my beliefs and not insult my intelligence because doing that isn't going to change my mind only confirm his sad spiritual state. <br /><br />And besides, if a believer loses their conviction about something like God creating the earth in six days...what else would they easily lose their conviction in? I'd question if they'd ever been saved to begin with.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03824751086238577923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16575431242868323272010-08-27T12:21:40.139-07:002010-08-27T12:21:40.139-07:00Chris H,
My apologies. I read your reply too qui...Chris H,<br /><br />My apologies. I read your reply too quickly. In my haste I read "...intended as a historical..." instead of your actual "...intended as not an historical...". So, please disregard my post above. Note to self: read, read again, think, read again, think more, then reply if constructive.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16345630463450652762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44323507957527855442010-08-27T12:20:42.604-07:002010-08-27T12:20:42.604-07:00The issue is about how one views God and His Word....The issue is about how one views God and His Word.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-78019087175045215122010-08-27T12:17:35.938-07:002010-08-27T12:17:35.938-07:00I appreciate Calvin's commentary on Genesis 1 ...I appreciate Calvin's commentary on Genesis 1 "...Let there be light....The sun and moon supply us with light: and, according to our notions, we so include this power to give light in them, that if they were taken away from the world, it would seem impossible for any light to remain. Therefore the Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon..." <br /><br />and Genesis 2 "...And every plant...although he has before related that the herbs were created on the third day, yet it is not without reason that here again mention is made of them, in order that we may know that they were then produced, preserved, and propogated, in a manner different from that which we perceive at the present day. For herbs and trees are produced from seed; or grafts are taken from another root, or they grow by putting forth shoots: in all this the industry and the hand of man are engaged. But, at that time, the method was different: God clothed the earth, not in the same manner as now, (for there was not seed, no root, no plant which might germinate,) but each suddenly sprung into existence at the command of God, and by the power of his word..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87922736113270774472010-08-27T12:17:06.858-07:002010-08-27T12:17:06.858-07:00Chris H,
Don't you see that in order to answe...Chris H,<br /><br />Don't you see that in order to answer your question a person has to answer Dan's question first?<br /><br />In other words, your question of "why was it not made more clear?" begs the question of "how would/should it have been made more clear?". <br /><br />So, Dan's question inherently has to be answered first.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16345630463450652762noreply@blogger.com