But I really DO think that Christian Darwinism is an oxymoron

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 11, 2010

Darwinism, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Something I wrote recently seems to have sparked quite the little discussion. (Dang! Everybody talks to Barry, nobody talks to me … 🙂 )

Briefly, I noted that a friend’s post had been removed from a Christian Darwinist site because the moderator felt that he had intimated that Theodosius Dobzhansky was not a Christian. (He was not a Christian by any reasonable standard.)

How can one tell if a person is a Christian, many wanted to know. Isn’t that just making a judgement (judge not, lest ye be …)?

Barry Arrington made the excellent point that asking the person to affirm the Creed may be setting the bar a little high.

Fair enough: When I have used the Creed that way, I aimed to sort out situations where the person darn well knows what the Creed says and how it may differ from his private convictions. And I had good reasons for asking; otherwise, I wouldn’t bother. I have neither time nor inclination for hunting down heresies. (And none of this is written with prejudice to any other religion. It’s just that salesdarwinists currently target confused Christians more than other confused folk. So, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and others, please pardon us Christians as we set the record straight.)

We must say something when someone like Dobzhansky is fronted as a “Christian” to advance the Darwinist cause. I don’t object in principle to other rational criteria for assessing whether someone is a Christian, ones such as Barry offered. The main thing to see here is that a person cannot in good faith believe two doctrines that oppose each other at the most basic level.

Darwinism opposes Christianity in a much more serious way than is generally recognized: The Darwinist must – and usually does – believe that Christianity accidentally evolved amid the noise of neurons and it spread via natural selection.

Thus it was that man created God.

Now, if the Darwinist also believes that Christianity was the result of God’s admittedly spectacular self-revelations (cf the Creed**), then he believes that God created man. Which is it?

More to the point, if the Darwinist also believes that God can do all that the Creed commands* good Christians to believe, he cannot rationally go on to insist that

🙂 man is a part of nature, and Darwin proved it

🙂 God never intervenes in nature, but does it all by Darwinism

So man created God, but no, God created man. Or God created man with the capacity of accidentally evolve an idea of God as an illusion. Why? Because he couldn’t reveal himself?

So yes, I do think Christian Darwinism is an oxymoron, if the Christian Darwinist is unconfused enough to know what he is saying.

It is hardly irrelevant to this discussion that 78% of evolutionary biologists are “pure naturalists” (no God and no free will).

* You cannot become an adult Catholic, so far as I know, without assenting intellectually to the Creed.

**For those for whom the Creed may be a bit challenging, due to age, haste, extreme suffering, emergency, etc., there is also a more basic prayer, the Act of Faith :

O MY GOD, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in three divine persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; I believe that Thy divine Son became man and died for our sins, and that He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived. Amen.

. Now that is either branch of Christianity or Darwin’s neural noise.

Comments

tgpeeler 54 Of course redefining “process” will eliminate the contradiction but that changes the truth claim. If you would be so kind as to restate the new and improved truth claim so I can be sure I understand exactly what it is you are asserting. Thanks. It is logically possible for God to achieve His purposes through a random series of events.Bilbo I_{December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Professor Gumby, thank you for defining your terms. You are a step ahead of everyone else who has entered into the fray. With respect to my definition of the Christian response to origins (assuming evolution is true), you write: --"Two problems actually: - What intended outcome do you mean? - How is your definition of the Christian alternative fundamental to being a Christian?" An example of an intended outcome is you, me, and every other person who was in God's mind prior to our creation. God created us exactly as he originally intended. In the context of man's arrival, a Christian is obligated to believe that God produced exactly the outcome that he wanted, when he wanted it. A process that could have produced something else at some other time [Dariwnism] will not do. ---"Let me define my terms. A) Christian – someone who believes in the Apostle’s Creed as per the OP." I agree completely with that definition in the context of a Christian's theological beliefs. However, we are trying to define the Christian response to Darwinism answer to the problem of origins, because that is where the conflict lies. Darwinism doesn't speak to the issue of the Apostles Creed. We are looking for a common context. To be a Christian, one cannot believe in a purposeless, mindless, process that did not have man in mind or one that could have produced an outcome that was not in perfect accordance with God's will. ---B) “Darwinist” – someone who accepts Darwin’s theory of evolution (as modified by later research) as being scientifically correct. C) Christian Darwinist = A+B. The definition does not reflect the fact that the Darwinist scheme allows for any outcome at all. According to Darwinism, if we played the tape of life again, it would likely have produced a different outcome. ---"Note there is nothing about intended and necessary outcomes in A), nor has it been suggested or accepted yet as an inherent part of the definition of Christian." With respect to A) It is "necessary" that the outcome should perfectly reflect God's will, which is that each of us would be exactly the same person that he had in mind. No other result would do. According to Darwinism, the process would likely have produced a different outcome. Thus, assuming evolution is true, and it may not be, the Christian world view of the evolutionary process is incompatible with the Darwinist world view of the evolutionary process because the former will admit of only one outcome while the latter will admit of any outcome at all.StephenB_{December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

VJ, I don't have time at the moment for a more considered response, so I'll leave that be for the moment. I'll only say now that I did not ask SB to leave the discussion. My comments along those lines were in response to his "Adios" in 45, which I took to mean he was leaving. As for the "heretic" comment, I was only pointing out the logical result of someone professing to be Christian yet painting God into a corner.Prof. FX Gumby_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT}

SB, I wasn't aware that you asked me to define my terms. I'd have gladly done that. But since you've defined yours first, I'll have a look at them to start with. I'm more or less fine with B) and C) above (though I'm not sure about the "unnecessary" in B) - some outcomes may be necessary/inevitable in the context of a response to natural selection - but that's not central here). I've a problem with A):
The Christian alternative. [God designed the process to produce an intended and necessary outcome]
Two problems actually: - What intended outcome do you mean? - How is your definition of the Christian alternative fundamental to being a Christian? Let me define my terms. A) Christian - someone who believes in the Apostle's Creed as per the OP. B) "Darwinist" - someone who accepts Darwin's theory of evolution (as modified by later research) as being scientifically correct. C) Christian Darwinist = A+B. Note there is nothing about intended and necessary outcomes in A), nor has it been suggested or accepted yet as an inherent part of the definition of Christian.Prof. FX Gumby_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT}

There is much confusion in Professor Gumby's remarks. I did not say that God had to be a programmer, or that he was limited to linear methods, or that he must or must not use natural selection or anything of the kind. God could have and can, create at any time, and in any way he chooses. Indeed, he need not have created at all. So, I am not proposing the heresy that God’s power is limited, if, indeed, that is the charge. I have to guess about the charge since my dialogue partners never define their terms. Indeed, they are evidently afraid to define their terms, a fact that speaks volumes. My adversaries tell me, for example, that I am wrong when, after defining Christianity and Darwinism from an origins perspective, I explain that the two formulations are incompatible. They challenge that conclusion, but when I ask them to define their own terms, they head for the tall grass. That means, of course, that they have not even begun to consider the matter or even understand the argument that has been made. One can hardly say with any degree of intellectual integrity that [A] is compatible with [B] if that same person is afraid to tell us what each term means. So, once again, I will make the point. We have been presented with a number of creation stories, including Young Earth Creationism, Darwinism, Old Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, etc. These are not the only possible creation stories, (are you paying attention Professor Gumby) but they are the ones that have been proposed. ASSUMING EVOLUTION IS TRUE, (it may not be) we are, IN THAT CONTEXT, considering three options: (A) The Christian alternative. [God designed the process to produce an intended and necessary outcome], (B) The Darwinist alternative. [No one designed anything. A purposeless, mindless process produced an unintended and unnecessary outcome, and (C) Christian Darwinism [an attempt to reconcile (A) with (B)]. Now it should be evident to anyone who can reason in the abstract that [Christianity] a process that produces an outcome that had to be exactly what it is cannot also be or reconciled with [Darwinism] a process that produces an outcome that could have been anything at all. Put another way, a process that must produce outcome [x] cannot also be a process that could have produced an outcome other than [x]. The point is so obvious that only a Darwinist or Christian Darwinist could miss it.StephenB_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT}

Well, I probably should make a quick return visit as a tribute to Professor FXGumby's recent comments. I wrote: "If God was “using” natural selection, then He was directing it toward a final end, which rules out Darwinism, which holds that evolution has no final end." Professor Gumby responds: ---"These words all indicate linearity, something that has a beginning and an end, something constrained by time. You suggest that God, something akin to a programmer, put in place a process with a specific desired end – humanity. Furthermore, this linear method is the only way you say that God could have used natural selection to create the diversity of life. What you are doing is constraining God the all powerful to operating within bounds of time and space that we can understand. You, sir, are a heretic." I thank VJTorley for his well thought out response @55. I offer my response below.StephenB_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT}

"It makes me wonder. Are Arminians predestined to be Arminians? Do Calvinists freely choose to be Calvinists? " In that spirit eeryone knows that the flower that represents Calvinism is the tulip. What many are unaware of is that the Arminians have their own flower, its the daisy. "He loves me He loves me not"! :) Going into duck and cover mode now. LOL Vividvividbleau_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

p.s. On the free will thing, all human communication would be impossible apart from free will.tgpeeler_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

If I may, iconoclast seems to make the typical category mistake regarding God's sovereignty and man's free will. The mistake is concluding that there is any logical contradiction between the two. There is not. One is a statement about the infinite (God) and the other is a statement about the finite (man). Both are true and that's as far as the explanation can go. The infinite cannot be explained in terms of the finite. The reverse is also true even though we recognize that the finite is dependent upon the infinite. So nothing in Romans 9 can be understood, as Vivid correctly says, as God denying mankind the free use of his volition. In my opinion anyway. Not that I want to start that whole "free will" thing again. It makes me wonder. Are Arminians predestined to be Arminians? Do Calvinists freely choose to be Calvinists? :-)tgpeeler_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

iconoclast RE 41 “Well, God couldn’t find fault if He caused you to be this way, so obviously, He didn’t cause you to be this way.” But is that what the apostle Paul says? Not so fast. Romans 9 is about election. In Rom 9:18-19 Paul is addresing the objection to God having mercy on those He wills and hardening those who He wills. It does not speak to that which you contend which is God is the cause of their rejection of Him. They are the ones rejecting God and God is willing to leave them in their rejected state and withholding His mercy that He is under no obligation to give. Vividvividbleau_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

Bilbo RE 53 "I must politely disagree." As they say you are entitled to your own opinion but that does not change the facts. StephenB is correct when he wrote "I have demonstrated it to all those who are capable of rational thought." Vividvividbleau_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

Prof. F X Gumby (#17, 29) It appears that you have not read my five-part online reply to Professor Michael Tkacz, in which I address the very questions you have raised on this thread. You write (#17):
...ID in general sterotypes and limits God to the role of an old bearded fellow with a set of blueprints or tinkering at limited times (it's not clear which) with His cosmic spanner. This is why ID is bad theology as well as bad science.
and again (#29):
You would agree that God is omnipotent and omniscient? Then how could God have not created the diversity of life using evolution by natural selection?
In #43, you also suggest that because God is timeless, He has no need to direct natural selection towards a given end:
Do you think time and processes mean anything to God? Everything would be comprehensible to Him in a blink. It makes no sense whatsoever to state that God must have directed natural selection to a specified end. These words simply have no meaning when applied to God's works. This is the point I'm trying to get at. Your entire dichotomy between directed and undirected processes is false.
To add insult to injury, you refer to StephenB as a heretic and you suggest (#50) that he leave the discussion. It's my experience that people who throw around the "heretic" label are rather narrow and judgmental. That's one reason why, in my five-part critique of Professor Tkacz's views, I made it perfectly clear at the outset that clear that I didn't regard him as one. As for suggesting that a contributor "abandon the discussion," might I remind you that you're here as an honored guest, at the moderator's pleasure. To address your points: The fact that God is timeless in no way implies that natural processes (including natural selection) do not have to be directed towards a specified end, as you suggest in #43. Indeed, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that all natural processes were directed to an end:
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. (S.T. I, q. 2, art. 3.)
And if a natural process occurring at time T0 is a cause of some effect occurring at a much later time Tn, then it too must be directed towards that end. The fact that the Director is outside time is neither here nor there. As to why God could not have created life using natural selection, the real problem is that according to Darwinian evolution, the processes that gave rise to the diversity of life on Earth are memoryless ones. I address this point in Part Two of my reply to Professor Tkacz, where I write (see http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/thomas2.html#section4 and scroll down to the end of the section):
On the theistic evolutionary model, however, Nature has to generate a dazzling array of creatures, starting from nothing more than a bunch of organic chemicals. What's more, Nature has to do this through processes that operate without any foresight of God's long-term goals (namely, the creatures that it will eventually produce). On top of that, poor old Nature has to get the ecological balance between all these creatures just right, so that the world contains just the right amount of natural evil [as Aquinas taught it did - VJT]. Now God could certainly achieve these ends, if He were directing Nature. That would be "guided evolution," and it's the kind of evolution that theistic evolutionists used to believe in when I was a boy, and Teilhard de Chardin was in vogue. But that kind of evolution is quite different from the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution, which most biologists now believe in. Neo-Darwinian evolution is inherently blind to long-term goals. The reason, as Dr. Douglas Theobald points out in his 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, is that it works through Markov processes - these being the only natural processes that could produce a nested hierarchy. However, a distinctive property of Markov processes is that they are memoryless. A stochastic process with the Markov property, or memorylessness, is one which is conditional on the present state of the system, its future and past being independent. Asking God to accomplish the very large, long-term goal of designing a world with just the right amount of natural evil, using only memoryless processes that are inherently incapable of being directed at long-term goals, is to ask the impossible. It's a contradiction in terms. Not even a Deity could do that.
You remarks on ID as "tinkering" suggest that you need to read Part Four of my reply to Professor Michael Tkacz, at http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/thomas4.html . In http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/thomas4.html#flaw4 , I also show why the clockwork universe won't work. Must go now - talk to you later.vjtorley_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Of course redefining "process" will eliminate the contradiction but that changes the truth claim. If you would be so kind as to restate the new and improved truth claim so I can be sure I understand exactly what it is you are asserting. Thanks.tgpeeler_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

StephenB 37 —Bilbo: “Sorry, Stephen, but you haven’t shown why it is logically impossible that a completely random process couldn’t accomplish God’s will.” I have demonstrated it to all those who are capable of rational thought. I must politely disagree.Bilbo I_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler 34 A completely random process cannot, by definition, exist. random: without definite aim, direction, rule, or method process: a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result If "process" is the hang up, we can substitute "series of events," and avoid the contradiction.Bilbo I_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Prof Gumby "TG: Opposing truth claims can both be true if they are badly constructed or completely miss the point, which is the case in SB’s." If they are badly constructed or completely miss the point, then they wouldn't be opposing, would they? No, they would not. So, to reiterate, O P P O S I N G truth claims cannot both be true. And from a (largely) disinterested perspective, it is not SB who is confused about these matters of logic.tgpeeler_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

SB
inform Prof Gumby that I wasn’t limiting God’s power but was merely pointing that He could not have both designed life and not designed it.
Umm, no. You were trying to make a case in 27 above that given natural selection, God could not have used it in a way to create biodiversity and yet have natural selection operate as a random process. Very different points. Your use of "design" as a synonym for using natural selection demonstrates how constrained your thinking is regarding evolution and ID. Given the black and white way in which you view these things, it's not surprising you can't comprehend the TE point of view. I guess it's best you abandon the discussion after all. TG: Opposing truth claims can both be true if they are badly constructed or completely miss the point, which is the case in SB's. Finally, I've just realised that the other thread Denyse mentions in her OP is still live. I thought it was a fossil thread. I think I'll go over there in a while. Peculiar to have two threads with the same topic. What's the point of the thread explosion I wonder?Prof. FX Gumby_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

SB, good call, I'm afraid. BTW, one of the first things I learned from Norman Geisler was that unless people accept the premise that opposing truth claims cannot both be true and that the truth about reality can be known, we are wasting our time with them. They have already "abandoned reason for madness" (Gandalf to Saruman, Fellowship of the Ring). Still, there's something about trying to get people to see reason that draws us like a moth to a flame. Must resist... Must reeee-sist... :-)tgpeeler_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

O'Leary @ 4:
- I think they face the declining influence of Judaism and Christianity in Western culture, and they believe that the solution is to remove obvious points of clash.
IF those points of clash are wrong. Did most Christians give up on geocentrism to 'remove points of clash', or did they give up on geocentrism because it was incorrect? Did most Christians embrace the germ theory of disease (as opposed to demons) in order to 'remove points of clash', or did they embrace the germ theory of disease because it was correct?
- Because the atheist materialists will not budge, their solution is to persuade Christians to accept their creation story instead of ours.
Because the atheist heliocentrists did not budge, the solution was to persuade Christians to accept the atheistic model of the solar system instead of the Church's geocentric one. That's what happened, right?
- They are convinced that they are helping Christians by doing this.
Yep.jurassicmac_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 2
For my part, Christian Darwinism is both oxymoronic and schizophrenic, I do wonder what it must be like for these people.
Actually, it's quite nice. We don't have to find ways to reject reality when it doesn't square with what we're taught in sunday school.
How do they manage to reconcile two contradictory world views into one rhetorical mishmash and hold it into place year after year without actually going insane?
Actually, when you put it that way, it seems as if all Christians must reconcile thousands of contradictory world views. As a Christian, I believe God is sovereign over the weather, but as a scientifically literate resident of the 21st century, I also concede that weather is completely explainable in natural terms, no supernatural intervention necessary. As a Christian, I believe that God is sovereign over embryological development, but at the same time I understand that embryological development is the result of expression of DNA, and is also fully explainable in natural terms. So StephenB, if you believe that God is sovereign over nature, yet concede that some parts of nature are autonomous and explainable in natural terms, how do you keep from going insane? Or do you just see magic everywhere you look?
What motivates them? Do they fear the establishment so much that they are willing to sell their intellectual soul for a few “attaboys?”
What motivates most people? I can only speak for myself: Truth. I want to know the truth. As far as I can tell, evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life, and theism is the best explanation for the existence and properties of the universe.jurassicmac_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Chris Doyle @ 1:
if there was truly overwhelming evidence that life on Earth evolved then I would become a theistic evolutionist myself.
That's quite the logical fallacy there. The modern day geocentrists say almost exactly the same thing: "If there was truly overwhelming evidence that the Earth orbits the sun, I would become a heliocentrist myself."
What I want to know about theistic evolutionists is why do they seem to concentrate on attacking non-evolutionists rather than attacking non-theists?
Because people who reject common ancestry are demonstrably wrong. Even Behe concedes this. I'm an equal opportunity critic; I also argue against geocentrists and young-earth-creationists, whether they are Christians or not.jurassicmac_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

OP:
But I really DO think that Christian Darwinism is an oxymoron Yes, but many Christians really DID think that Christian Heliocentrism was just as much of an oxymoron. (Including Luther and Calvin)
jurassicmac_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Well, let me assess the current orientation of my beloved dialogue partners. Should I, once again, try to persuade iconoclast the God did not bring sin into the world, or convince Bilbo that a thing cannot be true and false at the same time, or inform Prof Gumby that I wasn't limiting God's power but was merely pointing that He could not have both designed life and not designed it. Nah----- Adios.StephenB_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

The purpose of the word program, which is, indeed, a simile, is to distinguish between a process that produces a specific, precise outcome...
and
If God was “using” natural selection, then He was directing it toward a final end, which rules out Darwinism, which holds that evolution has no final end.
(My bolding) These words all indicate linearity, something that has a beginning and an end, something constrained by time. You suggest that God, something akin to a programmer, put in place a process with a specific desired end - humanity. Furthermore, this linear method is the only way you say that God could have used natural selection to create the diversity of life. What you are doing is constraining God the all powerful to operating within bounds of time and space that we can understand. You, sir, are a heretic. Do you think time and processes mean anything to God? Everything would be comprehensible to Him in a blink. It makes no sense whatsoever to state that God must have directed natural selection to a specified end. These words simply have no meaning when applied to God's works. This is the point I'm trying to get at. Your entire dichotomy between directed and undirected processes is false.Prof. FX Gumby_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

I think the reasoning is much the same as in this recent court case -- Person who left keys in car responsible for wreck when car stolen, court says. Much as the TN court ruled that a person who leaves keys in a car, and thereby tempts a thief to steal it, can be held responsible if the thief of the car crashes it, so too (it seems) is God to blame for what happened after he left all that tempting free-will lying around, just waiting to be misused.Ilion_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

StephenB wrote: "Of course, I don’t hold you accountable for your error because, in your judgment, you were not the cause of those paragraphs you just wrote." Does that sound vaguely familiar? "Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?" (Romans 9:19) StephenB would want the apostle Paul to answer something like this: "Well, God couldn't find fault if He caused you to be this way, so obviously, He didn't cause you to be this way." But is that what the apostle Paul says? Check out the answer. The answer shows that your whole concept of God is not the Bible's concept of God. This sermon on Romans 9:19 will shake your foundations.iconoclast_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

Iconoclast, I will leave you to your deterministic fantasies. Citing a long list of badly interpreted Scriptures proves nothing. The world is full of half baked theologians who twist the Scriptures to serve their own agenda. Of course, I don't hold you accountable for your error because, in your judgment, you were not the cause of those paragraphs you just wrote. Good grief!StephenB_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

StephenB wrote: "If you think God was the cause of sin, I can only tell you that you are so far out in left field with respect to Christianity that you might as well be discussing another religion." Now that's what I like to hear. StephenB is exactly right - those who believe that God causes sin and those who believe that God does not cause sin are members of different religions. Those who believe that God causes sin believe in the God of the Bible (see Romans 9:18), while those who do not believe that God causes sin are the objectors of Romans 9:19. We see how God through the apostle Paul answers the objectors of Romans 9:19 in verse 20: "Yes, rather, O man, who are you answering against God? Shall the thing formed say to the One forming it, Why did You make me like this?" For a series of sermons on Romans 9:17-23, see www.outsidethecamp.org/romansseries.htm. Also see the Christian Confession of Faith that states the following: "God absolutely controls all actions and events; nothing at all happens by chance or merely by His permission. All actions and events happen because of His sovereign decree, including the sins of men and angels. Contrary to the aspersions of the enemies of God, this doctrine does not attribute sin to God; instead, it provides great comfort for believers. [Gen 50:20; Exo 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; Deu 2:30; 32:39; Jos 11:20; 1Sa 2:6-8,25; 2Sa 17:14; 2Ch 10:15; 11:4; 25:20; 36:22; Job 12:14-25; 23:13-14; 26:7-12; Psa 105:25; 115:3; 135:5-7; Pro16:4,33; 21:1; Isa 40:23-26; 42:9; 43:13; 45:6-7; 46:9-11; Jer 18:6; 52:3; Eze 17:24; Hab 1:6,12; Joh 19:11; Act 2:23; 4:27-28; Eph 1:11; Rev 17:17]" Read all of the Scripture references. THAT is the God of true Christianity.iconoclast_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

---tgpeeler: "He has shown this. It’s called the law of identity. The first law of rational thought. A thing is what it is. A completely random process cannot, by definition, exist." You know, TG, I think I am going to start qualifying my dialogue partners with a few preliminary questions such as, Do you accept reason's first principles?, and Do you believe you are responsible for your own actions? If they say no, or even hesitate, I think I will just make reference to that fact and move on.StephenB_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

---Bilbo: "Sorry, Stephen, but you haven’t shown why it is logically impossible that a completely random process couldn’t accomplish God’s will." I have demonstrated it to all those who are capable of rational thought.StephenB_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply