So Nimm Denn Meine Hande...

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Ha...I'm plagarising myself!

I wrote this and posted it somewhere else tonight, but since I was typing for like and hour, I figured I'd throw it on my blog as my first new post, now that I have the internet. I was answering the question of whether or not Evolutionists can have faith or not when the person who wrote the post stated that Evolution could not be reconciled with faith in God. Here's more of my idiotic ramblings:

*********************************

Hmm. Reading these comments is definitely interesting. In no place is the rational dichotomy between the Christian and the non-Christian so pronounced as when talking about the origins debate.

It is an interesting question that Simon raises. If Evolution is some sort of attack against the Christian God (and the Bible he wrote), then how WOULD one explain how so many Evolutionists have faith?

To answer that, one would need to define "faith". But, in order to do that, we'd have to settle on a common authority for our definition. As a Christian, I would want to derive that definition from God, the source of all truth. The way I would derive that definition from God is to see what he's said about it in his self revelation: the Bible. I'd want to know if God said anything along the lines of defining "faith", and if he did, I would seek to align my understandings to God's position on the issue; which is ultimate, objective and authoritative truth.

It's at this juncture that the non-Christian (or possibly the person who calls himself "Christian" but doesn't uphold the authority or relevance of the Bible) would raise his voice in objection and ask, "Why the Bible?" or "Why YOUR Bible?" You can see how the argument inevitably ends up being a debate on the nature of the scripture.

By definition, a Christian loves God and must, if they love God, obey the Bible for that is the very teaching of the Bible itself. 1 John 5:1-5 and John 14:23-24 are two passages that explicitly teach this, among many others (but I'm not here to write a book. If anyone wants to talk about any passage I present, feel free to bring it up).

Beyond obeying it, one must understand that is the only authority on all matters of truth, eclipsing even one's personal experience. In 2 Peter 1:17-21, Peter presents that that the Bible exceeds his own dynamic personal experience of seeing Jesus in his glorified state (if only for a moment), and this is so because God wrote the Bible; it's divinely authored.

And because it's divinely authored, it's true. True in the sense of Cartesian certainty; 100% correct, not 99.44%. God isn't just smarter than me, he's smarter than mankind as a whole. That would be part of being a creator; in the procedure of designing, constructing and maintaining something complex (like an X-Ray machine) I, the creator of said item, would have to understand how I designed and built and maintain it. And, if God is the designer, creator and sustainer of everything that is (including things like language, though, mathematics, etc.), then God has perfect knowledge of those things and the creatures that utilize them. God isn't just smarter than me, he's smarter than mankind as a whole, over the entirety of history. The Bible states this explicitly when, in 1 Corinthians 1:25, it says:

"For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength."

Even the stupidest thing God has ever done is smarter than the ultimate wisdom of all humanity, period.

So, if I have an authoritative revelation of God on an issue, I have certainty on the issue.

This brings us back to the question:

“How do you explain so many evolutionists having faith?”

If I'm seeking to stand on firm, objective, revealed truth, I am slapped in the face with only one answer.

Evolutionists cannot, by biblical testimony, have faith.

One might contest, saying, “Uh, what? They sure as heck seem to claim to be Christians! They believe in Jesus, read the Bible, go to church, pray, etc. Who are YOU to say that they DON'T have faith?”

Well, I’m nobody to say anything. Good thing it's not my idea. That's the great thing about being a Christian. I don't have a whole lot of original ideas (or any, for that matter); God told me what faith is and I’d only dare suggest that God is correct.

So one says,"Okay. What did GOD tell you faith is?"

For that, I could type a few thousand pages, but I'll stick with one pretty good passage (again, if anyone wants, I'll show this from any of a few dozen other passages in the Bible. I only pick one to stop this from turning into a book!); Romans 4:1-12.

Romans 4 is commenting on how Abraham was made righteous by God, and in the midst of the argument is what I'd suggest to be a great little definition of "faith".

In verse 3 of Romans 4, Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 when he writes:

"What does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness’."

Then, in verse 9, Paul rephrases his quotation and says "We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness."

Now where in here do I get a definition of "faith"?

Well, in the 3rd verse it says "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

So what is the "it" that was credited to him as righteousness?

"Abraham believed God..."

Believed God about WHAT?

If you look back in Genesis, you see that in 15:4-5, God promises Abraham a son (who we learn later to be Isaac).

So God made a promise and Abraham believed him.

Now, jumping back to Romans, Paul restates his quotation and says "...Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness..."

Instead of saying "it" or "believed God", Paul says "faith". I would suggest that Paul saw "believing God's promise" and "faith" as synonymous.

So, IF "faith" is "believing God" (or what God says), then do Evolutionists have a biblical definition of "faith"? Do they believe what God says about the origin of life?

Does not God comment in plain language that he created the Earth in 6, 24 hour periods, a few thousand years ago (not a few billion). Do Evolutionists believe God’s testimony or do they toss out the ONLY account of the event from the ONLY living eye-witness in a search for a more "scientifically reasonable" explanation?

I don't know about you, but I would suspect that if there was a car accident in Tokyo and I, who saw nothing of the accident, showed up and attempted to argue about what happened with an eye-witness, one may think MY efforts were absurd.

Does it strike you as strange how so many people with PhD's can do EXACTLY that and wonder how anyone could ever disagree with them?

*******************************************

Yeah. It's good to be back. For the record, I'm going to be kinda scarce as blogging takes up SO much time. Either way, I hope some of you enjoy the post and are prodded to ponder. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

12 Comments:

Blogger Supraman said...

Armchair,

You ought to post the second response you wrote to Simon. IMHO it was better than the first. Well done!

4:24 PM

 
Blogger BornAgaiNatheist said...

Armchair,

Good to see your back posting.

I think your car accident in Tokyo would look more like this: you show up at the scene and some guy (you don't know his name but he did claim to converse with a talking iguana), tells you he knows EXACTLY how it happened. Thats some kind of eyewitness.

1:24 PM

 
Blogger matt said...

i did quite enjoy this post, but i enjoyed Father Ted's face up in the corner more.

9:39 PM

 
Blogger The Armchair Theologian said...

Iguanas? They cannot be trusted at all! Those lying little reptiles! A talking sheep would be a credible witness, but an Iguana?! Come on!

But seriously Bornagain,

I don't understand your analogy. How does the iguana fit in? Is that supposed to be God?

1:21 AM

 
Blogger The Armchair Theologian said...

Oh, and supraman, I'm working on the second rebuttal for you! And your profile says that you screen calls for Hank Hannegraff? Dude, THAT is AWESOME! I'm going to take you out for lunch! Seriously! I live in Burbank and I'm going to take you out for lunch one day! Send me an e-mail and we'll set things up!

1:23 AM

 
Blogger Jeremy said...

Oh Matt, I can't believe you got Father Ted mixed up with the ever-loveable Jack! I believe that picture comes from the trip he was on after drinking Drano. Feck! Arse!! Drink!!!

6:29 AM

 
Blogger BornAgaiNatheist said...

Armchair,

The eyewitness could be God but unfortunately we don't really know. All we have is the testimony of the unknown author of Genesis who tells of a talking snake.

10:38 AM

 
Blogger matt said...

listen Jer, i haven't watched that show in like six years. I'm lucky I got the show right.

1:53 PM

 
Blogger Supraman said...

Armchair,

Your responses to Simon are great, but, given the material on his blog, I'm not sure that he will understand what you write...not intellectually mind you. It is as a dear pastor of mine once said, "No illumination."

Actually, my profile says I am a former call screener for the Bible Answer Man (among other former means of employment). I left CRI in January of '03. I work in real estate now. Plus, CRI is in North Carolina these days... Just FYI.

5:15 PM

 
Blogger The Armchair Theologian said...

Since when is the author of Genesis unknown?

11:26 PM

 
Blogger BornAgaiNatheist said...

Armchair,

Traditionally the pentateuch has been attributed to Moses, but the books themselves don't say anything about their authorship. Also in the last chapter of deuteronomy the author describes the death of Moses, so obviously Moses couldn't have written that part of it.

I thought all this was common knowledge.

So who do you think wrote the book of Genesis?

12:49 PM

 
Blogger The Armchair Theologian said...

I addresed this on the main page...see the post about the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch

7:37 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home