The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

hairyheretic said:

They ate the apple. They didn't die.

You mistake what death means in its Biblical use.

They died immediately, in the most important sense - spiritually. Their fellowship with God was broken, they were on the path to physical death and to eternal punishment.

The New Testament describes this state of death:
Ephesians 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

How does "cannot violate His own nature" make "can God create a stone He cannot move?" a meaningless question?

If it is a meaningless question, I think you need to show why it's meaningless. If it's not a meaningless question, then it presents a contradiction.

To create a stone He cannot move would be to create a contradiction, since it would be a denial of His infinite power. Only if we define that part of His nature in a way that contradicts another part can we produce such a dilemna. The God of the Bible is not like that.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

To create a stone He cannot move would be to create a contradiction, since it would be a denial of His infinite power. Only if we define that part of His nature in a way that contradicts another part can we produce such a dilemna. The God of the Bible is not like that.

Not like what? definable?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

To create a stone He cannot move would be to create a contradiction, since it would be a denial of His infinite power. Only if we define that part of His nature in a way that contradicts another part can we produce such a dilemna. The God of the Bible is not like that.

Which is to say that it is part of His nature that He does not do anything that would constitute a denial of His infinite power - or more widely, does not do anything that would produce a contradiction of the type Wicknight proposes?

And the usual question - Biblical justification?

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

bonkey said:

Yes, my use of infinite power included - repeatedly stated - His infinite holiness. That means God cannot lie, for example.

So you're saying that God is subject to a set of strcictures which God cannot choose to ignore?

That's all-powerful in my eyes,

I guess we'll have to agree to differ.

If God chooses these limits to his own abilities, then God is indeed all powerful. However, it also means these are not things God cannot do, they are things God chooses not to do - there being a subtle difference between the two.

On the other hand, if God did not choose these limits, then God is subject to a set of strictures outside his own power to alter. That suggests that there are a set of powers which God does not have. It may also suggest that God is subject to a higher power.

Thus Wickie is indeed arguing against a strawman god.

It may be that you haven't sufficiently established the limits of power that your all-powerful God has.

Sapien

bonkey wrote:

Thus Wickie is indeed arguing against a strawman god.

It may be that you haven't sufficiently established the limits of power that your all-powerful God has.

He doesn't need to. Theologies such as the extent of God's power are established on an ad hoc basis, when the emotional need to worship the ultimate super-hero encounters the intellectual need to resolve the logical challenges inherent in such an exercise. It is usually up to the doubting interlocutor to identify these challenges. This is why these discussions are so pointless. It's elephants all the way down.

BrianCalgary

bonkey wrote:

How then do you explain all of those conversations God had with various people in the Old Testament?

Before Christ God spoke though His prophets. Restitution (if that is ther ight word) for sin was done through the priest.

God then came down from Heaven and spoke to us all and removed the preisthood for restitution, as He took all the sin upon Himself.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Thus Wickie is indeed arguing against a strawman god.

As I keep trying to explain to you Wolfsbane its not my argument, it is the Christian argument.

Christians, from St. Aquinas to pretty much every web page on the nature of God I can find with Google, state that God exists in the future. The future already exists, God is there, and therefore God knows what we do in the future.

TBH until I came across JC and yourself I had no idea that any Christian didn't accept this.

I can, if you like, gather up all the Bible verses that deal with the nature of God, from the "alpha omega" and "I am" verses to the lesser known ones.

But that is a bit of work and TBH I want to make sure I'm not wasting my time. It seems that half the time on this thread people just say the opposite of what I say for the sake of argument without really thinking it through.

So to clarify, are you saying that God, in your opinion, does not exist in the future, he only exists in the present?

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

Before Christ God spoke though His prophets.

Yes? And?

You claimed that God became man in order to be reachable.

God was reachable. God was reachable because God was capable of being reached through his prophets, or indeed anyone that God chose to reveal himself to.

So God didn't need to become man to become reachable. He could have just decided to allow everyone to find him as reachable as a proohet did.

Restitution (if that is ther ight word) for sin was done through the priest.

God then came down from Heaven and spoke to us all and removed the preisthood for restitution, as He took all the sin upon Himself.

I applaud your efforts to bring us further and further from teh point you seem to be shying from, but I'm not biting any further.

The point, lest you forget, is that God has always been a God of the Gaps. He has always been unreachable in a measurable, tanginble sense. First he lived on the mountains, then above the clouds, then beyond the stars, and now outside the physical reality of our universe.

That you feel you can talk to God, in a way that only prophets could, and that you feel God answers you doesn't change that argument. It has nothing to do with that argument, in fact.

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

Not like what? definable?

No, not like contradictory. Scofflaw sees what I'm saying:

Which is to say that it is part of His nature that He does not do anything that would constitute a denial of His infinite power - or more widely, does not do anything that would produce a contradiction of the type Wicknight proposes?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

And the usual question - Biblical justification?

For example:
God cannot lie: Titus 1:1 Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness, 2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began, 3 but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior;
But He can do all things: Mark 10:27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

If God chooses these limits to his own abilities, then God is indeed all powerful. However, it also means these are not things God cannot do, they are things God chooses not to do - there being a subtle difference between the two.

I see what you are saying, but it is not like that. God is a person who IS absolutely holy. Therefore He cannot sin. That does not mean He is either subject to outside restrains or that He can be other than He is.

wolfsbane

Sapien said:

He doesn't need to. Theologies such as the extent of God's power are established on an ad hoc basis, when the emotional need to worship the ultimate super-hero encounters the intellectual need to resolve the logical challenges inherent in such an exercise. It is usually up to the doubting interlocutor to identify these challenges. This is why these discussions are so pointless. It's elephants all the way down.

Christians are only concerned with what the Bible says about God's power. Any unbiased observer will have no problem acknowledging what I have set out as the Biblical account of God.

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

Christians are only concerned with what the Bible says about God's power.

Fair point, but you do (I would assume) have to acknowledge that this is effectively a cyclical position.

God cannot lie because the bible says so.
The bible is true because It is inspired by God....who cannot lie.

The thing is that if God could lie, God could inspire the production of the exact same bible.

So really, what it really boils down to is that Christians believe God cannot lie because Christians believe that God cannot lie. It is, effectively, a tenet of faith.

God is a person who IS absolutely holy. Therefore He cannot sin.

OK. That's reasonable. Its perhaps even less of a tenet of faith than the "cannot lie" point above, but it still raises a question...

Earlier in this thread, we've seen arguments that God being responsible for the ordering of or carrying out of apparently-sinful acts couldn't actually be a sin, because God doesn't sin. Its as though God has performed an act that were we not aware that it was God who had performed it, we would conclude it was a sin, but because it was God, then it couldn't be a sin and therefore wasn't.

The suggestion, at the time, seemed to be more along the lines of "whatever God does is not a sin, because God cannot sin", rather than "there are certain actions which God cannot carry out, because for Him to do so would be sinful".

Maybe I'm misremembering the positions taken...I'll have to dig back through the thread when I have a bit more time.

I take it, however, that you are currently saying it is the latter - that God's abilities are limited because certain actions would constitute sin.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

As I keep trying to explain to you Wolfsbane its not my argument, it is the Christian argument.

Christians, from St. Aquinas to pretty much every web page on the nature of God I can find with Google, state that God exists in the future. The future already exists, God is there, and therefore God knows what we do in the future.

I don't know what Aquinas may have said. I do know what the Bible says. God is not limited by time, but that does not mean there is no time. All events are certain with God, because He has foreordained all that will happen - but that does not mean they have already happened or are always happening. For example, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. He did not do so today, nor is He going to do so tomorrow.

TBH until I came across JC and yourself I had no idea that any Christian didn't accept this.

I can, if you like, gather up all the Bible verses that deal with the nature of God, from the "alpha omega" and "I am" verses to the lesser known ones.

Good examples. God is the beginning and ending of all things. That does not mean He is already present at their end, but that He has determined their end and - as He is eternal - will be there.

I AM is a statement of God's self-existence, the cause of all things and subject to none. Here's the great Christological statement of John:
John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

Or in the context of one of the Alpha and Omega texts:
Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

So to clarify, are you saying that God, in your opinion, does not exist in the future, he only exists in the present?

Yes. There is only the present. The past is gone, the future is yet to be.

BrianCalgary

bonkey wrote:

Yes? And?

You claimed that God became man in order to be reachable.

God was reachable. God was reachable because God was capable of being reached through his prophets, or indeed anyone that God chose to reveal himself to.

So God didn't need to become man to become reachable. He could have just decided to allow everyone to find him as reachable as a proohet did..

God was not directly reachable. He was only reachable through His prophets and preists.

In order to convince us that He was reachable He came to us so that we could touch Him and hear Him and connect with Him.

bonkey wrote:

I applaud your efforts to bring us further and further from teh point you seem to be shying from, but I'm not biting any further.

The point, lest you forget, is that God has always been a God of the Gaps. He has always been unreachable in a measurable, tanginble sense. First he lived on the mountains, then above the clouds, then beyond the stars, and now outside the physical reality of our universe.

That you feel you can talk to God, in a way that only prophets could, and that you feel God answers you doesn't change that argument. It has nothing to do with that argument, in fact.

Good try in telling me that I am way opff the argument. That is one way to argue, tell someone that their argument is invalid.

The original statement that God continues to move away is wrong in Christianity as God came to us and thereby came closer and didn't move away.

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

Fair point, but you do (I would assume) have to acknowledge that this is effectively a cyclical position.

God cannot lie because the bible says so.
The bible is true because It is inspired by God....who cannot lie.

The thing is that if God could lie, God could inspire the production of the exact same bible.

So really, what it really boils down to is that Christians believe God cannot lie because Christians believe that God cannot lie. It is, effectively, a tenet of faith.

Except that this faith is the gift of God, imparting a sure knowledge to the receipient. Christians do not just decide what to believe about God and then argue for that. They receive it from God.

Earlier in this thread, we've seen arguments that God being responsible for the ordering of or carrying out of apparently-sinful acts couldn't actually be a sin, because God doesn't sin. Its as though God has performed an act that were we not aware that it was God who had performed it, we would conclude it was a sin, but because it was God, then it couldn't be a sin and therefore wasn't.

The suggestion, at the time, seemed to be more along the lines of "whatever God does is not a sin, because God cannot sin", rather than "there are certain actions which God cannot carry out, because for Him to do so would be sinful".

Maybe I'm misremembering the positions taken...I'll have to dig back through the thread when I have a bit more time.

I take it, however, that you are currently saying it is the latter - that God's abilities are limited because certain actions would constitute sin.

I'm saying both. Because He is who He is, anything He does will not be sinful. Note I am not saying He can do a sinful thing and we must say it is not sinful, just because He is God. No, He cannot do any sin. So maybe the latter sense you used helps avoid any misunderstanding the former one might cause.

So, Yes, God's abilities are limited because certain actions would constitute sin.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

For example:
God cannot lie: Titus 1:1 Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness, 2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began, 3 but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior;
But He can do all things: Mark 10:27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”

From which one can either derive a contradiction ("God can do anything" vs "God cannot lie"), or the idea that God can do anything that does not contradict His own nature.

Paul, though:

Jesus says: "But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven for it is God's throne; Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
Matthew 5:34-37

"The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed forevermore, knoweth that I lie not," Paul writes. (II Cor. 11:31, and others.)

Pff. Can't even keep the commands rather explicitly given to the Apostles...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

No, not like contradictory. Scofflaw sees what I'm saying:

That happens quite often. Which one of us should be more disturbed by it is anyone's guess.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

Sapien said:

Christians are only concerned with what the Bible says about God's power. Any unbiased observer will have no problem acknowledging what I have set out as the Biblical account of God.

Pish posh. That is but a minor concern in the invention of a decent super-hero. Remember this?

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

Good try in telling me that I am way opff the argument. That is one way to argue, tell someone that their argument is invalid.

I'm not saying its invalid. I'm saying its irrelevant to the point at hand.

Christianity - and religions in general - have always placed God outside the bounds of knowledge. I don't have a problem with this, per se. However, as we have pushed our boundaries of knowledge back, we have seen time and time again that wherever God was purported to be....God wasn't.

Now, we get to the point where God has been pushed as far away as can be. God is not "just beyond the event horizon" but rather is "somewhere we can never physically get to". This is a perfectly reasonable stance, actually. I've no problem with it whatsoever.

What I do have a problem with is understanding how previous generations of Christians could have gotten it so wrong and the implications of that in terms of the absolute surity devout Christians haev in their own correctness.

We hear about trust/faith in the bible, but then hear about how people can misinterpret the bible both today and in the past. We hear about the bible being (undeniable) truth, but ignore that there hasn't always been only one version of the bible. Does this mean there is more than one version of the undeniable truth?

Indeed, we see Christians of differing beliefs nodding in agreement as both tell agnostics and atheists that it is the undeniable truth of the bible which is the cornerstone of their faith and that all we have to do is, well, accept it and we'll be able to see this....but they ignore the fact that they disagree to a lesser or greater extent as to what that truth is.

I just can't understand it. Every devout Christian is sure they are right, but seems to ignore the implication that any other devout Christian must be wrong unless they believe the xact same thing...and when they don't, well, there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement that at most only one interpretation of this apparently-undeniable truth can be undeniably true.

Indeed, if we take a recent response of wolfsbane's to another recent post of mine, he says :

Christians do not just decide what to believe about God and then argue for that. They receive it from God.

Now, this has me downright confused. For this to be true, then no two Christians can differ in what they believe about God. But they do. So some of them, by Wolfsbane's reasoning, aren't really Christians at all. They can't be, because God doesn't lie, but they've been gifted with a different version of what to believe about God.

Or mayeb they've been gifted the same version, but understand it differently...which once again calls into question the ability to insist that any version of understanding is truth. What hubris leads one Christian to say that their understanding of God's message is superior to that of any Christian who dares disagere with them???

The original statement that God continues to move away is wrong in Christianity

Its wrong only in that Christians have finally accepted that heaven isn't somewhere you can place in the physical world. The wise one's don't even couch it as being "outside the universe", in case we figure there's a multiverse.

They've moved God's location as far away as one can get and only in that sense does God no longer continue to "move away".

as God came to us

But didn't remain with us, and went back to where he came from. Which is as far away as he can get.

and didn't move away.

You're denying that Jesus returned to heaven?

OK...I know that's not what you're doing. I apologise.

What you're doing is suggesting that because Christians believe God is with us that God is right here. But God is only right here in a completely intangible sense. YOu can't measure God's presence. You can't conduct some test. In short, if God is here, it is only in a sense that still puts God beyond our means of tangibly detecting.

So near, but so far away. We can detect more of the 14.5 billion-year-old beginnings of the universe than we can of God.

I would even say that if God is here it is only in the minds of those who believe it...even if that begins to sound dangerously close to an insult I do not intend.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

Now, this has me downright confused. For this to be true, then no two Christians can differ in what they believe about God. But they do. So some of them, by Wolfsbane's reasoning, aren't really Christians at all. They can't be, because God doesn't lie, but they've been gifted with a different version of what to believe about God.

That is an excellent point. If every Christian is in continuous discussion with the big man up stairs then all Christians should all agree with each other over pretty much everything.

They clearly don't. What does that tell us?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

From which one can either derive a contradiction ("God can do anything" vs "God cannot lie"), or the idea that God can do anything that does not contradict His own nature.

Yes, and the latter is the Christian understanding. Indeed, in interpreting any literature or communication where the option is consistency or self-contradiction, common respect as well as common sense tells us to assume the author is being consistent.

Paul, though:

Jesus says: "But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven for it is God's throne; Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
Matthew 5:34-37

"The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed forevermore, knoweth that I lie not," Paul writes. (II Cor. 11:31, and others.)

Pff. Can't even keep the commands rather explicitly given to the Apostles...

I don't consider what Paul said to be swearing. It is a statement of fact. A solemn reminder to all that there is One who sees not only the outward acts but also the inward intentions of the heart.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

That happens quite often. Which one of us should be more disturbed by it is anyone's guess.

wolfsbane

Sapien said:

Pish posh. That is but a minor concern in the invention of a decent super-hero. Remember this?

I'm not suggesting the unbiased observer will be convinced to follow this God, just that they will acknowledge I'm presenting an accurate account of what the Bible says concerning Him.

And, Yes, I remember your Tolkien tale. A bit of posh pish.

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

I just can't understand it. Every devout Christian is sure they are right, but seems to ignore the implication that any other devout Christian must be wrong unless they believe the xact same thing...and when they don't, well, there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement that at most only one interpretation of this apparently-undeniable truth can be undeniably true.

Indeed, if we take a recent response of wolfsbane's to another recent post of mine, he says :

Christians do not just decide what to believe about God and then argue for that. They receive it from God.

Now, this has me downright confused. For this to be true, then no two Christians can differ in what they believe about God. But they do.

An understandable confusion here. The certainty the Christian has does not relate to every fact about revealed truth, only to that which is essential to salvation. The promise that Christ would save His people from their sins is fulfilled by God in granting them repentance and faith. That is, they receive the certain-sure knowledge in their heart/mind that God is real and the gospel call is God's faithful promise of forgiveness for all who turn to Him by trusting in His Son. The grounds for their forgiveness in the atonement of christ, His resurrection and ascension, all must be believed if one is to be a true Christian.

The certainty Christians have relates to this narrow band of essentials. Other truths - like the baptism or not of infants, a literal or figurative millenium, the rule of elders, etc. - while very important, are not essential to salvation.

So some of them, by Wolfsbane's reasoning, aren't really Christians at all.

Indeed.

They can't be, because God doesn't lie, but they've been gifted with a different version of what to believe about God.

Then their gift is not from God, but from below. If they differ on the essentials, they are not Christians.

Paul had this to say to a gullible church concerning false Christian preachers:
Galatians 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Or mayeb they've been gifted the same version, but understand it differently...which once again calls into question the ability to insist that any version of understanding is truth. What hubris leads one Christian to say that their understanding of God's message is superior to that of any Christian who dares disagere with them???

As I've indicated above, no Christian has all the truth, but all true Christians have the essential truth.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

"The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed forevermore, knoweth that I lie not," Paul writes. (II Cor. 11:31, and others.)

I don't consider what Paul said to be swearing. It is a statement of fact. A solemn reminder to all that there is One who sees not only the outward acts but also the inward intentions of the heart.

Interesting interpretation, but I absolutely cannot agree. 'Swearing' in this sense is not an imprecation, but exactly what Paul is doing - that is, calling on the Lord to witness the truth of what he is saying. In turn, this is exactly what Christ instructed His disciples not to do.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm not suggesting the unbiased observer will be convinced to follow this God, just that they will acknowledge I'm presenting an accurate account of what the Bible says concerning Him.

My point is, that which you present is coherent with what the Bible says concerning God - which is quite different.

Scofflaw

I'd nearly forgotten about this - the list of Steves. For anyone who doesn't know what that is, it's a list of currently practicing doctorally qualified scientists who have signed up to visibly support evolution - and are called Stephen/Stephanie or a variant thereof. Currently stands at 720.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Interesting interpretation, but I absolutely cannot agree. 'Swearing' in this sense is not an imprecation, but exactly what Paul is doing - that is, calling on the Lord to witness the truth of what he is saying. In turn, this is exactly what Christ instructed His disciples not to do.

Yes, I was using swearing in the non-imprecatory sense too. Many Christians would have no problem in seeing what Paul did as swearing, for they hold that Christ's ban on it did not include a proper, lawful use. So they have no problem, for example, in swearing by Almighty God to tell the truth before a magistrate.

I feel they are mistaken, but I'm open to argument on it. Is invoking God as a witness, or reminding one that God is our witness to every word spoken, the same as promising to do something and binding it to us in the name of God? I think not, but it is a possibility.

In either event, it cannot be a simple disobedience by Paul, for Christ Himself answered the High Priest's adjuration:
Matthew 26:62 And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”
64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

The options seem to me to be:
1. Invoking God as a witness is not the same as the swearing Christ prohibited.
2. It is swearing, but the lawful use of it.
3. Christ contradicted Himself and Paul followed suit.

I think the presumption of innocence must go with the author where such other possibilities exist.