When it comes time for college, parents often think they’re sending their children off to a religiously-neutral site to learn objective facts about the real world. Unfortunately, they’re far more likely to drop their child into one of the most liberal, anti-Christian environments anywhere on American soil. That’s where some college professors act as intellectual predators, purposefully seeking to undermine the faith of young Christian students.
Some professors make no effort to hide this. Professor Richard Rorty, who taught at Wellesley, Princeton, the University of Virginia and Stanford, admitted that he and many of his colleagues are actively trying to destroy the faith of Christian kids in college. He warned parents to recognize that as professors “we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable.” He said that we professors “arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own.”
Rorty followed that wake-up call to parents with an overt poke in the eye. He claimed that students are fortunate to find themselves under the control “of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents.”
”Did you hear that parents? According to Rorty and his like-minded colleagues, you and your Christian views are dangerous. That’s why they are intent on mocking your religious beliefs to the point that your children are too embarrassed to admit them. They want your children to abandon your “homophobic” beliefs and adopt their way of thinking. That way, your kids will turn out more like them than like you.
Professor Steven Weinberg, of MIT, Harvard, and now the University of Texas, harbors the same anti-religious agenda expressed by Rorty. An atheist and physicist, Weinberg said, “I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I’m all for that.” If scientists can destroy the influence of religion on young people, “then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make.”
I thought imparting truth was the most important contribution a professor could make. Not for Weinberg—it’s his anti-religious agenda. In fact, his anti-religious agenda is so overriding that it distorts his interpretation of the evidence. The discoveries of modern science don’t point away from God, but directly to Him. Unfortunately, few college students know this, which allows Weinberg to spin the evidence the other way. In doing so, he accomplishes what he believes is the most important contribution of a college professor– destroying the parent’s religion in the eyes of their children.
These two professors are not atypical. A recent survey shows that professors are five times more likely to be atheists than the general public. It also found that 53% of college professors view Evangelical students unfavorably. In fact, Evangelicals are, by far, the most disliked religious group on campus (Muslims were not liked by 22% which means that in the United States of America, professors are two and half times more likely to dislike an Evangelical student than a Musllim student).
No wonder 75% of Christian kids leave the church in College. It’s anything but a religiously-neutral environment. Equip yourself or your child before attending.
One of the reasons why universities are so good at converting Christians away from the faith is because of the anti-science bias of too many Christians. I saw this firsthand when I went to Western Kentucky University to major in Recombinant Gene Technology. Most of the people who entered the biology department entered Christians and existed atheists. The reason for this was not that anyone directly tried to convert anyone from Christianity — in fact, probably half the staff were professed Christians, including the head of the department, who taught a Sunday school class. No, the reason for it was that students were presented with insurmountable evidence for evolution. They had been taught by their pastors that evolution was incompatible with Christianity, so faced with the evidence for evolution, students chose facts over faith.
I was not one of them. I chose both facts and faith. I was taught exactly the same thing. I was, after all, raised in a Baptist church. My best friend was the son of the pastor. I often spent the night at my pastor’s house. But I also knew that “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day.” Meaning, I understood that a story meant to help a wandering tribe of nomadic shepherds understand how God made the world may be true in a more metaphorical way than in a merely factual way. So when I encountered the incontrovertible facts of biology, I accepted it, without rejecting God.
I think it is important that our churches learn to not pre-undermine their young followers by preaching scientific falsehoods and being anti-science. God and science to not conflict or contradict. Evolution and the Big Bang theory do not deny the existence of God — no matter what many Christians may believe.
Troy,
Outstanding post! Thank you very much. As a credentialed biologist, would you mind briefly describing in lay terms what you see as the best evidence for macro-evolution?
Blessings,
Frank Turek
I have no problem whatsoever with discussions that involve alternative views. But when it is only one-sided (i.e. your faith in Christ is silly and only atheism is rational) then there is a problem.
Institutions of higher learning, like colleges and universities have become corrupt and no longer provide the educational service they were founded to provide. They have, instead, become centers of brainwashing.
Dr. Camplin,
While I admire your willingness to not abandon your faith in the face of evolution, it is only a theory and not the fact that psuedo-scientists are now pushing. The theory of Evolution is not solid. Many scientists have exposed serious holes in this theory.
I just came across this website for the first time. I have many thoughts to bring to the table but on this thread I would like to wait on Troy’s response to Dr. Turek since that was my question as well.
Jeff
Dr. Troy Camplin gave us this interesting distinction:
“The reason for this was not that anyone directly tried to convert anyone from Christianity… No, the reason for it was that students were presented with insurmountable evidence for evolution.”
Since the evidence for evolution, when presented fairly, is anything but insurmountable, I would say that the second reason falsifies the first. Whether or not the faculty employs Christians, the fact that they presented the evidence for evolution as something insurmountable pretty much proves that they’re part of a system designed deliberately to push faith to the margins and bring science to the center — a system designed by Materialists to preach Materialism.
It’s not that I disbelieve everything about descent with modification; it’s that the presentation of that system of thought in such a way that no other system can be conceived is the product of a philosophy, not of sound science. The evidence supporting descent with modification, as currently understood, is not all that strong, and there are plenty of reasons to disbelieve it.
In a way, I’m like Troy: I don’t have a theological problem with descent with modification by way of genetic drift and natural selection. Theologically, God could have designed that system as well as any other. My problem with it is that it only explains a tiny fraction of the universe I see. The notion that descent with modification explains all the diversity of the biosphere is simply inconceivable to me. It doesn’t come close to being able to do that.
“The discoveries of modern science don’t point away from God, but directly to Him.”
Well, you have not convinced many scientists that this view is correct.
“Since the evidence for evolution, when presented fairly, is anything but insurmountable,…”
You are entitled to your opinion. But my opinion is that your opinion is wrong.
“The evidence supporting descent with modification, as currently understood, is not all that strong, and there are plenty of reasons to disbelieve it.”
My previous statement is appropriate here, too. Do you wish to specify one specific reason for discussion?
“My problem with it is that it only explains a tiny fraction of the universe I see.”
Yes. It explains only the diversity of life on this Earth. But when I use my telescope, I see a lot of things out there in this universe that it does not explain.
“The notion that descent with modification explains all the diversity of the biosphere is simply inconceivable to me.”
A classic argument from “inconceivability”? Maybe I can sell you some “conceivability”? What would it look like and how much are you willing to pay? (Your cost may vary according to the complexity of design and manufacturing (by a known designer).) (Please add 10% for shipping and handling.) (Sales tax will be charged if you are a Texas resident.)
“It’s anything but a religiously-neutral environment..”
If you want to consider this a “war” between science and religion, then it’s clear that scientists at a university are on one side of that “war”. And “Expelled” is on the other side. So you should not wonder why scientists call it a “lying political propaganda movie”. And the makers of the movie are advocating an actual political law that would make it illegal to criticize advocates of “intelligent design” at a university. So this really is a political war.
One reason I accept common ancestry is this: What is the alternative? If not common ancestry then we have to assume that the first two members of every one of the billions of species that exist now or in the past just poofed into existence out of thin air.
Kendenny,
You said this: “One reason I accept common ancestry is this: What is the alternative?”
That is exactly the point that ID people have been making– the reason macroevolution gains so many proponents in the scientific world is NOT because the evidence supports it, but because natural causes are the only ones considered. The conclusion is preloaded into the philosophical presupposition. Common ancestry by natural causes MUST be true because any intelligent cause is ruled out in advance.
Science cannot be done without philosophy. Unfortunately, bad philosophy, in my opinion, is leading to some bad conclusions.
Frank
Before I begin my discussion of “macroevolution,” I really need to address a few other issues. One, I need to address the issue of theory. Two, I need to address the issues of creationism and intelligent design. Then I will address some issues of evolution, including evidence for “macroevolution” and the mechanisms of evolution – which include but are not confined to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, or “descent with modification.” Finally, I want to address the issue of materialist ontology (a fancy word for “how the world really is”). Keep in mind that I am going to address each of these issues as a church-going born-again Christian who is nonetheless convinced by the scientific facts supporting evolution, including biological and cosmological evolution.
What is a theory? When I talk about evolution to many Christians, evolution is dismissed as “merely a theory.” This comes from a misunderstanding – too often perpetuated by postmodernists in the humanities – of what a theory really is.
A scientific theory is developed in the following way: 1) data are collected, 2) the data collected show a structural pattern that must be explained, leading to 3) the development of a theory that explains the pattern(s) observed. From the theory one develops hypotheses, or predictions, which one should either be able to test directly, through experimentation, or indirectly, through observations. A hypothesis can go something like this: since we have X and Z, we should expect Y. If we find Y, that supports the hypothesis, which in turn supports the theory. If we somehow disprove a hypothesis (such as by proving Y is impossible), that can mean one of several things: 1) the hypothesis is wrong, but the theory is still good (there was an error made in the creation of the hypothesis), 2) the hypothesis is wrong because the theory is incomplete and needs modification in light of new data, or 3) the hypothesis is wrong because the theory is wrong. The latter is the hardest to prove, though theories can fall out of favor because they are incapable of creating enough good hypotheses, while another theory does so much better. Hypotheses raise questions answered by the scientific method and by observation and data collection, and those answers are fed back into the theory to modify it and make it more accurate – which simply means it is able to create more and better hypotheses. And so on, in a feedback loop. Darwin’s theory of natural selection has been so modified – first, through the modern synthesis (with genetics), then through neo-Darwinism, then through evolutionary developmental biology, and no in conjunction with systems theory, self-organization theory, game theory, information theory, catastrophe theory (emergence), chaos theory, bios theory, and complexity theory – that Darwin would barely recognize it.
We need to contrast scientific theory with the kind of theory found in the humanities, where someone comes up with an idea and then tries to fit everything into it, discarding (or ignoring) any facts inconvenient to that theory. I believe this is what most people think of when they think of “theory.” Such theories are indeed “mere theories,” based as they are on little to nothing much of the time. Marxism is such a “theory.” It is a shame these “theories” have the same name as scientific theories, as they are the complete opposite of one another, and have opposite results.
Perhaps many Christians make this mistake because the kinds of theories developed by the humanities are developed to help us to understand texts, and the truth-claims of Christians are text-based, while scientific truth-claims are materially based. This, of course, brings us to the question of “what is truth?” Scientific truth is different from religious truth. Science is based on mere facts – things provable by physical observation and experimentation. Religion is based on a different kind of truth – Jesus said that he is the “aletheia,” which has implications of an afterlife in the Greek. In ancient Greek mythology, the Lethe was the ridver souls drank from to forget the afterlife before they were born into a body. “Letheia” means “to forget,” and “aletheia” literally means “without forgetting” or to “unforget.” Christ was thus the physical demonstration of God and God’s world. This is the kind of truth Christianity as a religion is concerned with: this kind of experiential truth – not with mere facts. The facts of the world neither (directly) prove nor disprove God’s existence. Belief in God requires faith – “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 1:1) – not proof. To demand or expect scientific proof is to be disobedient to God and his commandment that we have faith. As Jesus chastised Thomas: “Thomas, because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29).
Next, let me address the issues of creationism, intelligent design, and evolution (in the larger sense, including cosmological evolution). For my money, creationists have a much more solid, dignified position that, though refuted by the scientific evidence, at least does not require that God be an incompetent boob like intelligent design theory does. It does have one serious problem, though, that I will address below. The claim of intelligent design boils down to this: periodically, God has to intervene to set things on the right path or to develop some complex entity or body part. What this really means is they do not think God was competent enough to create a universe with rules that would create everything as we now see it, that he couldn’t create a universe that didn’t need him to come in and continually tinker with it to get it right. I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe in a God who is incapable of creating a universe that could evolve without his continual interference. Doesn’t that go against the idea of God’s perfection?
The creationist is faced with a somewhat different problem, but one no less troubling – which is that it would appear that God created a world and a universe designed to fool us into believing falsehoods about it. I side with Descartes in rejecting the idea of God purposefully fooling us. Such a God would be evil, and that goes against the Christian belief in God being wholly good. The claims I have occasionally heard that Satan put the fossils in the ground is just plain silly – and doesn’t explain astronomical observations, unless you believe Satan moved the stars too. This would refute the statements made in Genesis that God’s creation is good. Yes, man fell from a state of grace when he ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but that act affected the fate of man, not the nature of reality and the world God created.
There are many areas which need to be addressed regarding “macroevolution.” The silliest version of the objection to macroevolution is that “you don’t see a lion become a zebra,” which is something that no evolutionary biologist has ever claimed. Straw men do not help you make your case – they only make you look a fool. So let’s do away with such foolishness, as to accept such tactics is to accept that you don’t have the arguments or the facts to make your case. If we look at what evolutionary biologists do claim, it makes a great deal of sense. And the fossils, genetic evidence, etc. support the story very well.
I have heard many people say “I believe in microevolution but not in macroevolution,” meaning they believe one cat can become another cat, but they don’t believe “big leaps” occur. Well, what do we mean by “big leaps” that result in not just a new species, but in new genera, families, etc.? If we take the fossil record seriously, what we see are some very clear developments among many branches of animals. Take mammals, for example. The fossil evidence suggests the earliest mammals resembled shrews – they were small, with primitive features. Look at the paws of a shrew. They resemble the paws of mice and even of primates. Animals with different kinds of paws developed from common ancestors. Cats and dogs have paws similar to each other and to their common weasel-like ancestor, while hoofed mammals all share a common ancestor along a different evolutionary path. There are many fossils showing the evolution of hoofed feet in mammals, with splits leading to single-hoofed horses, hoof-toed camels, cloven-hoofed goats, sheep, and cows, etc. There are huge numbers of fossils, supported by genetic trees showing relatedness, to support this. Are there gaps? Of course. Fossilization requires rare conditions. But we do have a sufficient number of fossils to see trends. The expectation by some that we should have a “complete” fossil record that shows every single “transitional” species is unrealistic and, considering the reactions of many to the discovery of a transitional species in demanding transitions to and from the transitions, it seems to be beside the point for too many. They have a theory, and no amount of evidence is going to sway them, even if it were possible to find fossils from every generation from every species that ever existed – which it is not. Such people come across as irrational – and they are. Unfortunately, such people are also typically the most vociferous defenders of Christianity, making it appear that Christianity is itself irrational. This is why many students, when faced with the incredible amount of fossil evidence and genetic evidence, along with explanatory mechanisms, reject Christianity. That is a shame, since it does not have to be that way.
So we are not claiming cats turn to sheep in macroevolutionary theory, and the evidence in fact shows a common ancestor in a shrew-like animal that could easily give rise to the different mammal body shapes we see. We also increasingly have the evidence to support such evolutionary development. If we understand hairs and feathers as modified scales, the transitions from reptiles to birds and mammals are also fairly unremarkable. The argument that “if apes evolved from monkeys, then why do we still have monkeys” is resolved with the fact that apes in fact evolved from a common ancestor which is now extinct, but that led to them and to certain monkeys. Speciation comes about from reproductive isolation of groups, which can occur due to geographical, climatological, or genetic changes (or any combination of these). As genetic changes occur in these isolated populations, the two groups drift away from each other and become reproductively isolated. These genetic changes include not just point mutations, but also through genetic inversions in chromosomes, recombinations, jumping genes, foreign DNA, etc. Also, your genes are full of redundancies. A lot of changes to the DNA can be absorbed with no effects. In complex organisms, there is further redundancy built in with multiple copies of genes that can be used as backups if a gene gets a harmful mutation. Also, repair mechanisms fix many mutations, and backup genes can act as templates for repairing harmful changes. Many of these mechanisms are so incredibly complex they are only just now being discovered and understood.
In addition, we have become aware of many more processes in nature that help us understand evolutionary changes. Changes that affect development can have dramatic effects. A slight weakening of a site on a developmental protein can result in, say, neck bones growing a little longer than in a previous generation. Soon, you have giraffes. A trigger for physical maturation may be lost while sexual maturation is retained. This is a mechanism known as neoteny, which appears to have been the mechanism which turned a kind of sea squirt into the ancestor of fish. There is still a creature, called the lancelet, which strongly resembles the larvae of sea squirts – and which is closely genetically related to them. The fishes and the lancelet both share a common ancestor in the neotenous sea quirt larvae. This is an example of true “macroevolution” if we are thinking of it as a dramatic change. But even here, the dramatic change is only between adult forms. The mature lancelet looks just like an immature sea squirt.
In addition, we have mechanisms in nature explained by systems theory, like strange attractors which stabilize certain forms and allow transitions from one order through chaos to another order – as described by catastrophe theory. Bios theory explains creativity in systems, and chaos theory explains stability in systems. All of these, in combination with Darwin’s theory of descent with modification, explain how species evolved over time.
Many people are concerned that science is dependent upon a materialist ontology, and that materialism is itself atheistic. But science does not have to be dependent upon materialism. In fact, the evidence increasingly shows the world isn’t such much materialist as informational in nature. Thus, I subscribe to an informational ontology, which is highly compatible with Christianity. I do not ascribe to a materialist ontology nor an idealist one, but rather, an ontology of information. In other words, I take the following from John 1:1 seriously:??
en arche hn o logos?
“the foundation of all things is information”??
Admittedly, this is a definition that comes about in light of information theory — but if you truly understand both what information is, and all the meanings of logos, you can see that “information” is a good translation of “logos.” Certainly a far, far, far, far, far better choice than “word,” which is such a peripheral meaning of logos as to be almost completely inaccurate. When we “Logos,” we communicate information one to another, process that information, and pass on that information. All things are information at different levels of complexity — information processors, which all communicate different kinds of information at different levels. For biological organisms, the vehicle of communication tends to be chemical, though also photons and sound waves. Humans communicate using more complex information-carriers, particularly through grammatical, syntactical language. If we look at the ways to define information — as a noun, it is that which is without form; as a verb, it is that which gives form to another. Thus, pure information is that which is without form, which gives form.??”The foundation of all things was information, and the information was 1) to the advantage of 2) at, near, by 3) to, towards, with, with regard to (the word translated as “with”) God, and God was information.”??That is the most literal translation of John 1:1 I can render. The story of the universe is one of foundation on information, and the increasing complexity of that information over time in the universe. Atoms have less complex forms of information than do chemicals and especialyl chemical cycles and systems. Biology is a set of highly complex chemical systems. The human brain is a highly complex neural system in complex interaction with other humans thorugh complex social systems. That information is communicated through language, which itself must be highly complex in order to communicate most efficiently. God is the most complex of the universe, and thus has all the information. This is how God is both the Alpha (the inform information that gives form at the beginning of the universe) and the Omega (the most complex, most informed).??All the other theories I use in my philosophy — evolutionary theory, game theory, chaos theory, complexity theory, emergence theory, etc. — explain the ways in which information interacts to create more complex things and how those complex things engage in complex interactions. Information theory is the foundation of all these things. Information is the foundation of all things.
Troy,
You’ve gone well above the call of duty with these posts. Thank you very much! I am glad a man with your credentials is part of this discussion. There is a lot to ask and comment on. I hope others will jump in. I’ll start with this about the fossil record:
What would the fossil record have to look like to suggest creation is true rather than common ancestry?
Blessings,
Frank Turek
“What is the alternative?”
I noticed that you did not seem to answer the question.
If the alternative is “intelligent design”, please tell us what that really means.
“Before I begin my discussion of “macroevolution,”….
You should be aware that the author of this blog has written a silly book that is anti-science through and through. So, although he allows you to comment, he will ignore your arguments and press you to answer his questions about “what caused x, y, and z”?
Frank,
I do appreciate your willingness to try to approach atheists and evolutionists with an attempt to present a rational Christian argument for the existence of God.
However, I would have to say that your mission is misguided, if not sincere.
There will never be a “proof of God”. The reason why is both inherent in God’s instistence of free will and the limitation of mankind’s limited finite reason. There is a cap on man’s intellect. So far, that cap can be measured in our greatest scientist Albert Einstein. As intelligent as he was, he himself was limited.
As to the limit of mankind’s intellectual capacity by God, the operative clue here is the concept of “free will”. God, has hidden Himself from our intellect so that we have no choice but to come to Him via our own free will (our heart). He apparently desires our love of Him freely, of our own volition/invention. If we could approach Him via our reason and reduce Him to a theorum, then we would not approach Him from love, but rather from the point of view of intellectual fact (i.e. 2+2= 4) and that is no grounds for a love relationship.
The historical attempts to prove the existence of God have been instructive. All of that effort has been, and continues to be, wasted. Someone comes up with a “proof of God” that lasts until an atheist destroys that argument, which then produces another argument of God that is again refuted by another atheist, and on and on…
Even if there was a way to produce an infallible argument for the existence of God, it would only prove the existence of what is referred to as “the God of the philosphers”. We would still be light years away from connecting that “God” to the God of Judeo-Christianity or “Allah” or any of the other gods of Hinduism, Mormanism etc…
Therefore, I would argue that the only way to know “God” is existentially. A leap of faith is required to reach out and know God. The only way to know God is through a personal relationship with Him.
We will never reach Him through human reasoning. It can only happen through our desire of love for Him.
Human reason, which is finite and limited will never be able to comprehend or discover the infinite – God. Only through our heart will we be able to discover God. Which is exactly what He desires.
Please understand that I am not trying to ridicule what you are doing here. I do think that your work is very valuable to the believers who listen to you, but when you are engaging with atheists, it is useless. They do not wish to believe, and that wall against belief that they will constantly put in front of you will always protect them from believing.
They haven’t even tried to reach out to God to eliminate His possible existance. They are only trusting in their finite logic to believe that He is not there. They trust only science, which ironically, provides no certain knowledge but only educated guesses about the meaning of the natural world around them.
Clay,
Thanks for your sincere post. I agree with you on many things, especially that belief requires assent of not just the mind, but the will. Yes, I suppose many atheists disbelieve because they don’t want God. And judging by some of the evasive responses I’ve gotten to some of my questions, I suspect that is the case.
And I agree we cannot know God completely. He is infinite and we are finite. But there is a difference between belief THAT and belief IN. I think there there is good evidence THAT God exists. But you don’t use evidence to believe IN him. THAT is a matter of the head and IN is a matter of the heart.
We know THAT God exists by His effects. As I have been arguing, the Universe is an effect of HIm, as is life, reason, morality, mathematics, etc. The bottom line is that evidence does not compel belief IN (if it did then we couldn’t love God because love, by definition, must be given freely). Evidence simply helps belief THAT so we can move on to belief IN. And recall, the Bible commands us to get answers and use evidence (1 Pet 3:15, Mt. 22:37, 2 Cor. 10:5).
Blessings,
Frank
Onein6Billion
You wrote about Troy: “You should be aware that the author of this blog has written a silly book that is anti-science through and through.”
Could you be more specific about what you find “silly” and “anti-science?”
Thanks,
Frank
Frank,
I personally, don’t need “evidence” because I already know that God exiits and loves me.
I have a daugher with epilepsy, autism, ADHD, and possibly bi-polar disorder (her psychologist’s diagnosis is not accepted by her psychiatrist yet). I can’t count on my fingers the number of times my daughter has had a seizure(s) that has lasted over an hour. To the uneducated, a seizure that lasts more than 10 minutes equals brain damage. She remains unscathed in that respect. She is in fact rather bright, despite the impediments of autism and ADHD.
Beside my daugher’s plight, I have concrete experience in God’s intervention in my own life that has allowed me to still be here commenting on your site today. Albiet my experience is existential.
Dr. Troy Camplin writes:
“The claim of intelligent design boils down to this: periodically, God has to intervene to set things on the right path or to develop some complex entity or body part.”
The claims of those opposing Design Theory would be much more credible if those arguing did not simply lie about what it claims.
The claim of Design Theory is that certain systems in the biological world appear to have been designed, and cannot be explained by random mutation, natural selection, or other known mechanisms within genetics. As soon as you say “God has to,” you’ve gone outside what is claimed by Design Theory and inserted your own, jaundiced extrapolation.
You’ve lost my respect with this. Design theorists claim nothing even remotely like what you’ve claimed here. I’ve read Darwin’s Black Box in its entirety, I’ve read Philip Johnson. I’ve read Michael Denton, I’ve read Berlinski, I’ve read Shutzenberger, I’ve read perhaps a dozen others. I have never read a single statement in any of them that comes within a light year of claiming what you describe in the quote I’ve embedded.
Provide quotations demonstrating that this is what Design Theorists claim, sir, or I will simply call you a liar and ignore you forthwith.
Science cannot proceed without HONEST argumentation. A lie is a lie, no matter how many letters the liar has tacked onto the end of your name.
I wrote, “My problem with [descent with modification] is that it only explains a tiny fraction of the universe I see.” and onein6billion replied, “Yes. It explains only the diversity of life on this Earth. But when I use my telescope, I see a lot of things out there in this universe that it does not explain.”
I very clearly qualified my paragraph to discussing the biosphere in the context so nobody would mistake my meaning; it was in the sentence immediately following the one you quote here. Did you think you were being witty? My claim is that mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift do not explain anything but small, local changes in the biosphere.
Particularly, they cannot explain gross changes in body shape. In the first place, modern investigation of the genome has uncovered no part of the genome that establishes body shape at all. By analogy to home building, genes would control the shape, size, and location of windows, the arrangement and color of bricks, the location and height of the door, etc., but contain nothing resembling a floor plan and elevation (the blueprint showing the shape of the house.) Consequently, genetics might explain things like bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics, but cannot explain a transition from a flipper to a leg.
The reference to body shape is important because body shape is the only data retained in the fossil record. Neo-Darwinian genetic theories explain very little of what we find there. The vast majority of fossils display species that appear, continue unchanged for several million years, and then disappear. This is so inconsistent with gene-based gradualism that evolutionary theorists began examining saltation theories instead — only, there was no mechanism available to explain a saltation, so they never went far with it. But the problem with the fossil record that prompted the investigation remains.
Beyond that, though, gradualism does not explain why there are boundaries between species. I have yet to hear an explanation of why, if species change gradually by way of random mutation and undirected genetic drift, the science of taxonomy is even possible. If all the mechanisms are random, I would expect a biosphere in a state of constant flux, with smooth transitions visible between species at all times; in fact, I would not expect to be able to differentiate between species because there would be no boundaries at all.
This is analogous to the argument raised against the Big Bang: why is matter not distributed evenly throughout the universe, why is matter “lumpy?” (They apparently solved this problem by discovering dark matter.) That’s my question about the biosphere — why is it “lumpy?” Gradualism would suggest something much smoother.
Finally, if mutation and natural selection explain such things as antibiotic-resistance in bacteria, I want to know where all the failed genetic tries went that would have been generated randomly on the path to achieving the shift in the species. No, I don’t mean all the genetically legal changes that we routinely see; I mean the genetically illegal changes that we SHOULD see if we were watching a random process, but don’t.
Here’s what I mean: let’s posit the genetic shift from non-resistant to resistant bacteria as a word game in which you change one letter at a time to move from one legal English word to another, like so: “dog,” “cog,” “cot,” “cat”. I’ve moved from “dog” to “cat” in three discreet moves, each changing one letter, each resulting in a known English word. In a system of random changes, there are many orders of magnitude more illegal combinations than legal ones; I calculated roughly 380 million permutations just for two discreet moves, where there are perhaps 100 legal words possible. This is analogous to the genetic code, only much, much simpler.
Now, neo-Darwinian gradualism suggests that single-letter changes get tried randomly, and get discarded by a resulting, non-viable bacterium dying. In my analogy, this would be denoted by, say, “dog” to “dxg”, or “dog” to “aog.” The mathematics of the situation suggest that the bacterial community should be littered with the corpses of failed genetic mutations trying illegal combinations and dying; yes, each such generation would end immediately with only one corpse, but with a genome of 20 or 30 thousand codes, we should see failed genetic experiments in numbers that defy imagination.
We don’t see this. We DO see lots of LEGAL genetic pairs getting generated, some of which produce no apparent external change; but we don’t see the invalid words in anything close to the numbers we should expect if we were watching a random process. What we see instead is as though there’s a dictionary of valid words embedded in the genetic material that prevents invalid words from forming. Only, such a dictionary cannot exist in the neo-Darwinian world of descent with genetic modification.
Finally, note that we see this complex genetic code in the very simplest of bacteria, which is precisely what we should NOT see if Darwin’s notion of gradual development were true at the microbiological level. We should see simpler schemes in the simplest bacteria, and more complex schemes as we move up the evolutionary chain. The fact that the same genetic code gets used in the very simplest organisms as in the most complex, flies in the teeth of the Darwinian model.
I’m not keeping count, but I believe I’ve just listed five, separate ways in which the biological world we observe cannot be explained by modern, gene-based versions of Darwinian gradualism. Is that enough to begin a reasonable discussion, do you think?
Descent with modification does explain some things in biology; it just doesn’t explain very many.
“We know THAT God exists by His effects.”
I find this opinion silly.
And “intelligent design” is anti-science nonsense.
“The claim of Design Theory is that certain systems in the biological world appear to have been designed”
Obviously true.
“and cannot be explained by random mutation, natural selection, or other known mechanisms within genetics.”
Obviously false. Note that your statement is a “negative”. You are trying to prove that evolution CANNOT be explained by genetic science. Well, it is normally very difficult to prove a negative statement like this. How are you going to try to do this? Genetic science claims it can explain “everything”. You have to find a “discontinuity” between entity A and entity B that cannot be explained by genetics? You have to claim that the “probability” that entity B could come from entity A without help from a supernatural entity is “vanishingly small” and thus this descent is “impossible”? Well, please get to work since you have a lot of work to do.
“My claim is that mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift do not explain anything but small, local changes in the biosphere.”
I claim that your claim is silly anti-science nonsense.
“they cannot explain gross changes in body shape”
Therefore a supernatural entity is required? I don’t think so.
“We don’t see this.”
“Bad” mutations never occur because the supernatural entity will not allow it? I don’t think so.
You are trying to prove a negative. You are in trouble.
Frank: “That is exactly the point that ID people have been making– the reason macroevolution gains so many proponents in the scientific world is NOT because the evidence supports it, but because natural causes are the only ones considered. The conclusion is preloaded into the philosophical presupposition. Common ancestry by natural causes MUST be true because any intelligent cause is ruled out in advance.”
What’s ruled out in advance is not any intelligent cause. It’s magic. If magic exists then all of science is suspect. I have said before “God uses natural process to accomplish his goals. He does not use magic tricks.” Why do so many creationists insist that God could not have done it without using magic? Pretty puny pathetic God you got there.
Plumb Bob, two things are obvious in your responses. 1) you failed to make a connection between what is said by IDers directly and what is inferred by their belief. I do not deny that they say that gradualism does not explain the origin of complex body parts — in fact, I say that that is what they say. The inference of their belief, though, is that God is an incompetent boob who couldn’t have made a universe that didn’t need him intervening periodically to make complex entities. This leads me to 2) where t is obvious you either did not read my entire thing, where I give explanations of other processes other than gradualism that help explain how complexity evolved naturally, or you are disingenuously ignoring those parts that are inconvenient to your argument. I sincerely hope it is out of ignorance and not because you are “bearing false witness.”
Frank,
I don’t see that we have to chose between creation and common ancestry. If by “creation” you mean, creationism, then we would see few processes and a shallow fossil record of species that were identical to the animals in existence now, no matter where they were located in the rock strata, which you patently do not see. If you take geological processes into consideration, the fossil record is completely consistent around the world with common ancestry. If by creation you mean ID, then the IDers themselves argue that the fossil record would look the same — they just look at something complex like an eye or a flagellum and, because they can’t figure it out, they arrogantly believe that nobody else will ever be able to figure out the processes either. They would rather believe in a God who is so incompetent that He could not have created a universe with processes that would not require Him to constantly intervene than believe that they aren’t smart or educated enough to figure out something. I don’t think it helps make our case if we believe in a “God of the gaps” — a God who we throw into our gaps of knowledge just because we don’t know something. Over time, that gives God less and less room to live in, and, again, I don’t believe in such a restricted God.
Frank said: “What would the fossil record have to look like to suggest creation is true rather than common ancestry?”
There are a number of ways the fossil record could look to suggest that common ancestry is false. The one that would be the absolute death knell of evolutionary theory would be:
Modern species found at all levels in the fossil record.
Of course as far as suggesting creation. There’s nothing that could be inconsistent with creation.
Interesting statement by Plumb Bob: “In the first place, modern investigation of the genome has uncovered no part of the genome that establishes body shape at all. By analogy to home building, genes would control the shape, size, and location of windows, the arrangement and color of bricks, the location and height of the door, etc., but contain nothing resembling a floor plan and elevation (the blueprint showing the shape of the house.)”
So this means that body shape is NOT coded for in the genome? That of course is absurd. The fact is that we don’t understand the genome well enough to find it. Probably because is scattered all over the place in the genome. The blueprint is torn up into little pieces and scattered all over that place. (Isn’t that the way intelligent designers typically work?)
You chastised me for saying Junk DNA exists and corrected me that we don’t know enough about the genome to know for sure if it’s really junk and then you jump in claiming we know everything there is to know about DNA. Nice consistency there.
Now about body shape. Does a St. Bernard have the same body shape as a chihuahua? No. Do they share a common ancestor? They most certainly do. So if a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua can come from a common ancestor in a couple hundred generations, couldn’t a grizzly bear and a panda in a few thousand. Couldn’t a human and a chimp in a million generation?
It seems to me that the morphological differences between a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard are greater than the differences between a human and a chimp.
I remember reading that Anna Ryan thought that the people that were Adam and Eve where not like humans. Strangely I agree with her, but not for the same reasons she intended. The creates described in the Bible did not have a sense of death until they gained the knowledge of ‘good and evil.’ After these being ate the fruit, they became human. Call me crazy, but this sounds like a transition for a lower thinking creature like an ape to a higher thinking being like a human. The human can understand that she will die. Apes have no real knowledge of their ultimate demise. Scientist admit that there was this moment of transition in a group of ape like creatures. The Bible story helps to illustrate this idea of transition through its beautiful poetry. By forcing the story of creation and the story of transition into humans into facts, it takes the beauty out of the stories. Facts are dead. Fact: the earth is the third planet from the sun. How does this fact lead to any greater truth? It doesn’t, however in the context of the story of history, being the third planet from the sun made people think they were less important in universe than people first thought. The story of history has greater meaning than just the facts. In the same way as the story of creation. If the Bible is just facts, then it is a dead book followed by a dead religion. However, I believe the bible is filled with stories that have greater meaning. Sure, the Bible has facts supporting many of the stories, however, focusing on the facts will kill the life the Bible that gives to so many people hope.
“Scientist admit that there was this moment of transition in a group of ape like creatures.”
I don’t believe it. The opening scene in 2001?
But even if this was true, it is irrelevant to evolution. Do you want to claim that this “spark” was provided by the “intelligent designer”?
Kendenny,
You wrote: “What’s ruled out in advance is not any intelligent cause. It’s magic. If magic exists then all of science is suspect. I have said before “God uses natural process to accomplish his goals. He does not use magic tricks.” Why do so many creationists insist that God could not have done it without using magic? Pretty puny pathetic God you got there.”
Kendenny,
First, you are begging the question. How do you know God uses natural processes to accomplish his goals?
Second, a God who creates the universe out of nothing, life out of non-life, and you through your mom and dad, is not pathetic and puny. And what does that have to do with identifying the cause of a particular effect anyway? Why must God live up to your theological expectations? I don’t understand why His intervening in nature makes him less powerful. Are you less powerful if you intervene in the lives of your children after they are born?
Third, is it possible that God created natural law as it is– repetitive, blind, unable to create itself and unable to create specified complexity– so that if we really followed the evidence about the universe and life it would lead straight to Him? MIracles (or “magic” as you call them) are only detectable against the backdrop of natural law.
Fourth, we know God by His effects, much like we know you and me by our posts. I learn about God from his effects like I learn about you from your effects. If God is nothing but natural law, what’s the difference between that and no God? Since natural law has never been demonstrated to write posts like this or create any other specified complexity, then those effects point to something beyond natural law– i.e. Him.
Frank
Frank said: “How do you know God uses natural processes to accomplish his goals?”
Because 100% of all verifiable observations would indicate that.
“I don’t understand why His intervening in nature makes him less powerful.”
Who is a better car maker, someone who makes a car that you can drive every day for years with no maintenance without a problem or someone who makes a car that must be tuned up every other day?
Kendenny,
You’re proving my point: This isn’t about tuning a car. It’s about creating cars. You need an intelligent car creator to do that. Natural laws won’t do.
You wrote: “Because 100% of all verifiable observations would indicate that.”
What evidence do you have for that? Giving us a ‘just so’ story that begs the question is not evidence. It is a philosophical presuppostion. What natural mechanism creates life? Can you observe natural laws doing it today? The truth is no one has EVER OBSERVED natural laws creating life. So how can 100% of all verifiable observations indicate that life is the product of natural laws?
Frank
Frank. You missed the point of my post. 100% of verifiable observations would indicate that everything that happens follows natural laws. We do observe natural laws creating life all the time. Females get pregnant and give birth to living offspring all the time. That is natural laws creating life. As far as creating new forms of life, you are correct that it has never been observed. Of course new life being created from supernatural forces has never been observed either. Natural laws can be observed doin all kinds of things. Supernatural forces have NEVER been observed doing anything.
Dr. Camplin,
Thanks for the time and detail you put into your posts. I have some disagreements with you though.
Concerning your definition of theory:
What I learned, both in high school and college, is that the word “theory” is group of hypotheses tested over time that provide a working explanation or possible model which status is still conjectural for some event in the universe. Your definition of theory precedes the formation of hypotheses and has nothing to do with experimentation. If you learned a different definition of the word, I understand, but even the dictionaries do not define “theory” the way you do and there is no common foundation here to build communication on regarding the term.
Concerning the statement “scientific truth is different from religious truth”:
I completely disagree. Truth is truth and the same reasoning used to discover truth in one realm must be used to discover truth in all other realms. This false dichotomy is exactly the main weakness that causes so many to loose their faith. They are not taught to reason properly concerning the scriptures and science. In my high school Physics class, more than any particular topic, I am teaching my students HOW to think logically.
Concerning your reference to the fossil record:
This so called fossil “record” you refer to is what some call the “geological column” and actually exists no where in the world. It is an arbitrary construct based on the presupposition of Evolution. That being the case, using the fossil record as evidence of Evolution is a tautology (Evolution therefore the fossil record therefore Evolution) and therefore proves nothing.
Concerning your statements on micro- vs. macro-evolution:
You yourself stated that the fossil record “suggests” which is a weak word implying assumption rather than implication. If the fossil “record” (the so-called geological column) implies monkeys, apes, and humans descend from an common ancestor, then my question is how do they imply that? Yes, there is commonality in a lot of the kinds of creatures, but that does not imply common descent, just common function. Why should we conclude that commonalities imply common ancestor, especially beyond a certain limit such as the Biblical created kind?
So it is not a case of needed the generation by generation fossil proof, it is a case of the argument as a whole being flawed. So there is no logical philosophical evidence supporting evolution in your posts as of yet.
Several other points should be made here. In laboratory experiments with bacteria and fruit flies where numerous successive generations happen in a short time, as of yet, no new information has ever been added to those systems. Yes, flies gained additional wings, but that is not new data, they already had wings. The bacteria are still bacteria, the flies still flies. Where is the experimental proof of macro evolution?
Well, class is starting and I must teach (Alg II then Physics). I’ll post more later.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Clay said on April 9th, 2008 at 11:10 pm:
~~~~There will never be a “proof of God”. The reason why is both inherent in God’s instistence of free will and the limitation of mankind’s limited finite reason. There is a cap on man’s intellect. So far, that cap can be measured in our greatest scientist Albert Einstein. As intelligent as he was, he himself was limited.~~~~
I disagree. There is plenty of proof for the existence of God. Proof exists in more than taking a sample and measuring. Logical implication is just as admissible. For instance, no one observed the origin of the Universe, but folks on both sides of the question (atheist and theist) have offered arguments in favor of that which they did not observe. They make these arguments based on implicit reasoning.
In Romans 1:18-20 declares that we can know the divine through creation. So if you believe God’s word, then your statement is contradictory to its teaching and must be discarded. The very Bible is itself a wonderful proof of the existence of God along with many others.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Ernie Laurence Jr.’
I haven’t said that I don’t believe in God. On the contrary, I do believe in Him. I am saying that we can’t prove his existence via our finite intellect. Our best bet is via our heart, (experietial experience)
“unable to create specified complexity”
Yet another silly creationist undefined expression that does not mean anything.
“MIracles (or “magic” as you call them) are only detectable against the backdrop of natural law.”
Of course. And since none have been “detected” (except by superstitious humans), there is no need to assume that such an event has ever happened.
“Since natural law has never been demonstrated to write posts like this…”
So you consider yourself “above” natural law. Well, please drive carefully. Maybe I could write a computer program that would generate sentences that make more “sense” than yours do.
“I learn about God from his effects”
You must have a super-sensitive effects detector. Can you be more specific about what “effects” you are “detecting”?
“The truth is no one has EVER OBSERVED natural laws creating life”
Irrelevant. The assumption is that there was a time on this Earth when there was no life. Now there obviously is life. Therefore life came from non-life. Which is, of course, irrelevant to evolution.
“Truth is truth and the same reasoning used to discover truth in one realm must be used to discover truth in all other realms.”
Agreed. And that is why there is no such thing as “religious truth”. Science is everything and religion is nothing but wishful thinking.
“then my question is how do they imply that?”
The DNA evidence is much stronger than the fossil record.
“So there is no logical philosophical evidence ”
Scientific evidence is much better than supposed “philosophical evidence”.
“no new information has ever been added to those systems”
Your assertion is incorrect.
“class is starting”
Please go teach at a silly religious school so that the University of California system will assume correctly that your students are not qualified to be admitted without remedial instruction (lawsuit pre-trial motion accepted).
“So if you believe God’s word, blah, blah, blah”
And if you don’t, then silly assertions carry no weight.
“Our best bet is via our heart”
Well, books live on, but hearts stop beating one day. So I’m betting on books.
Clay said on April 12th, 2008 at 1:25 am
~~~~I haven’t said that I don’t believe in God. On the contrary, I do believe in Him. I am saying that we can’t prove his existence via our finite intellect. Our best bet is via our heart, (experietial experience)~~~~
I understand that you believe in God. I disagree with your statements concerning proof that He exists. Evidence for God exists. You argue that a finite intellect can’t prove His existence, perhaps implying that we can’t “know” Him in the intellectual sense, but can only “feel” him through experience.
But there is no need for a finite mind to know everything there is to know about God, to fully comprehend the infinite nature of God to know for certain, through real evidence that He actually exists. This thinking leads down the slippery slope to the end conclusion that we can not know anything for certain, which is illogical.
If you disagree with my point, then please address Romans 1:18-20. Do you believe what God had to say (through Paul) in His Word in Romans 1?
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
onein6billion,
“Well, books live on, but hearts stop beating one day. So I’m betting on books.”
Books aren’t eternal. They too will one day decay. ; )
Onein6Bilion,
Please stop with the personal put downs and one sentence dismissals of serious questions and arguments. The word “silly” does not refute an argument or answer a question. I know it’s tempting to “lower the boom” on people that you think are idiots. I feel the same temptation of pride at times myself. However, we will not get anywhere without respecting others, and snide comments generate lots of heat but little light. We would like this blog to be an honest exchange of ideas about evidence related to the question of God.
If there is something bothering you or you would like to discuss this privately, please drop me an e-mail at seminars@crossexamined.org.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Blessings,
Frank Turek
“You argue that a finite intellect can’t prove His existence, perhaps implying that we can’t “know” Him in the intellectual sense, but can only “feel” him through experience.”
I wouldn’t limit it to “feeling Him”. My contention is that I know God through my relationship with Him. I agree somewhat with what St. Paul says in Romans 1: 18-20 in the sense that it is very persuasive, al least to me, that you can infer that God created nature (argument from design). But, while I am willing to believe that God designed everything we see in nature, I don’t know that.
“This thinking leads down the slippery slope to the end conclusion that we can not know anything for certain, which is illogical.”
I disagree about our inablitiy to possess certain knowledge through our limited finite intelligence is illogical.
I remain convinced that the way we know God is through a relationship with Him. God is a person not a theorum that we can prove.
I don’t have a problem with not being able to know God via my intellect or certain knowledge for that matter. I accept the limitations of the human intellect. In the end, they haven’t stopped me from knowing God personally.
By the way, I am not necessarily against what Frank, you and even the atheists are doing. I find the conversation interesting, or I wouldn’t be here in the first place. I just don’t believe that either side will ever be able to present a final, unassailable argument for their case.
Of course this is just my opinion.
“This thinking leads down the slippery slope to the end conclusion that we can not know anything for certain”
That’s your assertion and I say it’s nonsense.
“Do you believe what God had to say (through Paul) in His Word in Romans 1?”
Of course not.
“Please stop with the personal put downs and one sentence dismissals of serious questions and arguments.”
I have not yet read any serious arguments.
“we will not get anywhere”
Of course not. I certainly did not expect us to “get anywhere”.
“this blog to be an honest exchange of ideas about evidence related to the question of God.”
Since there isn’t any such evidence, …
Ernie,
Since I have no illusions, based on your comments, that any more real evidence will persuade you, I’m content to leave what I have said about evolution at what I’ve said. You can’t show a sunset to someone who refuses to remove his blindfold. YOu have ignored the fact that I proved that “macroevolution” is really “microevolution” — and ignoring inconvenient facts does not make someone a lover of truth.
I will say a few things about “theory” and “truth,” though.
As a science teacher, you should know that a theory is derived as I laid out. You can’t have a hypothesis without a theory, so there is no way that the hypothesis precedes theory. Copernicus developed the Heliocentric Theory because the Church commissioned him to fix the calendar and make it more accurate. When he discovered that the Earth-centric theory wouldn’t fix the calendar for long, he did some calculations based on observations and developed the Heliocentric Theory. From this came various hypotheses, leading to the work of Kepler and Galileo, among others. Much of this observational work led to Newton’s Theory of Gravitation, which led to hypotheses which led to observations that eventually led to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Please note that each of these worked observation-theory-hypotheses-observation-etc.
Also, why is it that nobody says that gravity is a “mere theory” or that Atomic Theory is a “mere theory” or that the Heliocentric theory is a “mere theory” or that Quantum Theory is a “mere theory” or that Relativity is a “mere theory”? Certainly nobody today dismisses these as being “mere theory” — though I will note that the Heliocentric theory did receive the same treatment from Christians as does Evolutionary Theory now. And for exactly the same reasons. Oddly, we now accept Heliocentric theory and Christianity managed to survive. If you have true faith in God, you won’t fear evolutionary theory — which I fear is where too much of the blindness to the facts comes from.
Now, on to truth. Or, more specifically, evidence. What constitutes evidence in physics is not the same as what constitutes evidence in biology, and what constitutes evidence in either of them is now the same as what constitutes evidence in psychology, and what constitutes evidence in any of those three is not the same a what constitutes evidence in literature. One of the primary things that separates the disciplines is what is accepted and acceptable as evidence. In physics and, to a lesser extent, chemistry, repeatable experiments is where you get your evidence from. There is some mathematical reasoning, of course, but this is primarily simple mathematics — and a replicable experiment is expected at some point. At the other end, in literature, let’s take the case of Hamlet. Suppose I have the theory that Hamlet is insane. How can I prove that? Well, there’s some textual evidence. However, someone else may have the theory that Hamlet is only pretending to be insane. The same textual evidence cold then be used to show that he is pretending. Each of us could put on equally convincing versions of the play to show Hamlet as either insane or pretending to be insane. Clearly the evidence available is up for interpretation. That is the very nature of textual evidence.
If we look at the way nature is constituted, where literature is created by the human brain, the human brain is part of a biological body, the biological body is made up of chemicals, and the chemicals are all part of physical reality, we can see a few things. 1) As you move from physics up through literature, the math goes from simple to increasingly difficult; 2) predictability decreases in the same direction; 3) experiments move from repeatable to more and more observation-based (psychology more so than biology); and, 4) the evidence becomes more and more open to interpretation. Now some would say that this means the hard sciences are more true than are the text-based disciplines. It is this attitude which is the real culprit in people learning to disregard religion as weak and unreliable in the fact of the truth of the hard sciences. If you insist on putting them on the same footing, religion is going to continue to lose. But if you come to recognize the fact that religion is making a higher truth claim — but one that is very personal (doesn’t the Bible teach that God is a personal God?) — than the hard sciences, then no amount of scientific evidence in favor of anything will shake your faith in the reality of God’s existence. The only thing that will be shaken — and rightly so, in my opinion — is faith in men who claim things about God, the Bible, and the nature of the world that simply are not true.
If you continue to insist that people choose between something that has enough evidence that any reasonable person would accept it as being true (please to take some Geology to learn why the world isn’t and was never claimed to be the perfect set of columns you claim it should be, and how geologists actually learn the dates of rocks and sediments) and something that by definition requires faith and a personal experience to be accepted a true, then you will continue to lose people to science — and it will be your fault.
Dr. Camplin,
May I ask what your degree is in? If you have posted it elsewhere in these blogs I have missed it and I apologize for asking you to repeat it.
Thanks.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Ernie, you said “Why should we conclude that commonalities imply common ancestor, especially beyond a certain limit such as the Biblical created kind?”
Do you have a way of detecting a Biblical kind? Seem so me something that rigid should be easy to detect. Is there a test that will determine whether two creatures are the same kind or not? Please enlighten us how we can test two creatures to learn whether they are the same kind or not.
Chihuahuas and St Bernards? I think we know they are the same kind because we know their ancestry, but if we didn’t know the ancestry how would we determine whether they were the same kind or not?
Grizzly bears and polar bears? Same kind or not?
Polar bears and panda bears? Same kind or not?
Chimpanzees and gorillas? Same kind or not?
In response to Kendenny on April 14th, 2008 at 11:42 am:
Kendenny, if you will answer the question I asked, then I will answer yours. If you will not I see no reason to answer yours as logical discussion with you will be impossible. If you cannot, then admit so and we will go from there.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
What question was that? You mean “Why should we conclude that commonalities imply common ancestor?”
Because:
1. A common ancestor would account for these commonalities.
2. Commonalities have a tendency to cluster together.
3. The only alternative to common ancestry is billions of species of animals spontaneously appearing out of thin air.
Now please answer my question.
Kendenny,
First, as promised, I will answer your questions then I will challenge the answers you gave to mine.
You asked:
~~~~Do you have a way of detecting a Biblical kind? Is there a test that will determine whether two creatures are the same kind or not? Please enlighten us how we can test two creatures to learn whether they are the same kind or not.~~~~
Yes. Yes. If two creatures are capable of reproduction or at one time (historically) their ancestors were capable of reproduction then they are of the same created Biblical kind.
~~~~Chihuahuas and St Bernards? I think we know they are the same kind because we know their ancestry, but if we didn’t know the ancestry how would we determine whether they were the same kind or not?
Grizzly bears and polar bears? Same kind or not?
Polar bears and panda bears? Same kind or not?
Chimpanzees and gorillas? Same kind or not?~~~~
You began to answer your own question here. Take for example lions and tigers, false killer whales and dolphins, dogs and coyotes, horses and donkeys, and horses and zebras. In each of these pairs they are capable of reproducing so that we can begin to define the kind to which these different species belong. Of course the definition of kind would take quite a bit of observation and research, but can be done.
Now, to your answer:
You said that we should conclude that commonalities IMPLY common ancestors because:
1. A common ancestor would account for these commonalities.
Yes it would. But there are other things that would account for these commonalities do not necessarily imply common ancestry since there are other logical possibilities that account for them as well (e.g. common design).
2. Commonalities have a tendency to cluster together.
You’ll have to expand this one as I don’t know what you mean by “cluster together”. Do you mean in history, geographically, in the fossil record, or within some higher organization of biological taxonomy than species (within genus, family, class, order, etc.)?
3. The only alternative to common ancestry is billions of species of animals spontaneously appearing out of thin air.
By this do you mean to say “billions of species” appearing by supernatural creation?
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Interesting thread… I am enjoying the dialogue…
Two objective observations:
- Ad hominems coming from the “scientific side”
- “Straw man” arguments from the “scientific side”
-Lots of statements made using the word “fact” but most often it seems the statements are opinions or evidence
IMHO, truth in one area of discipline does not necessarilly carry more value than another. As long as the disciplines and standards remain objective and consistent then truth is not in jeopardy.
Does the truth of history fall before the truth of science because the areas utilize different standards or evidence? Do we have to scientifically prove Abraham Lincoln existed or can we soundly rely upon the historical evidence that exists?
One discipline employing different standards does not automatically negate the validity of the other discipline.
One thought I’d like to inject: we can know God exists because He has made Himself known… ranging from the “fact” of creation to the historical narratives that let us know we have been “visited”!
Faith, like science, is based on evidence – sound faith comes from sound evidence; sound science comes from sound evidence – and are they both not best when tested?
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Christians Beware: Intellectual Predators at College, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
Ernie said: “Yes. Yes. If two creatures are capable of reproduction or at one time (historically) their ancestors were capable of reproduction then they are of the same created Biblical kind.”
Great then there is only one Biblical kind because at one time all the ancestors were capable of reproducing.
What I meant by “Commonalities have a tendency to cluster together.” is that with amazing consistency animals which share attribute X also share attribute Y even though X and Y appear to be totally unrelated. Example: Animals which have wishbones also have feathers.
Animals which have hair also produce milk.
Animals which chew cud also have split hooves.
There are thousands of examples.
Kendenny said on April 15th, 2008 at 8:30 am:
~~~~Great then there is only one Biblical kind because at one time all the ancestors were capable of reproducing.~~~~
I believe I understand what you mean, but I will repeat it in my own words to make sure. You are saying that there is only one kind because every animal living had, at one point in time, the same ancestor. This is the definition of common descent and is an unproven assertion by Evolutionists based on assumptions and biased interpretations of the non-existant/fictitious geological column.
So under the Biblical kinds definition we would start with animals that exist today and see if they can breed. Ligers, tigons, wolphins, zedonks, zorses, and so on all show this process in action. Building from that foundation we deal with historical records and determine which animals could breed together. From there we can make logical deductions concerning which animals are of the same kinds and which are not. However, according to ID there will be a genetic barrier that cannot be crossed. Bannanas cannot be the same kind as flies cannot be the same kind as monkeys because of various reasons. Using this process (which I have in no way exhaustively defined here) we come to the definition of kinds.
~~~~What I meant by “Commonalities have a tendency to cluster together.” is that with amazing consistency animals which share attribute X also share attribute Y even though X and Y appear to be totally unrelated. Example: Animals which have wishbones also have feathers.
Animals which have hair also produce milk.
Animals which chew cud also have split hooves.
There are thousands of examples.~~~~
Thank you for clarification. I do understand what you mean. However, this too is an assumption or biased interpretation by Evolutionists. It is like saying that watches, cars, and computers are all of the same class of machine because they all are made of metal, they all use electricity, and they are all man made. This analogy is to show that clusters of common traits also works within the idea of a common designer, a tenant of the ID model.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Ernie,
I have degrees in several fields. I have a B.S. in Recombinant Gene Technology with a minor in chemistry. I did two years of Master’s work in molecular biology before getting bored with it and dropping out to get a M.A. in English. I have a Ph.D. in the Humanities. My Ph.D. dissertation was titled “Evolutionary Aesthetics” and was a fully interdisciplinary dissertation, covering cosmology, quantum physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, religion, and art and literature.
That sounds really cool. Your dissertation would be an interesting read. Is there an online place to get a hold of it?
Thanks for sharing. You have a lot of background in this stuff.
As far as the concept of theory, I respectfully disagree. I can find nothing concerning a theory first scientific method. Everything I can see, everything I have ever read, everything I can find even now except for what you have posted here says hypothesis comes first and then through repeated testing of the hypotheses related to a topic a theory (working model that is still conjectural) is finally formed. Once the theory is proved logically unassailable (generally by reducing it to a mathematical formula) then it becomes law.
Dr. Camplin said:
~~~~Also, why is it that nobody says that gravity is a “mere theory” or that Atomic Theory is a “mere theory” or that the Heliocentric theory is a “mere theory” or that Quantum Theory is a “mere theory” or that Relativity is a “mere theory”? Certainly nobody today dismisses these as being “mere theory” — though I will note that the Heliocentric theory did receive the same treatment from Christians as does Evolutionary Theory now. And for exactly the same reasons. Oddly, we now accept Heliocentric theory and Christianity managed to survive. If you have true faith in God, you won’t fear evolutionary theory — which I fear is where too much of the blindness to the facts comes from.~~~~
As far as I know (and teach my high schoolers) these ARE all theories. They are still conjectural though working models that have undergone at least some testing. In truth, the Heliocentric model is no longer viable since we now know that as a system, the Sun and the Earth actually orbit together around a central axis between their respective axes based on their masses. This central axis exists within the Sun itself because it is so much more massive. But I digress.
What I relegate Macro-evolution to is mere hypothesis, which has much less weight than theory in my mind.
Concerning your points about truth and the various disciplines. I understand the point you are getting at but all of those disciplines (physical sciences, math, literature, etc.) follow the same basic logical laws. The Law of Rationality, the Law of Excluded Middle, and in the case of the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, and biology) the physical Laws of the Unvierse (gravity, motion, thermodynamics, etc.).
I deny the move you make from physics up through biology into literature. Physics, chemistry, and biology are all based on the same physical laws of the universe and ultimately obey them. Literature and its interpretation is a whole different kind of science. It still obeys the laws of rationality, but applying the laws of motion to interpretation of the thoughts of men…that makes a huge assumption I’m not willing to grant.
Finally, it is not logical to attempt to remove biology, the scientific discipline to which the evolutionary model belongs (right or wrong), from the physical sciences and attempt to equate it to interpreting someone’s novel. Nor do I place Creation (or Intelligent Design) in the realm of literature. They deal with physical sciences at LEAST as much as evolution. These two moves by you belittle Creation science and Creationists by saying that evolution is too complex for us to understand and that Creation is about the writings in some book rather than dealing with the physical realities of the universe. It is insulting and I do not accept these assertions you have made.
Dr. Camplin said:
~~~~If you continue to insist that people choose between something that has enough evidence that any reasonable person would accept it as being true (please to take some Geology to learn why the world isn’t and was never claimed to be the perfect set of columns you claim it should be, and how geologists actually learn the dates of rocks and sediments) and something that by definition requires faith and a personal experience to be accepted a true, then you will continue to lose people to science — and it will be your fault.~~~~
The very fact that you made the statement in the first sentence reveals your disdain for Creationists (or IDers). What you imply is that those of us who have seen the same “evidence” as you and did not come to the conclusion you did are not “reasonable people”. You personally insult me by suggesting that I don’t know enough about geology to know that “real” scientists don’t really believe that the geologic column exists, a thing you can’t know from the few brief statements I have made here.
And I must clarify something for you at the very last based on a very wrong assumption you have made about me. I do not believe that my relationship with God is a personal one. My relationship is a covenant one. I have had no “personal” experiences with God so the faith that I have does not require such to be accepted as true. I am a member of the church of Christ and our faith is founded on knowledge. It is the recognition of the implications of observable truth to those things which are hoped for yet unseen (Heb. 11:1). My faith is not blind at all. So please do not lump me in with those who “feel” their way into faith and live by such a tenuous thread. My feelings follow reason, not the other way around.
And just as an aside as a partially relevant fact, I am an amateur author seeking to publish his first novel so I know a little something about that, too.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Well, I’m of the opinion that religion deals with higher truth than does science, which merely deals with fact, so I find attempts to reduce God to science degrading and insulting to religion. Literature is not inferior to what is studied by science — it is more complex, in fact.
As for myself, my relationship with God is quite personal. (I sometimes feel like it’s too personal, but that’s for God to judge, not me.) We’re supposed to have a personal relationship with God as mediated through the Holy Ghost — jesus said he would send a comforter. The whole point of Jesus’ coming into the world was to make our relationship personal.
I did post my dissertation online at http://www.evolutoinaryaesthetics.blogspot.com if you’re interested in reading it. A warning: it’s in reverse order, so you need to start at the end and work your way back. Just the way blogspot works, I’m afraid.
Good luck on your novel. I have a few novel manuscripts in the works, but I’ve recently concentrated more on my poetry, plays, and on scholarly and blog work.
Ernie,
You said:
“And I must clarify something for you at the very last based on a very wrong assumption you have made about me. I do not believe that my relationship with God is a personal one. My relationship is a covenant one. I have had no “personal” experiences with God so the faith that I have does not require such to be accepted as true. I am a member of the church of Christ and our faith is founded on knowledge.”
Saying that you don’t have a personal relationship with God, just one based on a covenant sounds an awful like you believe that there is a
God, but you don’t walk with him in any personal way.
Even the demons believe that there is a God. So what?
I find it hard to believe that God just wants us to follow a bunch of laws based on a covenant but doesn’t desire a personal relationship with Him based on love. Would you say that you believe in God through a convenant but don’t actually love him, as that would be personal?
Just curious.
Troy Camplin, Ph.D. said April 16th, 2008 at 1:17 pm:
~~~~Well, I’m of the opinion that religion deals with higher truth than does science, which merely deals with fact, so I find attempts to reduce God to science degrading and insulting to religion. Literature is not inferior to what is studied by science — it is more complex, in fact.~~~~
I suppose each is entitled to their own thoughts on matters of opinion. I do not “reduce” God to science, but I do believe that God can be discovered and proved through science.
~~~~As for myself, my relationship with God is quite personal. (I sometimes feel like it’s too personal, but that’s for God to judge, not me.) We’re supposed to have a personal relationship with God as mediated through the Holy Ghost — jesus said he would send a comforter. The whole point of Jesus’ coming into the world was to make our relationship personal.~~~~
The Comforter was promised to the Apostles in John 14-16. Jesus was talking to the Apostles and promised the Comforter would be sent to them.
As for the Holy Spirit is a mediator between God and man I offer the following passages for your perusal [CAPS for emphasis only]:
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and ONE mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Hebrews 8:6
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is THE mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Hebrews 9:15
And for this cause he is THE mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Hebrews 12:24
And to Jesus THE mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
~~~~I did post my dissertation online at http://www.evolutoinaryaesthetics.blogspot.com if you’re interested in reading it. A warning: it’s in reverse order, so you need to start at the end and work your way back. Just the way blogspot works, I’m afraid.~~~
Bookmarked. Thanks! (Btw, just a heads up…the link is spelled wrong. The evolutOInary should be spelled evolutIOnary in case others are trying to follow the link as well. But copy, paste, and correct the spelling takes you right to it.)
~~~~Good luck on your novel. I have a few novel manuscripts in the works, but I’ve recently concentrated more on my poetry, plays, and on scholarly and blog work.~~~~
Thanks! It’s definitely an adventure. I wish you success in your literary endeavors as well!
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Sorry about the typo.
Yes, Jesus is the mediator — I misspoke (miswrote?). But as a trinitarian, I don’t believe that the comforter — the holy spirit — was meant only for the apostles. The holy spirit is with us always, to comfort us in our faith. Jesus is mediator (Defender of us to God the Judge, to challenge the accusations of the Accuser). That actually drives my point home even more about us having a personal relationship with God. One aspect, the Holy Ghost, is with us always as comforter, another, Jesus, is our mediator. That makes our relationship with God pretty personal if you ask me.
Perhaps this is getting off topic of the blog, but I believe it to be an important discussion.
Given that in John 14-16 Jesus is only talking to the Apostles and says that the Comforter would be sent to “you” [the Apostles], what passages would you give to show that the Holy Spirit is with us in the same manner as He was with the Apostles (immediate, literal indwelling as opposed to mediate – through a medium, non-literal indwelling)?
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Ernie,
The problem with interpreting John 14-16 as meaning that the Comforter (Holy Spirit) was only promised to the disciples, (because he was talking to them), opens up the ridiculous notion that everything Jesus told them was “just for them”.
Were the Beatitudes meant only for the crowd that he addressed them to? Was Jesus’ message of the need to be “born again” meant only for Nicodemus? When Jesus taught his disciples how to pray (the Lord’s Prayer) meant only for them? Are we to disregard every teaching that Jesus taught to his disciples, or any other audience for that matter, because he was addressing his message to them?
What about the references to the Holy Spirit mentioned outside the Gospels in the New Testament?
I’m not trying to be a smart alek here. But, there is a serious problem with your isolation of the Holy Spirit for only his disciples.
Clay said April 17th, 2008 at 7:34 pm:
~~~~The problem with interpreting John 14-16 as meaning that the Comforter (Holy Spirit) was only promised to the disciples, (because he was talking to them), opens up the ridiculous notion that everything Jesus told them was “just for them”.~~~~
That is not a necessary inference of my proposition. There are plenty of times where Jesus spoke in 17:20 of “all who believe on me through their word”.
~~~~Were the Beatitudes meant only for the crowd that he addressed them to? Was Jesus’ message of the need to be “born again” meant only for Nicodemus? When Jesus taught his disciples how to pray (the Lord’s Prayer) meant only for them? Are we to disregard every teaching that Jesus taught to his disciples, or any other audience for that matter, because he was addressing his message to them?~~~~
No. We are to use our heads and read the context. When Jesus taught the sermon on the mount he spoke in generalities. He did not say “Blessed are you…” He said “Blessed are the [whatever]” Was Jesus talking directly to us when in Acts 1:4 he “commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father”?
All it takes is a tiny bit of thought to realize who Jesus is speaking to in any given situation. And technically, Jesus was not speaking TO either of us, nor were any of the writers writing TO us. But the things contained in the NT are FOR us, apply to us directly in a lot of places, and are authoritative over us.
~~~~What about the references to the Holy Spirit mentioned outside the Gospels in the New Testament?~~~~
You will have to provide specific examples. But it is my belief that the Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles directly on Pentecost (and only the Apostles) and could pass on the Holy Spirit to others only by the laying on of hands (Acts 8). Cornelius (Acts 10-11) was an exception for an explicitly stated purpose (stated in that context). After the Word was fully delivered, the purpose of miracles ceased and so the literal indwelling, the source of the miracles ended (1 Cor. 13:8f).
~~~~I’m not trying to be a smart alek here. But, there is a serious problem with your isolation of the Holy Spirit for only his disciples.~~~~
Not at all. I did not take your questions as attempts at sarcasm. I took them to be honest questions. They are questions I receive and answer quite often, especially when folks find out I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit literally indwells men today. I appreciate that you ask them kindly.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Ernie,
“And technically, Jesus was not speaking TO either of us, nor were any of the writers writing TO us. But the things contained in the NT are FOR us, apply to us directly in a lot of places, and are authoritative over us.”
Exactly, so if the “Comforter” was for his disciples then, the Comforter is for us as well.
“After the Word was fully delivered, the purpose of miracles ceased and so the literal indwelling, the source of the miracles ended (1 Cor. 13:8f).”
I would have to definately disagree with you that miracles ended. 10 days ago, a block from where I live, a 3 year old boy fell from the second story window of his house, head first, striking his head on the corner of the third concrete step. The fall was measured to have been 22 feet. He didn’t hit the grass, but hardened concrete.
There has been a prayer vigil each night at 7:00 at the house next door for this child. As of today, the report is that, not only was his air tube extracted yesterday, but he is breathing fine on his own, is now on solid foods, and is sitting up and talking fluidly. His eyes, which earlier on were positioned in diverse positions are now positioned normally and he is watching TV. He is moving his limbs normally. The prognosis, so far, is that by Saturday, he will be moved out of Intensive Care into a normal hospital room.
This is a miracle. By all accounts, this child should be either dead or at least severly brain damaged. Miracles and the power of prayer still matter. Even today. The very idea that thousands are fed with a single basket of fish and bread surpasses this child’s revovery is ludicrous. In fact, if given the choice, I would pick this child’s speed recovery from a fall so great and devasting to his brain over any fish and bread miracle any day.
“No. We are to use our heads and read the context.”
To which I would argue that all that Jesus said is meant for us. Period.
I’m sorry, but I see no reason to accept your notion that we can seperate Jesus’ promise of a Comforter (Holy Spirit) from us and that it was only meant for his disciples back then; and yet make exceptions for every thing else he said.
Either Jesus came to teach us all the truth about God for us, or he came for a select few (which is very gnostic leaning).
I suspect that this view of yours is yours alone and not necessarily representative of the Church of Christ.
There is no evidence that miracles necessarily stopped in New Testament times. In fact, Jesus did say that all we have to have is the faith of a mustard seed and we will be able to literally move mountains. If there is a lack of people performing miracles, that is due to a lack of faith and nothing else.
Also, I agree that just because Jesus was addressing the apostles, that doesn’t mean the message or information wasn’t for us. Quite the contrary, in fact. It seems to me that if it was made public through the writings of the New Testament, it was precisely meant for all believers in Christ.
FurtherL
Luke 11:13 — If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
John 1:33 — And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost
John 7:39 — (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
1 Corinthians 12:3 — Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
(this one in particular should make it quite clear that the Holy Ghost is with us, for we cannot even say that Jesus is the Lord, but through the presence of the Holy Ghost)
Matthew 1:18 — Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
(here is a reference to the Holy Ghost before there were any apostles)
Matthew 3:11 — spoken by John the Baptist — I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Matthew 12:31-32 — Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
John 14:26 — But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Romans 14:17 — For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
1 Corinthians 6:19 — What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
1 John 5:7 — For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
I would hope that this sufficiently proves what I said about the Comforter/Holy Ghost. 1 Cor. 6:19 shows us that our relationship with God is quite personal, as, through the Holy Ghost, he lives in us, that our bodies are His temple.
Clay said April 17th, 2008 at 11:16 pm:
~~~~Exactly, so if the “Comforter” was for his disciples then, the Comforter is for us as well.~~~~
You did not answer my question. Was the command in Acts 1:4 something that pertains directly to us? If not, why not?
~~~~I would have to definately disagree with you that miracles ended. 10 days ago, a block from where I live, a 3 year old boy fell…
…This is a miracle. By all accounts, this child should be either dead or at least severly brain damaged..~~~~
In the Bible, miracles had a complete and immediate effect. When the Apostles or Jesus healed someone it happened in an instant. Have miracles somehow weakened since the time of the Apostles? Or perhaps there is a natural explanation for the events surrounding this boy. It is a happy thing that happened to him, that he survived such a fall and is recovering and I am glad that he is. But God designed the human body, especially during our youth, to be resilient.
~~~~Miracles….still matter even today.~~~~
Miracles of the Bible had a very specific and stated purpose, to confirm the Word (Mark 16:20; Heb. 2:3-4). Once the Word was complete (that which is perfect is come – 1 Cor. 13:10 KJV), the purpose of miracles ended (that which is in part shall be done away – KJV). Paul compares miracles to childish things (1 Cor. 13:11). What purpose do miracles serve today? It cannot be to bring faith because faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom. 10:17).
I believe that miracles took place at one time for a specific purpose, but see no reason to believe that they take place today.
~~~~…the power of prayer still matter Even today.~~~~
I completely believe in the power of prayer, but God answers that prayer through Providence, not through the miraculous. Else the healing would be instantaneous as in the scriptures.
~~~~The very idea that thousands are fed with a single basket of fish and bread surpasses this child’s revovery is ludicrous. In fact, if given the choice, I would pick this child’s speed recovery from a fall so great and devasting to his brain over any fish and bread miracle any day.~~~~
So you would take the slow and painful recovery of a child to the immediate, full recovery type of miracle? Interesting choice.
~~~~To which I would argue that all that Jesus said is meant for us. Period.~~~~
Clay, that is exactly what I said. Everything that Jesus said, everything that the Apostles wrote, everything from Genesis to Revelation is meant FOR us. But the book of Galatians was written TO the churches of Galatia (Gal. 1:2), the books of 1 and 2 Corinthians were written TO that congregation (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1).
Again I would ask, does Jesus’ command in Acts 1:4 apply directly to you and/or me?
~~~~Either Jesus came to teach us all the truth about God for us, or he came for a select few (which is very gnostic leaning).~~~~
I assure you that I am anti-gnostic in my teachings and practices and it will not do to try and associate me with that heresy. Jesus came to teach all truth about God FOR us, FOR everyone and there is not one jot or tittle of the Bible that is not useful to each and every human of all time. That is not the point I am making. All I am saying is that we have to reason properly about which things apply directly TO us in a specific manner and which only are for our learning.
I believe that the literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit does not apply directly to anyone today. There are millions who claim to have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them today and they are all teaching different things, sowing confusion by their plethora of doctrines. If you believe the Holy Spirit IS God and you believe 1 Cor. 14:33, then you can see why I don’t believe any of you concerning this matter.
Furthermore, I believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, in Jesus’ nature as being God. I have repented of my sins unto God, confessed my faith to other men (as I have done so here), and been immersed in water into Christ in order to obtain remission of my sins. In short, I have been saved by the blood of Christ. Yet I do not have the Holy Spirit literally living in me. He dwells in me, to be sure, but does so just as Jesus and the Father dwell in me, that is to say through the medium of the Word.
So, I would ask you, Clay, to prove to me that you have this literal indwelling. Why should I believe you above all those others who make the same claim but teach completely different doctrines?
~~~~I suspect that this view of yours is yours alone and not necessarily representative of the Church of Christ.~~~~
It is not representative of those congregations that have fallen into liberalism and ecuminicalism, but it is representative of a good number of those within the faithful congregations.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
1 John 5:7 — For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
What could be more clear than that? You have to square what you have claimed with the long list of Bible verses I quotes above, and I don’t think you can. The NT clearly states that the Holy Ghost is God and that the Holy Ghost literally lives in each and every one of us who have accepted Christ. If you don’t feel His presence, well, that’s between you and God.
Troy Camplin, Ph.D. said April 18th, 2008 at 3:47 pm:
~~~~1 John 5:7 — For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
What could be more clear than that? You have to square what you have claimed with the long list of Bible verses I quotes above, and I don’t think you can. The NT clearly states that the Holy Ghost is God and that the Holy Ghost literally lives in each and every one of us who have accepted Christ. If you don’t feel His presence, well, that’s between you and God.~~~~
Let me first apologize. I was composing and about to post when you posted yours with all those verses. I did not think to check if anyone posted after Clay and did not see yours until now. I will address it now. Please remember, CAPS is for emphasis only, and not because I’m yelling.
Also, please realize I am not arguing against the Holy Ghost dwelling in men. I am arguing against the premise that that indwelling is literal. I believe in a mediate indwelling with the medium being the Word. God, the Father and Son and the Holy Ghost all dwell in us, but none argue that the Father and Son dwell in us literally. So to convince me you will have to show not only an indwelling, but the mode or medium (literal vs. the word) and duration (limited or unlimited) of that particular type of indwelling.
As for 1 John 5:7, the verse affirms that the Father, the Word [Jesus Christ], and the Holy Ghost bear record in HEAVEN. What does this have to do with the Holy Ghost literally indwelling men today?
Troy Camplin, Ph.D. said April 18th, 2008 at 10:52 am:
~~~~There is no evidence that miracles necessarily stopped in New Testament times. In fact, Jesus did say that all we have to have is the faith of a mustard seed and we will be able to literally move mountains. If there is a lack of people performing miracles, that is due to a lack of faith and nothing else. ~~~~
I have already submitted 1 Cor. 13:8 as scriptural evidence of the duration of miracles. Matthew 17:20 that you referred to above only deals with “what” would happen, not “how long”. Of course all it would take to convince me that I am wrong is one miracle worked in my observation.
~~~~Also, I agree that just because Jesus was addressing the apostles, that doesn’t mean the message or information wasn’t for us. Quite the contrary, in fact. It seems to me that if it was made public through the writings of the New Testament, it was precisely meant for all believers in Christ.~~~~
Once again I will repeat myself. The things Christ said, the entirety of the NT and the Bible as a whole are FOR all men of all time. However, they are not TO anyone but those specifically addressed.
~~~~Luke 11:13 — If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?~~~~
In what manner was the Holy Spirit given and for how long?
~~~~John 1:33 — And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost~~~~
This is a direct reference by John the Immerser about Jesus the Christ. It has no bearing on this discussion.
~~~~John 7:39 — (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) ~~~~
Again in what manner would the Holy Ghost be given, for what purpose and for how long?
~~~~1 Corinthians 12:3 — Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
(this one in particular should make it quite clear that the Holy Ghost is with us, for we cannot even say that Jesus is the Lord, but through the presence of the Holy Ghost)~~~~
This passage does not say “but through the presence of” the Holy Ghost but simply “but by the Holy Ghost”. That the Holy Ghost inspired the writings of the NT which we now read and by which faith comes (Rom. 10:17) all who read and believe the NT can say that Jesus is Lord.
Point of evidence: I do not have the Holy Ghost literally in me as you are arguing but I do, in fact, acknowledge that Jesus Christ is not only Lord, King, and God, but MY Lord, King, and God.
~~~~Matthew 1:18 — Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
(here is a reference to the Holy Ghost before there were any apostles)~~~~
There are plenty of references to the Holy Ghost dwelling in men before the coming of Christ. 2 Pet. 1:21 states that all who prophesied were so directly moved. We are not talking about when the time of the indwelling began, but if and when it ended.
This passage is irrelevant to the point at hand.
~~~~Matthew 3:11 — spoken by John the Baptist — I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:~~~~
Both of these immersions took place. The Holy Ghost on Pentecost and the fire in AD 70.
~~~~Matthew 12:31-32 — Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. ~~~~
This has nothing to do with proving the literal indwelling of the Holy Ghost. Nor have I said anything evil, slanderous, or irreverently of the Holy Ghost.
Again, this verse does not apply to the discussion.
~~~~John 14:26 — But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ~~~~
Spoken directly to the Apostles. It is obvious to me that the Holy Spirit does not literally (or through the Word) dwell in all those who claim to have Him dwelling in them literally because most can’t remember anything more than John 3:16 a far cry from “all things”.
How this is FOR us is that it teaches us the source and flow of authority. Father to Son to Holy Ghost to Apostles to inspired writers to the written word.
~~~~Romans 14:17 — For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. ~~~~
This speaks of joy in the Holy Ghost, not the Holy Ghost in us.
~~~~1 Corinthians 6:19 — What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? ~~~~
Here we have reference to the Holy Ghost in the body (which I believe to be the church, singular, not our bodies, plural) but no reference to what type of indwelling nor duration. In John 14:23 Jesus told the Apostles that ANYONE who kept His words, He and the Father would come and make their abodes with them. Yet no one argues that this is a literal indwelling. In 1 Cor. 6, I believe we have same kind of mediate indwelling as spoken of in John 14:23.
~~~~I would hope that this sufficiently proves what I said about the Comforter/Holy Ghost. 1 Cor. 6:19 shows us that our relationship with God is quite personal, as, through the Holy Ghost, he lives in us, that our bodies are His temple.~~~~
It does not. I have to go for now, but in my next post I will present more detailed arguments to show a limited duration, purpose, and process for the literal indwelling.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
All this proves to me is that once you have made up your mind, no amount of evidence will convince you. Just remember that the Word IS God
Say whatever you like about me but that does not constitute a rational argument against the case I make.
Now, on to 1 Cor. 13 and miracles.
If you look at 1 Cor. 13:8 you will see that Paul lists three miraculous forms of communicating God’s will to men: prophecies, languages [tongues], and miraculous knowledge. These three things stand in for all the miracles within chapter 12-14. He then states emphatically that these things would end. Paul then writes that the reason for this is that they of that time knew in part and prophesied in part but that when that which is perfect (complete, not-partial) came, that which was partial would pass away.
Contextually it must be the case that the type of thing that was not-partial is the type of thing that the partial things were, a form of communicating God’s will. The only complete thing we have today is the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16-17) therefore it is reasonable to conclude that when the Bible was fully delivered (and confirmed by the other miracles) there was no need for the miracles any more.
Miracles were for an immature church, during its infancy. After the complete revelation of God’s will to man, it was time for the church to put away childish things. He compared miracles also to looking into a dark mirror but to that time when the non-partial would come that it would be looking as if face to face (a clear mirror such as we have today). The one, complete, objective standard we have today to hold up to our lives and compare it to is the Bible.
As for the literal indwelling of the Holy Ghost, which enabled these miracles, I would ask you both this: When does the Holy Spirit take up this supposed literal indwelling in an individuals life?
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Ernie,
“Was the command in Acts 1:4 something that pertains directly to us? If not, why not?”
It pertains only in the promise of the Holy Spirit coming to be our comfort and teacher. Of course, it doesn’t mean that we should tarry in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit. That’s just silly. That part about waiting in Jerusalem obviously was meant for his disciples at that time. I’m confused as to why you are splitting such insignifcant hairs that anyone with common sense can distinguish between.
“In the Bible, miracles had a complete and immediate effect. When the Apostles or Jesus healed someone it happened in an instant. Have miracles somehow weakened since the time of the Apostles?
I see no reason to believe that God’s miracles have “weakened since the time of the Apostles”. First off, there have been reports of “instentaneous miracles” through out history. Of course, there is always room for doubt by skeptics, which of course would also have been true in Jesus day.
Secondly, you seem to be tying God down to only providing instant miracles. Are you sure He isn’t free to work miracles within any time frame that He wishes?
“Or perhaps there is a natural explanation for the events surrounding this boy. It is a happy thing that happened to him, that he survived such a fall and is recovering and I am glad that he is. But God designed the human body, especially during our youth, to be resilient.”
I agree with you, to some extent, that children’s bodies are much more reslient that ours, but were the really designed to withstand a 22 foot fall, head first onto the corner of a concrete step? That resilient? Really?
“Miracles of the Bible had a very specific and stated purpose, to confirm the Word (Mark 16:20; Heb. 2:3-4). Once the Word was complete (that which is perfect is come – 1 Cor. 13:10 KJV), the purpose of miracles ended (that which is in part shall be done away – KJV).
Has the Word been confirmed for every person around us? I see know reason to assume that miracles aren’t just as important for the people today than they were to people back then. Especially, when we live in a much more technologically advanced world that would seem to rely more on man’s ingenuity over problems, than the need for a God to help us.
Paul compares miracles to childish things (1 Cor. 13:11). What purpose do miracles serve today? It cannot be to bring faith because faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom. 10:17).
Simply hearing the Word of God preached on TV, in a church doesn’t convince the masses today. There are plenty of people today who distrust the TV evangalist as well as the Church. These people need more than just “words” that the can demonstrate from their experience have become hollow amidst the hypocrisy that those very pronouncers and believers of the “word” have more loudly demonstrated. These people would greatly benefit from a miracle.
“I believe that miracles took place at one time for a specific purpose, but see no reason to believe that they take place today.”
Again, there is a certain arrogance that we modern 22nd Century people try to assert over the people “back then”; that they were somehow more primitive and needed miracles to convince them. I can assure you that not much about human nature has really changed since then.
“I completely believe in the power of prayer, but God answers that prayer through Providence, not through the miraculous. Else the healing would be instantaneous as in the scriptures.”
Ah, Providence. That is a very tricky theological topic to tackle. One thing is clear though, when God (the supernatural) interferes with the natural course of events to affect a certain outcome, that is a miracle.
In other words, the presence of the supernatural, changing the outcome of a natural event is in fact a miracle – as without the supernatural intervention, nature would have taken its course.
“So you would take the slow and painful recovery of a child to the immediate, full recovery type of miracle? Interesting choice.”
First off, there has been no indication, from the parents’ daily updates of any suffering and pain on the part of their child. He is being weaned off of powerful medications that were administred to alleviate any possible pain and suffering. Secondly, slow? Come on after only 10 days, really less, the child was alert, talking, and able to watch TV and interact with his family.
But, even in cases of recovery where there is pain and suffering and slow progress, are we really in any position to judge God in the way that He works. Especially, when we see maybe only 1 percent of the entire situation. We do not have the luxury of seeing what God see with respect to the situation.
“Clay, that is exactly what I said. Everything that Jesus said, everything that the Apostles wrote, everything from Genesis to Revelation is meant FOR us.
Then where do you get the idea that everything is for us, except the Great Comforter (Holy Spirit) if everything Jesus said applies to us?
But the book of Galatians was written TO the churches of Galatia (Gal. 1:2), the books of 1 and 2 Corinthians were written TO that congregation (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1).”
True enough. Just like the book of Revelation was written by John (not necessarily the apostle by that name) for a 1rst century Christian audience, and not, as Hal Lindsey and others assume only for us at the “end times”. However, that being said, while we aren’t members of the church at Galacia back then, we aren’t immune to the same temptations and trappings that they fell into. (Unless you believe that we have somehow advanced morally and intellectually beyond those poor ancient saps).
” I assure you that I am anti-gnostic in my teachings and practices and it will not do to try and associate me with that heresy.”
I think that you have misunderstood me. I wasn’t trying to associate you with them, or accusing you of their heresy.
“Jesus came to teach all truth about God FOR us, FOR everyone and there is not one jot or tittle of the Bible that is not useful to each and every human of all time. That is not the point I am making. All I am saying is that we have to reason properly about which things apply directly TO us in a specific manner and which only are for our learning.”
Which again, contradicts your attempt to alledge that the Great Comforter (Holy Spirit) was only for the disciples back then.
“I believe that the literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit does not apply directly to anyone today. There are millions who claim to have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them today and they are all teaching different things, sowing confusion by their plethora of doctrines. If you believe the Holy Spirit IS God and you believe 1 Cor. 14:33, then you can see why I don’t believe any of you concerning this matter.”
Troy Camplin has already provided you with ample scriptures which serve to contradict your insistence that the Holy Spirit doesn’t dwell within you. Take for existence:
“1 Corinthians 6:19 — What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?”
So, is the same true for you that Jesus does not come into our hearts as our Lord and Savior? If so, why does He bother knocking at our heart’s door?
Furthermore, I believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, in Jesus’ nature as being God. I have repented of my sins unto God, confessed my faith to other men (as I have done so here), and been immersed in water into Christ in order to obtain remission of my sins. In short, I have been saved by the blood of Christ.”
I am NOT questioning your salvation and Christianity, so, I’m not sure why you included your profession in this post.
“Yet I do not have the Holy Spirit literally living in me. He dwells in me, to be sure, …”
So, the Holy Spirit is not living in you, but He is dwelling in you? That’s confusing. (Refer back to Troy’s quote of 1 Corinthins 6:19)
“…but does so just as Jesus and the Father dwell in me, that is to say through the medium of the Word.”
Is not the Word God? (ref John 1:1)
So, I would ask you, Clay, to prove to me that you have this literal indwelling. Why should I believe you above all those others who make the same claim but teach completely different doctrines?”
First off anyone can teach different doctrines. That is inherant in the weakness of the sinful, finite minds of mankind. Anyone can be sincerely decieved. Anyone can be a fake believer. But why would you want to throw the baby out with the bath water just because there have been those professing to be believers that actually weren’t?
This has been central in my problem with those who are quick to point to abuses of the Church in history (i.e. the Spanish Inquisition). There aren’t any sensors installed in the Church’s entrance doors that will identify who is for real and who isn’t. Even Satan is present in Church on Sunday morning. Just because evil men have held positions of power in the Church doesn’t negate the value of the founder’s (Jesus’) teachings.
And it’s not just evil men. There are people who attend Church every time the door is open who have been decieved into thinking that they are Christians who are worshipping God, when, what they are really worshipping is a particular version of the Bible, a particular denomination, a particuar doctrine, a particular pastor/priest.
So, Ernie. I stand behind what I have said to you. And I believe we have wrapped up the Acts 1:4 and the Holy Spirit/Jesus/God indwelling in me issues.
Ernie,
“He compared miracles also to looking into a dark mirror but to that time when the non-partial would come that it would be looking as if face to face (a clear mirror such as we have today). ”
The, “now we see through a glass darkly” scripture is usually interpreted by scholars to refer to the limits of our spiritual understanding down here in our finite, earthly lives as opposed to what we will finally understand in the after life, not as you are suggesting.
You seem to be trying to bend scripture to support your disbelief in a literal in dwelling of the Holy Spirit/Jesus/ and God within us.
“~~~~1 Corinthians 6:19 — What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? ~~~~
Here we have reference to the Holy Ghost in the body (which I believe to be the church, singular, not our bodies, plural) but no reference to what type of indwelling nor duration.”
Where do you get plural our of “your body” in the verse? Again, you seem to prone to try and bend scripture to support your conclusions.
Clay said April 18th, 2008 at 10:15 pm:
~~~~It pertains only in the promise of the Holy Spirit coming to be our comfort and teacher. Of course, it doesn’t mean that we should tarry in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit. That’s just silly. That part about waiting in Jerusalem obviously was meant for his disciples at that time. I’m confused as to why you are splitting such insignifcant hairs that anyone with common sense can distinguish between.~~~~
You label them “insignificant” yet you do recognize at the same time that not all statements made in scripture apply directly to us. All I am asking you to do is show why the statements made explicitly to the Apostles apply to us today? What makes you believe, from the context of John 14 and the Bible as a whole that the promise that the Holy Ghost would literally be in “you” and “bring all things to YOUR remembrance” applies to us rather than just to the Apostles.
~~~~I see no reason to believe that God’s miracles have “weakened since the time of the Apostles”. First off, there have been reports of “instentaneous miracles” through out history. Of course, there is always room for doubt by skeptics, which of course would also have been true in Jesus day.~~~~
The short way to convince me is to show me the miracle. And please don’t go to the whole Matt. 12:39 “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign” excuse unless you can prove that I am either evil or spiritually adulterous according to scripture. This is just a convenient cover for those who can’t do the miracles. There were plenty of people in Jesus day who did seek after a sign and who received one.
The long way is to show me from scripture where I am in error about the limited duration, purpose, and manner of the Holy Spirit’s literal indwelling.
~~~~Secondly, you seem to be tying God down to only providing instant miracles. Are you sure He isn’t free to work miracles within any time frame that He wishes?~~~~
It is sheer arrogance for a human to “tie God down” or limit God in anyway. I certainly would never attempt such a thing if such a thing can even be attempted. What I can and have done is discovered what God has revealed to us in scripture that He did do, does do now, and will do in the future and stated that discovery. To accuse me of limiting God or even attempting to is to accuse me of extreme ignorance about the nature of God or insanity.
Can God work miracles within any time frame He wishes? Yes. That does not constitute proof that He works them today, or that He works them today in a manner completely different than that which is recorded in scripture. Miracles in scripture were spectacular or at least obviously supernatural and always took place immediately. “Let there be light…and light existed.” The parting of the Red Sea, the 10 plagues, the resurrection of the dead, healing.
Yet you describe a so-called miracle that can possibly be explained by natural causes and processes. How do I, or more importantly an agnostic you are trying to preach to, distinguish what you described from a happy series of natural events that lead to that child’s recovery?
When Christ was resurrected from the dead, there was no doubt about it and the Jews had to work hard to cover it up because of its obviousness (they had to bribe the guards to lie, knowing it was a lie – Matt. 28:11-15). When Lazarus was resurrected, it was so well known and devastating to the Jewish leaders’ teachings they sought to kill Lazarus (John 12:9-11). When the man was healed in Acts 3 it could not be denied by the Jewish leaders (Acts 4:16-17). I am not an enemy of the kingdom of Christ like these men were. Even they could not deny the miracles done by the Apostles. Your event is nothing like the event known as “miracle” in the Bible. It is along the same lines as those who would describe BIRTH as a miracle (when it is a natural process designed by God at Creation with known natural causes).
~~~~I agree with you, to some extent, that children’s bodies are much more reslient that ours, but were the really designed to withstand a 22 foot fall, head first onto the corner of a concrete step? That resilient? Really?~~~~
If the angles and force of impact are within certain parameters, yes. The injury sustained could be survived and recovered from naturally. Suffice to say the recovery you describe sounds nothing like the miracles described in scripture.
~~~~Has the Word been confirmed for every person around us?~~~~
Yes, in the sense I was speaking of, it has. When it was first being taught and written down they needed some proof that the speaker spoke for God. They did not have the complete Bible to compare to internally as we do today. Now that we have the complete whole, the internal perfection serve as a confirming mechanism. Unless you wish to argue that new truths are being revealed, in which case 2 Pet. 1:3 and Jude 3 are not true, then the confirmation of the Word while it was being revealed is done.
~~~~I see know reason to assume that miracles aren’t just as important for the people today than they were to people back then. Especially, when we live in a much more technologically advanced world that would seem to rely more on man’s ingenuity over problems, than the need for a God to help us.~~~~
You should never assume anything. I showed you that miracles were called childish things by Paul and once the complete Word was delivered it was time to put away the toys. You, Clay, and those who believe as you do, still cling to those childish things and I say this in as kind a way as I can, it is time for you to mature.
~~~~Simply hearing the Word of God preached on TV, in a church doesn’t convince the masses today. There are plenty of people today who distrust the TV evangalist as well as the Church. These people need more than just “words” that the can demonstrate from their experience have become hollow amidst the hypocrisy that those very pronouncers and believers of the “word” have more loudly demonstrated. These people would greatly benefit from a miracle.~~~~
I am only saying what the scriptures teach. That the Word of God is the source of faith. If you don’t think the scriptures are right any more, that is your business. I don’t care what individual is doing the preaching I compare all that they teach to scripture and if there is a contradiction, the Bible wins every time. I just had a serious disagreement with the preacher of my own congregation about a sermon he gave on angels. We went to the scriptures and I reasoned from them and he changed his mind on some parts and asked to study further on some others. If these televangelists are preaching something, everyone has the individual responsibility to take out their Bible and study for themselves to see if the things they say are so (Acts 17:11).
None of this changes the stated purpose of miracles in the scripture. I do not doubt that you desire to have them. I do not doubt that you feel they should still be around. However, I see no REASON to believe that they are.
~~~~Again, there is a certain arrogance that we modern 22nd Century people try to assert over the people “back then”; that they were somehow more primitive and needed miracles to convince them. I can assure you that not much about human nature has really changed since then.~~~~
Actually I believe it has. I believe we have degenerated from that time as a race. I believe we are not as intelligent as they were, not as physically sound. That is the power of the perfection of the Bible as the objective standard. Humans degrade. It does not.
It is not about them being more stupid than we. It has to do with the fact that God’s will was not fully delivered and needed some proof as it was being delivered that what was being delivered was in fact God’s word. We are stupid and jaded enough today that if God had waited till now to send Jesus and reveal the NT to us, even fewer people would get it than then.
~~~~Ah, Providence. That is a very tricky theological topic to tackle. One thing is clear though, when God (the supernatural) interferes with the natural course of events to affect a certain outcome, that is a miracle. In other words, the presence of the supernatural, changing the outcome of a natural event is in fact a miracle – as without the supernatural intervention, nature would have taken its course.~~~~
I agree. Providence is entirely natural. It is the omnipotent God working through the initial design of the universe to answer each individual prayer rather than through direct intervention. This is the thing that gripes atheists. They say “how can you tell the difference between God answering no and there not being a God to answer at all?” They have this concept of God that says that any answered prayer must be of the miraculous nature and when the flash bangs don’t go off today that they expect they say “see, there really is no God.” If you understand Providence as defined by scripture, then their questions are much easier, at least in my experience, to answer.
~~~~First off, there has been no indication, from the parents’ daily updates of any suffering and pain on the part of their child. He is being weaned off of powerful medications that were administred to alleviate any possible pain and suffering. Secondly, slow? Come on after only 10 days, really less, the child was alert, talking, and able to watch TV and interact with his family.~~~~
10 days is infinitely slow compared to instantaneous.
~~~~But, even in cases of recovery where there is pain and suffering and slow progress, are we really in any position to judge God in the way that He works. Especially, when we see maybe only 1 percent of the entire situation. We do not have the luxury of seeing what God see with respect to the situation.~~~~
I am not judging God. I have no basis or capacity with which to judge Him. I am judging you, your words, your doctrines. The law, the standard I use to judge is the Bible and so far, you aren’t matching up to what I read in the Word of God.
~~~~Then where do you get the idea that everything is for us, except the Great Comforter (Holy Spirit) if everything Jesus said applies to us?~~~~
The promise of the Great Comforter is for us. It helps us understand the chain of authority. But the promise of the Comforter was not to us. Just as the command to wait in Jerusalem was not to us. There are a host of commands and statements made in scripture that are to those particular people but for all men of all times. It is a failing of denominational Christianity that this point is not understood. If you like I shall be happy to list any reasonable number of examples beyond Acts 1:4.
~~~~True enough. Just like the book of Revelation was written by John (not necessarily the apostle by that name) for a 1rst century Christian audience, and not, as Hal Lindsey and others assume only for us at the “end times”. However, that being said, while we aren’t members of the church at Galacia back then, we aren’t immune to the same temptations and trappings that they fell into. (Unless you believe that we have somehow advanced morally and intellectually beyond those poor ancient saps).~~~~
This is EXACTLY the point I am making. Those specific problems, such as was faced by the seven churches, are not the specific problems we face. John was not writing to us. Yet because we do face the same type of problems, his words are for us and help us. You do get what I am saying.
~~~~Troy Camplin has already provided you with ample scriptures which serve to contradict your insistence that the Holy Spirit doesn’t dwell within you. Take for existence:~~~~
Please read carefully what I am saying. I do not deny that the Holy Spirit dwells in me. I am denying the current manner or type of that indwelling. I believe He dwells in us today. I believe He dwells in us in the same manner that the Father and Son dwell in us today. I believe that He dwells in us through the medium of the Word.
What I deny is that He dwells in us in a literal, immediate manner as He did those first century Christians.
So none of what Dr. Camplin posted contradicts what I have said nor does it prove the case you both are trying to make.
~~~~So, is the same true for you that Jesus does not come into our hearts as our Lord and Savior? If so, why does He bother knocking at our heart’s door?~~~~
Again, faith comes by hearing (or studying – 2 Tim. 2:15). Christ dwells in my heart through the gospel. He calls us through that gospel (2 Thess. 2:14). It is the gospel, not the direct operation of the Holy Spirit on my heart that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). What you teach is that the Bible is insufficient to save us and make us complete before God, a contradiction to scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
~~~~I am NOT questioning your salvation and Christianity, so, I’m not sure why you included your profession in this post.~~~~
Because you believe every Christian has the Holy Ghost literally dwelling in them. So if you accept my salvation, my status as being in Christ. How is it that I can deny the literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit within me?
~~~~“Yet I do not have the Holy Spirit literally living in me. He dwells in me, to be sure, …” So, the Holy Spirit is not living in you, but He is dwelling in you? That’s confusing. (Refer back to Troy’s quote of 1 Corinthins 6:19)~~~~
Yes, because you are not focusing on the important word in my statements. The word “literal” is the key word. Not the word “dwell”. Not the word “living”. But HOW the Holy Spirit dwells/lives in me. It is through the medium of the Word, not immediately (without a medium), not literally.
~~~~“…but does so just as Jesus and the Father dwell in me, that is to say through the medium of the Word.”
Is not the Word God? (ref John 1:1)~~~~
Jesus is the incarnate Word, the logos, the very mind of God. I am speaking of the “rhema” and “didache” the Word, the Bible, the teachings, the doctrines.
~~~~First off anyone can teach different doctrines. That is inherant in the weakness of the sinful, finite minds of mankind. Anyone can be sincerely decieved. Anyone can be a fake believer. But why would you want to throw the baby out with the bath water just because there have been those professing to be believers that actually weren’t?~~~~
I’m not throwing it out. I just asking you to identify yourself as the baby.
~~~~This has been central in my problem with those who are quick to point to abuses of the Church in history (i.e. the Spanish Inquisition). There aren’t any sensors installed in the Church’s entrance doors that will identify who is for real and who isn’t. Even Satan is present in Church on Sunday morning. Just because evil men have held positions of power in the Church doesn’t negate the value of the founder’s (Jesus’) teachings.
And it’s not just evil men. There are people who attend Church every time the door is open who have been decieved into thinking that they are Christians who are worshipping God, when, what they are really worshipping is a particular version of the Bible, a particular denomination, a particuar doctrine, a particular pastor/priest.~~~~
I agree with the general gist of this point. But it does not prove what you are asserting about the literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit in you or other men today.
~~~~The, “now we see through a glass darkly” scripture is usually interpreted by scholars to refer to the limits of our spiritual understanding down here in our finite, earthly lives as opposed to what we will finally understand in the after life, not as you are suggesting.~~~~
I don’t base my faith on the interpretation of scholars. If I went with the majority interpretation philosophy I’d be an atheistic evolutionist.
~~~~You seem to be trying to bend scripture to support your disbelief in a literal in dwelling of the Holy Spirit/Jesus/ and God within us.~~~~
I just go where the evidence leads me. No bending is required unless it is to bend the interpretations back into conformity with the scriptures. I conform to the scriptures. All I am asking is that you prove to me, either by direct performance of a miracle, or through reasoning from the scriptures that you are correct.
“~~~~1 Corinthians 6:19 — What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? ~~~~
Here we have reference to the Holy Ghost in the body (which I believe to be the church, singular, not our bodies, plural) but no reference to what type of indwelling nor duration.”
~~~~Where do you get plural our [sic] of “your body” in the verse? Again, you seem to prone to try and bend scripture to support your conclusions.~~~~
I didn’t. Go back and reread what I said. I was arguing that the verse was speaking of a singular body, the church, NOT plural “your bodies” in that verse.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Paul also says that Jesus would return in his lifetime, so if we take him at his literal word on that, he was wrong. So when he says that miracles would end, we have to ask ourselves what he meant by that. What is the context? Is he saying it to a particular church as a warning that they need to get on the straight and narrow?
The Catholic tradition, which goes all the way back to Peter and Paul and the apostles interprets it that the Holy Ghost is in each of us, that our relationship with God is a personal God. This is one of the things the vast majority of non-Catholic churches agree on. It survived the Reformation intact. The fact is you have a very peculiar interpretation of who the Holy Ghost is and what his relationship with us is that does not have the textual support you think it does nor a long tradition of interpretation supporting it. Certainly tradition can be wrong (creationist interpretations certainly come to mind), but there are some things in the Bible that are clearer than others, and the relationship we are to have with God, with Christ as mediator and the Holy Ghost dwelling within us, is one of those things that is pretty clear to most people.
You might want to consult the Greek and see where plural and singular are used, etc. The Greek is less ambiguous on the second person pronoun than is English.
Troy Camplin, Ph.D. said April 19th, 2008 at 1:19 am:
If you believe, as you said, once I have made up mind, no amount of evidence will convince me, why do you continue to respond to me?
~~~~Paul also says that Jesus would return in his lifetime, so if we take him at his literal word on that, he was wrong.~~~~
What verse are you referring to?
~~~~So when he says that miracles would end, we have to ask ourselves what he meant by that. What is the context? Is he saying it to a particular church as a warning that they need to get on the straight and narrow?~~~~
The statements are general in 1 Cor. 12-14, applicable to the church universal, not just the Corinthian church. I see nothing in the context that shows his statements to be specific to that congregation. Also, please note that you have admitted that the passage does speak of the end of miracles.
~~~~The Catholic tradition, which goes all the way back to Peter and Paul and the apostles~~~~
I disagree. Catholicism does not go back that far.
~~~~interprets it that the Holy Ghost is in each of us, that our relationship with God is a personal God. This is one of the things the vast majority of non-Catholic churches agree on. It survived the Reformation intact. The fact is you have a very peculiar interpretation of who the Holy Ghost is and what his relationship with us is that does not have the textual support you think it does nor a long tradition of interpretation supporting it. Certainly tradition can be wrong (creationist interpretations certainly come to mind), but there are some things in the Bible that are clearer than others, and the relationship we are to have with God, with Christ as mediator and the Holy Ghost dwelling within us, is one of those things that is pretty clear to most people.~~~~
I do not base my faith on long standing traditions of denominations, scholars, or anything devised by man. The way to eternal life is straight and narrow and few will find it (Matt. 7:14). So appealing to a majority on interpretation has the opposite effect you think it has on me. If the crowd is doing it, I’m going to triply question it.
~~~~You might want to consult the Greek and see where plural and singular are used, etc. The Greek is less ambiguous on the second person pronoun than is English.~~~~
Let’s say I grant your interpretation of 1 Cor. 6. You still have to show that the mode of indwelling it literal and not mediate.
I base my interpretation of this passage on my understanding of a number of passages that speak of the church as the temple of God. You would have it be a temple of temples, a body of bodies, instead of each person a building block in the one temple of God, each person a part in the one body of Christ (Eph. 4:16).
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
“Yet you describe a so-called miracle that can possibly be explained by natural causes and processes. How do I, or more importantly an agnostic you are trying to preach to, distinguish what you described from a happy series of natural events that lead to that child’s recovery?”
Yes, the boy’s rather quick recovery could be explained by just natural causes, but, it can also be because God has heard the prayers of not only the neighbors from two blocks away who gather at his house to prayer for him, but also all of the other people who are praying for him as well. If God is interceding on behalf of the prayers submitted to him, then he is supernaturally influencing the healing process, in other words performing a miracle.
” I am not an enemy of the kingdom of Christ like these men were. Even they could not deny the miracles done by the Apostles.
Just because we disagree on miracles and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Jesus inside of us doesn’t make you an enemy of the kingdom of Christ.
Your event is nothing like the event known as “miracle” in the Bible. It is along the same lines as those who would describe BIRTH as a miracle (when it is a natural process designed by God at Creation with known natural causes).”
Bad analogy. That boy’s recovery is not like calling a birth or flowers in the field a miracle. Please do not insult my intellegence.
“None of this changes the stated purpose of miracles in the scripture. I do not doubt that you desire to have them. I do not doubt that you feel they should still be around. However, I see no REASON to believe that they are.”
I’m sure you feel that I am basing my beliefs on how I feel or out of a desperate desire to attribute something to God that doesn’t apply; unlike you who has arrived at your beliefs out of sheer rationality and not what you want the significance of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Jesus and what constitues a miracle. ; )
“I agree. Providence is entirely natural.”
I didn’t say Providence is entirely natural. I said the opposite. Natural doesn’t involve God’s influence in controlling the natural course of things. Natural is a lot like your statement that if the boy’s fall was at a particular angle, then the recovery to the boy’s head and brain is just natural, no influence from God would be required.
“10 days is infinitely slow compared to instantaneous.”
Exactly. But, I am not limiting God’smiracles to instantaneous.
“I am not judging God. I have no basis or capacity with which to judge Him. I am judging you, your words, your doctrines. The law, the standard I use to judge is the Bible and so far, you aren’t matching up to what I read in the Word of God. ”
But you are judging God. You are claiming that God hasn’t miraculously healed that boy. You are limiting God to what you’ve read in the Bible. You can judge me all you like. Your judgement of me is not what I am worried about. ; )
“Please read carefully what I am saying. I do not deny that the Holy Spirit dwells in me. I am denying the current manner or type of that indwelling. I believe He dwells in us today. I believe He dwells in us in the same manner that the Father and Son dwell in us today. I believe that He dwells in us through the medium of the Word.
What I deny is that He dwells in us in a literal, immediate manner as He did those first century Christians.”
Why should there be any difference between the first Christians and all of the rest in terms of their relationship with God? You are using the phrase “dwell in us” independantly of it’s meaning. Words do have meanings. If they don’t and can mean whatever each person wants them to mean, then conversation in any meaningful way would be impossible.
“Again, faith comes by hearing (or studying – 2 Tim. 2:15). Christ dwells in my heart through the gospel. He calls us through that gospel (2 Thess. 2:14). It is the gospel, not the direct operation of the Holy Spirit on my heart that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). What you teach is that the Bible is insufficient to save us and make us complete before God, a contradiction to scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17).”
Neither the Gospel nor the Bible saves us. Salvation is an act of God not anything we do. Your notion that the Holy Spirit dwelling in you is simply another way to say that you have read the Bible, believe what it says and has taken it to heart is way to much spin for me. Again words do have meanings.
We do come to God’s salvation through faith, but it is God who produces our salvation, not anything we do or feel. If we could save ourselves by simply reading the Gospel and believing then why would Jesus have had to have paid the sacrifice He made?
“Because you believe every Christian has the Holy Ghost literally dwelling in them. So if you accept my salvation, my status as being in Christ. How is it that I can deny the literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit within me?”
Because you don’t want to believe in it. That’s how you can deny it.
“Yes, because you are not focusing on the important word in my statements. The word “literal” is the key word. Not the word “dwell”. Not the word “living”.”
Again, those words have definate meanings, not psuedo meanings that relate to reading and believing in God’s word.
“I just go where the evidence leads me. No bending is required unless it is to bend the interpretations back into conformity with the scriptures. I conform to the scriptures. All I am asking is that you prove to me, either by direct performance of a miracle…”
I hate to disappoint you but I can’t perform miracles. ; )
“I didn’t. Go back and reread what I said. I was arguing that the verse was speaking of a singular body, the church, NOT plural “your bodies” in that verse.”
I understand what you are saying. That’s why I’ve been questioning it. You some how have managed to twist the word you into meaning the corporate Church. I find that connection questionable. If Paul had meant the Church he would have used that word.
Troys comment to you makes a very good point:
“The fact is you have a very peculiar interpretation of who the Holy Ghost is and what his relationship with us is that does not have the textual support you think it does nor a long tradition of interpretation supporting it…”
In other words, the rest of Christendom is in agreement with Troy and I. You are outside of the rest of us with your interpretation. It is your interpretation and you are welcome to it. Me I’m not buying it. Nevertheless, we remain brothers in Christ.
Clay said April 19th, 2008 at 4:28 pm:
~~~~Yes, the boy’s rather quick recovery could be explained by just natural causes~~~~
I am glad that you at least admit that you don’t know for sure.
~~~~Why should there be any difference between the first Christians and all of the rest in terms of their relationship with God?~~~~
Because those Christians were part of the infant church and required additional help, just like an infant today needs additional help.
~~~~You are using the phrase “dwell in us” independantly of it’s meaning. Words do have meanings. If they don’t and can mean whatever each person wants them to mean, then conversation in any meaningful way would be impossible.~~~~
Are you prepared to argue that Jesus and the Father dwell in Christians today in the same way that you claim the Holy Spirit dwells in you today?
~~~~Neither the Gospel nor the Bible saves us.~~~~
You directly contradict scripture with this statement.
James 1:21 – Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
Eph. 5:26 – That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word
Rom. 1:16 – For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
~~~~Salvation is an act of God not anything we do.
We do come to God’s salvation through faith, but it is God who produces our salvation, not anything we do or feel. ~~~~
Your statements are self contradictory and contradict scripture as well.
Eph. 2:8 – For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
James 2:24 – Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
God’s grace, the plan of salvation, saves us, but it does so only through an active, obedient, living faith. For you to say that salvation does not require any action on our part is to say that we are either saved without faith or by a dead faith.
~~~~ If we could save ourselves by simply reading the Gospel and believing then why would Jesus have had to have paid the sacrifice He made?~~~~
It isn’t just by reading the gospel and believing. One must also repent of their sins (turn away from sin and towards God – Acts 3:19; 17:30; 20:21) , confess their faith in Jesus as the Christ (Matt. 10:32; Rom. 10:9-10), and be immersed in water into Christ for the purpose of receiving remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Romans 6; Gal. 3:26-27; 1 Pet. 3:21).
But without the blood of Christ, following the NT pattern for salvation by contact with the blood of Christ would be pointless. The blood washes us clean, but we come into contact with that blood on God’s terms (hearing, believing, repenting, confessing, and water immersion). These aren’t works we devised and think we can do to “earn” salvation. They are works devised and commanded by God that we MUST do to appropriate that saving blood of the Lamb.
~~~~In other words, the rest of Christendom is in agreement with Troy and I. You are outside of the rest of us with your interpretation. It is your interpretation and you are welcome to it. Me I’m not buying it. Nevertheless, we remain brothers in Christ.~~~~
I do not base my faith on long standing traditions of denominations, scholars, or anything devised by man. The way to eternal life is straight and narrow and few will find it (Matt. 7:14). So appealing to a majority on interpretation has the opposite effect you think it has on me. If the crowd is doing it, I’m going to triply question it.
Clay, your doctrines are based on personal experience and statements I have shown to be directly contradictory to the scriptures. Such should be sufficient for you to question your positions on these things. Your position is one of the prime examples of why the atheists have gotten the idea that Christians believe in God as some people believe in fairies. It is nigh impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who argues from a subjective perspective such as you do.
Since we have moved entirely too far off topic, I will leave you with the contradictions I have exposed and hope that you will learn to base your life on God’s eternal/unchanging Word rather than personal experience and what your preacher tells you.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Ernie,
I continue to argue with you not because I expect you to be convinced, but because I don’t want you to convince anyone else with your misinterpretations.
When Paul was writing to the Corinthians, he was writing to that church. Specifically to that church. Does that mean that what he had to say doesn’t have anything to do with contemporary Christianity? Of course not. But some things he wrote were very specific to that congregation, about which Paul was concerned. However, you need to read 1 Cor. 12 much more closely, because Paul says that “workers of miracles” are part of the body of Christianity, and “the body is not one member, but many” (vs. 14). In the same way, if those who work miracles are equivalent to the ears of the body, and not everyone can work miracles because not everyone can be an ear, to not have workers of miracles is to have an earless body. I Cor. 14 simply states that speakers of tongues and prophets must have an interpreter or else what they are doing is not of God — and it is in this context that he says God does not confuse us. I can find nothing in the chapters you list that say anything about miracles ceasing, though. The closest I can find is where Paul is comparing the speaking of tongues and prophesy to love, saying that love never fails, but these can fail — in other words, one can prophesy or speak in tongues without God’s involvement, but you cannot love without God. In the same verse (13:8), he says that knowledge will vanish away. Does that mean that after the closing of the NT, there would be no more knowledge? If you are going to interpret the rest of the verse as you do, you have to interpret that part that way as well. The point of the verse is to say that love is more important than knowledge or spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues and prophesy.
Also, when I talk about Biblical scholars, we are indeed talking about a very few people in the world population. Theirs is the rare understanding, not yours. And, yes, the Catholic church does trace itself all the way back to Peter.
The first part of Romans 8 also makes it clear that the body being spoken of is each person’s physical body –”the flesh.” Yes, there are places where the body means the body of the church — but that metaphor comes about precisely as a reflection of each person’s physical body. The church is a higher-order reflection of the physical body we have. In Romans 8, Paul makes it clear that our physical body must turn itself over to the spirit of Christ.
Now, in addressing the Thessalonians, Paul makes it quite clear that he expects Jesus’ immanent return: (4:14-17) — “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”
“We” clearly includes Paul. Thus, Paul expected Christ’s immanent return — within his lifetime.
Nonetheless, this has nothing to do with the fact that you cannot in fact show me a single verse that says that miracles, prophesy, etc. have ever ceased. I could find nothing of the sort in the chapters you quoted. Perhaps you are wanting to find these things because you do not witness miracles or anything of the sort in your own life. That may have more to do with your relationship with Christ than with the fact that miracles and prophesy still occur.
Troy Camplin, Ph.D. said April 22nd, 2008 at 11:07 am:
~~~~When Paul was writing to the Corinthians, he was writing to that church. Specifically to that church. Does that mean that what he had to say doesn’t have anything to do with contemporary Christianity? Of course not. But some things he wrote were very specific to that congregation, about which Paul was concerned.~~~~
I am glad you have seen my point on this.
~~~~…I can find nothing in the chapters you list that say anything about miracles ceasing, though. The closest I can find is where Paul is comparing the speaking of tongues and prophesy to love, saying that love never fails, but these can fail — in other words, one can prophesy or speak in tongues without God’s involvement, but you cannot love without God. In the same verse (13:8), he says that knowledge will vanish away. Does that mean that after the closing of the NT, there would be no more knowledge?~~~~
If you really, truly mean your question then you must follow it to the logical conclusion. By your question you imply that at some point there will be no more knowledge of any kind. You may disagree on the timing of when that will occur, but somewhere down the stream of time, knowledge is going to end if we accept the basis of your question. So I would ask you, if you think knowledge in 1 Cor. 13 means all knowledge of any kind (rather than just miraculous knowledge like I previously specified), when exactly do you think that ALL knowledge will “vanish away”?
No. What it does mean is that there would be no more miraculous manner in which knowledge is given. An example of miraculous knowledge would be that the Apostles were told not to prepare anything before hand of what they would speak because it would be given to them (Matt. 10:19). As I posted above, knowledge, prophecy, and languages were all miraculous forms communicating God’s will. That ended when God’s will was fully delivered. In the same manner, languages did not cease when the Bible was fully delivered, but miraculous capacity to speak languages never studied did.
~~~~The first part of Romans 8 also makes it clear that the body being spoken of is each person’s physical body –”the flesh.” Yes, there are places where the body means the body of the church — but that metaphor comes about precisely as a reflection of each person’s physical body. The church is a higher-order reflection of the physical body we have. In Romans 8, Paul makes it clear that our physical body must turn itself over to the spirit of Christ.~~~~
I submit to you that the Holy Spirit is not mentioned until verse 9 of Romans 8 and that the “spirit” placed in contrast to the “flesh” is the human spirit. Paul is therefore writing that we follow after spiritual things, things our spirit (that part of us made in God’s image) seeks after, rather than fleshly (physical) things.
~~~~Now, in addressing the Thessalonians, Paul makes it quite clear that he expects Jesus’ immanent return: (4:14-17)…“We” clearly includes Paul. Thus, Paul expected Christ’s immanent return — within his lifetime.~~~~
I see one problem with your interpretation. If Christ’s return were immanent when Paul wrote that letter, why are we still waiting 1900 years later for Him? Or is it that He has come and gone and left the rest of us here?
Given the purpose of miracles, which was fulfilled, and the statements made in 1Cor. 13 concerning the doing away with those partial means of communicating God’s will when that full means was completed, I believe I have conclusively proven from scripture my case.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
I love how you take things out of context. As though Paul could not possibly be talking about the Holy Spirit until after he uses the term in the same letter! Perhaps the people he was writing to knew what he was talking about? You have not proven your point, only used your presupposition of your point to affirm your belief. There is no textual evidence to support your contention that “knowledge” means “miraculous knowledge.” That is your own imposition onto the text. That’s all I’ve ever seen from you. I get a few vague references to several chapters, from which one cannot find anything you claim. You decide what things mean not based on their context but on your previous belief. You’ve decided what is meant before you read it rather than coming to the text to try to learn what it means, and then either reject or ignore all textual evidence. So far you’ve shown that you believe neither factual evidence nor textual evidence. That is neither logical nor rational.
What Paul believed and what turned out to be the case happen to differ in this case. He was factually wrong, but the truth that we should be concerned with Christ’s immanent return and not think we’re better than those who came before us and have died is still valid. This is a prime example of what I said before that the Bible is about truth, not about mere scientific or historical fact.
How, by the way, was the “full means completed” if it wasn’t completed with Christ’s resurrection? Nothing more needed to be added.
To use Paul’s analogy, the Christianity you believe in results in a body of Christ that is an armless, legless, eyeless, earless, noseless, tongueless torso — which is no Christianity at all. If we believe Paul.
~~~~What Paul believed and what turned out to be the case happen to differ in this case. He was factually wrong~~~~
You believe an inspired writer could be wrong in what he wrote by inspiration which means you either believe he was not inspired or that God was wrong. Either way it is impossible to discuss the meaning of scripture with someone who holds either position. Every time they were shown to be in error they would simply claim the inspired writer was wrong in what they taught on that point. You render the entirety of the Bible meaningless.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Just because one is “inspired” doesn’t mean either one must be the case. To inspire means “to affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence.” It comes from the Latin meaning “to breathe into.” Thus, God can inspire someone without the person giving a perfectly accurate transcription. Since there is no claim that the Bible was a perfectly accurate transcription of what God said to any of the writers of the Bible, that means we have to interpret what is written. You will please note that I said that what Paul wrote was True. I will note that you conveniently ignored that part of what I wrote. The importance of the Bible is its truth, not its mere facticity. It’s precisely because you want to denigrate the Bible down to mere scientific-historical fact that you cannot understand what the Bible means or its truth claims. That is why you are denying the continued existence of miracles — not because the Bible says miracles stopped, because you cannot show me anywhere in the BIble where it says that, but because you are more of a materialist than you know and you thus deny the truth and meaning of the Bible, exchanging it for mere scientific fact. This makes you very much a child of the Enlightenment, but also someone who honestly doesn’t understand the Bible at all, let alone the nature of truth or meaning. WIthout interpretation there is no meaning. Thus, it is not I who am rendering the Bible meaningless. Quite the contrary. I understand it to be truly full of meaning in a way you don’t seem to understand at all.
Let me explain. “Fact” comes from the Latin factum, for “done,” the neuter past participle of facere, “to do.” An action of some sort is needed for something to be a fact. I contend that the Bible is not at all concerned about such activities. Rather the Bible is concerned with Truth — which it must be if it is to have meaning (as history does not) — comes from the Old English treowth, related to the word troth, from which we get the word betrothed. Facts separate the world up, truth brings things together and sees the world in its wholeness. The Greek word for “truth,” which Jesus uses when speaking of himself as the truth, means “unforgetting.” It is to become aware of holy things, the things of God and heaven, and thus have nothing to do with the scientifically discoverable aspects of this world. It is in fact , through metaphor, we get truth through language. Let us consider the following example. Take concept A as “man,” and concept B as “lion.” Concept A clearly contains the particular man Achilles, while concept B clearly excludes him. However, what happens when I make the following metaphor: “Achilles was a lion”? Now, if things must fit into their proper conceptual categories only, then this sentence makes no sense. However, most readers around the world would understand the sentence. What is happening here? When we read “Achilles was a lion,” we do not think that he was a large African cat with a mane. Rather, we attribute qualities of the lion to Achilles. We think of lions as “the king of the jungle,” meaning that we think of lions as noble. We also think of lions as large, very strong, and courageous. They command respect. And they are great hunters – something that gets transferred to Achilles in the war situation he is in. And, more, we get all the emotional associations we make with lions transferred to the character Achilles. In this way, it acts to train us up in and understand emotions. Thus, we have used the metaphor “Achilles was a lion” to transfer characteristics and emotions we associate with lions over to Achilles. The concept “Lion” and the concept “Man” are thus brought together in the particular man “Achilles,” and we are made to access emotions that are not otherwise accessible, and create a new concept that includes the qualities of a man and a lion, and which includes the particular individual Achilles. Metaphors allow us to give words to things and emotions that are yet unnamed. They allow us to say the unsayable, and thus come closer to truth. John 1:1 says that the Word was with God and the Word was God. This further supports the linguistic nature of truth, if we understand language in the broadest sense as to include communications from God, which always reach us as through a glass, darkly. Still, it is through Christ (and not history or science) that brings us closest to the Truth.
Dr. Camplin,
Your posts belong in the “Obscuring Clear Statements with ‘Clarifications’ ” category. You fit the description Paul gave in 2 Tim. 3:1-7, especially vs. 7.
Since you have revealed that you do not believe in the verbal plenary divine inspiration of scripture there is no longer any common foundation from which to converse with you.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
I suppose there was never any common foundation from with to converse with you other than a few elements of the English language, since you clearly don’t understand the nature of language, writing, interpretation, metaphor, inspiration, truth, or facts. You change your position all the time as I disprove most of what you say, and ignore anything that proves you wrong. You make claims about the Bible and Christian theology that are clearly not to be found anywhere in the Bible. I’m not saying you’re making anything up, but you are clearly listening to someone who did make things up, and you have accepted those things as truth. I’ve heard some bad interpretations of scripture before, but never so bad as yours.
I know that I’m not going to convince you. You’ve already made up your mind and no number of facts or amount of evidence will change your mind. That much has been made clear. I just hope that nobody here has been set off on the wrong (broad) path by your theology.
Back to the original topic…..
It seems that the latest research from Lifeway Christian Research, which is presented in Thom and Sam Rainer’s new book Essential Church refutes your conclusions about the negative affect secular college has on Christian youth – in fact, they come right out and call that viewpoint a myth.
Quote:
“The influence of the secular university has pushed them away. Wrong – State universities and colleges are not to blame… though there are some in academia who have a distaste for the church. But we give them too much credit for keeping students away.”
http://samrainer.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/three-myths-about-church-dropouts/
What say you?
When Is God-Science Discussable Scientifically
Re “God and Evolution Can Co-Exist, Scientist Insists”
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/304.page#1124
- Is there/what is, in the quoted article, a definition of the article’s “god” ?
- Specifically, is the article’s “god” defined as a human artifact, or not ?
If “god” is defined/understood to be a human artifact – regardless of reasons, purposes, implications, consequences – the subject “god-science” is scientifically discussable.
If “god” is not defined/understood to be a human artifact, its concept is a human virtual reality
artifact experienced only through sensory stimuli, and “god-science” is not scientifically discussable. Furthermore, in this case preoccupation with this subject within a scientific frameworks contributes to corrosion and corruption of science and scientism by manifesting or implying acceptance of virtual reality as reality.
“Evolutionary Biology Of Culture And Religion”
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/20/122.page#492
Dov Henis
(A DH Comment From The 22nd Century)
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q–?cq=1
Life’s Manifest
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/112.page#578
Oh wow… All of these comments and the blog post itself is just… bad research. It’s like basement dweller kids and Pizza Hut employees doing a quick seach on Google to find their facts. As scientists, intellectuals, and researchers have said over… and over… and over again: There is no conflict, whether it be intellectual or scientific, between religion and science. Atheist, Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Scientists have noted this quite frequently (yes, you get your fringe scientists too). And that “75%” of kids leaving church when hitting college is a joke, a bad statistic that’s been repeated since the 70s. I remember getting it in emails as spam. I also got the “Current Government to Pass Laws making everyone have to believe in God!” spam as well. Don’t forget the “Jane Doe went missing! Call this #!” which turned out to be a joke as well. Man, these arguments remind me of the time a couple friends were arguing over who was better: Metallica or Megadeth.
Most of my college schooling had no bias in it, aside from one evangelical professor (who was a staunch believer in evolution as well as a vocal defender of his atheist friends and their beliefs) who even stated “if I sound biased, that’s because I am.” There was also a sociology professor who was very liberal, though she never admitted it, as well as this one profesor that I had… geez, let me put it this way. If there was a such thing as a classical liberal anymore, that’d be him. Maybe he was a staunch libertarian, but he was pretty vocal about it.
Dov Henis, I don’t want to sound like a jerk but… nevermind. If you actually go to college you’ll learn to research. I’d say Occum’s Razor, then you’d say something back, then I’d say something, then we’d create our own loving bowl of circular soup.
The end result is this: Colleges really aren’t biased against or for any particular belief. Overthinking their viewpoints, however, will obviously make you think otherwise. And if you fall for whatever bias they may in fact have, then you’re an idiot, no matter which way the argument turns.
I’d also like to add that I think Evolution is a scientific fact, despite the holes in it. Yes there are holes, but I still believe it. I don’t have to know everything about what I believe in. There’s holes in all sorts of scientific theories, but we believe them without question, so what makes this different?
There is no conflict, whether it be intellectual or scientific, between religion and science.
Well, I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to say that there is no conflict — you might say there isn’t a huge one, but I definitely see something. The very means by which we approach religion are quite different from the same means by which we approach scientific advancement. Take morality, for instance; Christians rely on the very concept that it cannot be detected scientifically to make the case for it. If it could be, then it would be a scientific argument, not a religous one, but it cannot be, and thus it is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
The end result is this: Colleges really aren’t biased against or for any particular belief. Overthinking their viewpoints, however, will obviously make you think otherwise. And if you fall for whatever bias they may in fact have, then you’re an idiot, no matter which way the argument turns.
Well I’ll be; you’ve actually said something that I agree with!