Gman wrote:Well you obviously didn't understand..
Then feel free to clarify, because you stated that Jesus didn't rise to a body of flesh and bone, something that you are still defending.
Demonstrated what? What the heck do you mean by saying he had flesh and blood? Christ said... "a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you SEE I have." - Luke 24:39. As they SAW what he had.. Not that what it was..
But nonetheless this body was indeed, in fact, physical.. How, I'm not sure...
What do you mean, you aren't sure how? Something is either physical or it isn't. And am I to understand you as arguing that Jesus didn't REALLY have flesh and bones . . . that He was just commenting that the disciples THOUGHT He had flesh and bones? Is that REALLY your position, Gman? I would hate to obviously not understand again.
Ah... No Jac.. Spiritual death meaning in spiritual separation from God... The spirit is always a spirit whether it is in heaven or hell..
Now THIS is what I obviously don't understand. If the spirit is physical as you have said, then how can you distinguish between physical and spiritual death? If one part of my body does--say, my right kidney--is that a different kind of death than physical death? What if my hand or eye or liver dies? Is that something other than physical death? If the spirit is just another part of the body, like the heart or brain, how is its death not also physical?
In any case, bottom line: was Jesus raised with a physical body of flesh and blood or not?
Kurieuo wrote:No, it impacted me as I was revulsed by his judgement that my faith in Christ was not sincere and strong. He was quite clear. I don't have to prove it to you to be justified on this. I know what I heard.
And you are so convinced of this despite your admission that you had no theological training? You are really not willing to admit that you might have misunderstood what he heard? And you have no evidence beyond your own memory to back your position? So you are really basing your argument here on the memory of encounter with a nuanced theological position that you were theologically ill-equipped to process?
If so, you are very right that you can't be justified on that--at least not to me. Perhaps that's enough for you, but I have always thought you were one who required more evidence for a position than that.
Way to turn it around Jac. You're a great rhetorician, I'll give you that, but this is just being blatently obvious.
Condemn? Judge, perhaps, but there is nothing wrong with judging the attitudes of those who profess to follow Christ. We are infact encouraged in Scripture to do so. Those who do not profess Christ though we are to leave to God.
You know, this is the second time that I can remember that you have pulled this card--talking about debate tactics. I've had no training of any kind in rhetoric, Kurieuo. Perhaps you have. Perhaps you are trying to make a rhetorical attempt to draw attention away from the substantive point I am making and turn the attention on me and my character. That appears to me to be a veiled
ad hominem. That's hardly appropriate, my friend, and, I believe, in direct violation of the board rules . . .
As far as condemning vs. judging, I'll accept your distinction, and I'll tell you the same thing I told DnC. If you believe you have the right to judge another Christian, that's between you and God. If you believe that you have the ability to judge another man's motives, then you have reached a stage in your spiritual growth that is superior to me in every way I can imagine. As I said before, in all honesty, I have great difficulty at times knowing my own motives.
So while you may believe that God tells us to judge others, I believe that Jesus told us not to judge one another, and that Paul echoed that statement, reminding us that he doesn't even judge himself. If someone is doing something that I think is in fundamental violation of Scripture--such as becoming the judge of another when there is only One Judge--I'll certainly point it out, but what that person does then is up to God. It certainly isn't my place to condemn, or judge . . .
You seem to be over-reaching here, and ignoring the thread Canuckster started with quotes. A thread you yourself have replied within. I myself have also previously posted on this board re: what such persons have written. The issue was quite open for them.
Have you also read over Canuckster's post linking to the Report of the Creation Study Committee (Presbyterian Church in America). They observe:
One class of interpreters tends to interpret the days figuratively or allegorically (e.g., Origen and Augustine), while another class interprets the days as normal calendar days (e.g., Basil, Ambrose, Bede and Calvin). From the early church, however, the views of Origen, Basil, Augustine and Bede seem to have had the greatest influence on later thinking. While they vary in their interpretation of the days, all recognize the difficulty presented by the creation of the sun on the fourth day.
Also Canuckster's other post linking to the Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation which says:
Committed, as the Seminary is, to the inerrancy of Scripture and standing in the Augustinian and Reformed theological tradition, the precise chronological duration of the six days of creation has never been regarded by the Seminary's Board or Faculty as a matter on which the Scriptures themselves speak with decisive clarity. The Seminary has always held that an exegetical judgement on this precise issue has never of itself been regarded as a test of Christian orthodoxy or confessional fidelity, until some have sought to make it such in the modern period. In effect, to hold such a position would be to disenfranchise from Augustinian and Reformed orthodoxy some who have, in fact, by God's grace, served as its greatest defenders and pillars.
Augustine, himself, as is well known, states in connection with the days of Genesis 1, "What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive."(1)
Anselm may be read to follow this lead in his supposition that "the 'days' of Moses' account ... are not to be equated with the days in which we live.
Interesting though, given your repulsion of Calvin, you would find a lot in common with him on this issue since he believed them to be normal days. But it is also interesting therefore, given their respect of Calvin, that the Westminster concludes on this issue stating:
The Westminster Confession's doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (1:7) goes hand in hand with its inspiration, infallibility, and authority. Yet it implies that not all parts of the Scriptures are equally clear or full. Here we must follow Calvin's great motto that where God makes an end of teaching, we should make an end of trying to be wise. With Augustine and E. J. Young, the revered teacher of our senior faculty members, we recognize that the exegetical question of the length of the days of Genesis 1 may be an issue which cannot be, and therefore is not intended by God to be, answered in dogmatic terms. To insist that it must comes dangerously close to demanding from God revelation which he has not been pleased to bestow upon us, and responding to a threat to the biblical world view with weapons that are not crafted from the words which have proceeded out of the mouth of God.
Did you read the thread you linked to, that I responded in, Kurieuo? Honestly, did you actually read it? Because if you had, you would note that I have already responded to all of this before.
I have never argued that all of the CFs or the Westminster Divines took the days of Gen 1 as being 24 hour days. What I did say, and what you have posted only supports, is that all of those who adopted a literal, as opposed to an allegorical, hermeneutic, took the days to be 24 hours, and that no one held to a day-age view. Not one. Augustine and Origen and the other allegorists held to instantaneous creation, with Augustine expressly repudiating the idea that God created over eons of time. The possibility that the days of Gen 1 could be long eons of time in a literal sense of
yom, as the current Day-Age theory supposes, first appeared after the advent of modern geology. Exactly the same is true concerning the Divines.
Again, were there in history non-24 hour day views? Yes. But all of them had one thing in common: they took the text allegorically. No one who claimed to take Gen 1 literally thought to take the
yomim of Gen 1 as eons until very recently. Now, if you want to argue that Gen 1 should not be taken literally, then you are well within the stream of historical Christian interpretation. As I understand your position, though, you believe, rightly, the text should be taken literally, and you argue that eons of time is the literal, intended meaning. In making that argument, you are completely outside the stream of historical Christian interpretation.
Does that make you wrong? Of course not. But it does and should give us pause to examine the hermeneutical motive in taking such a reading. Why, we should ask, have we only just now come to such a view in the two thousand years of church history?
Perhaps I have missed posts in my absense, but when I actively participated in this debate, there was no misrepresentation or slandering of YECs. If there was, it was policed like everything else according the the discussion guidelines.
I debated Felgar on this issue and it was quite civil. He represented YEC quite well. As have a great deal many other YEC posters who visited this board. In fact, they put forward very complex issues which I really had to think hard on. I believe prevous YEC posters have quite adequately represented their position. In fact, between all the posts on this board, probably just about every issue that can be touched between YEC and OEC Day-Age has probably been discussed. I'm sorry you feel other YECs in the past were not as well equipped to deal with the challenges Day-Age proponents offer like you believe you can.
Furthermore, I am also strongly insulted by your slanderous accusations that the owner and moderators purposely misrepresent YECs on this board. On a personal level, going back to the very beginning on this new board we both moderated, I think you know better Jac that it is not this way at all. Take some time out to examine closely the implications what you are saying here Jac on those who run the board. I don't think this is being fair at all, and it is poor taste in rhetoric if it is being used as such.
First, have I ever said that no YEC before me was "as well equipped to deal with the challenges of Day-age proponents offer like" me? Have I actually said that, Kurieuo? I don't believe so. I don't believe I've ever said anything about the quality of YEC posters before me. I've simply pointed out that I've been watching many of these accusations go unchallenged in many contexts for quite some time and that enough is enough.
If, then, I've said that the YECs who came before me were unqualified, please quote me so that I can publicly retract and apologize. If not, I am asking you to retract and or this statement, as it has implies something very negative about my character. You police other people when they attack other Christian's character . . . what about yourself?
Second, you thankfully have nothing to be insulted about. I was not referring to you when I said that YECs were being slandered. I was specifically referring to DnC, which is something I have said directly to him already. I'll assume you have not been reading the conversation between he and I and so missed that part. Specifically, I am objecting to his saying that Ham has said that a person isn't saved if they don't believe in YEC. That is a flat lie. I am asking you, as a moderator, to police such actions as consistent with this board's purpose. Unless he can post a direct statement by Ham stating as such, which is still forthcoming, he has made a deeply offensive, unevidenced assertion.
If, then, you feel my rhetoric is strong (there's that word again . . . why are you trying to cast my substantive arguments in terms of mere rhetoric?), may I suggest reading me more carefully to see if perhaps you have not misunderstood what I am saying? For my part, I will try to make my own statements still more pointed so as to try to avoid people coming to improper generalizations that I did not intend and certainly do not believe, as you have drawn from my words here.
I agree with you here Jac on the importance of the issue.
I'm sorry you so easily disregard the negative experiences of many Day-Age proponents with YEC. It happens both ways, I know. But given the majority of us here are I guess Day-Age in position, obviously the experiences are more flavoured against YEC. That said, the issue is not won or lost based on character, or character assassination. You can be a Hitler and still be more correct on one particular truth than say Mother Teresa. Someone's character has absolutely no bearing on valid and sound arguments or what is true.
I am also sorry you believe all that has happened to YEC on this board is one-sided slander; that you don't see the positive interactions between fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who accept each other regardless of differences in belief on creation. People like Felgar, Kmart, bizzt, Strix, Jbuza, myself and many others who accepted one another in Christ regardless of our creation position.
I've never disregarded them, Kurieuo. I have been trying to get you people to see that it goes both ways. You and others repeatedly point out the heinous sins of Ham and Hovind, using them to paint YEC in general with a divisive brush--all while paying lip service to the occasional polite YEC--and then imply, if not outright state, that no such statements come from OEC. I'm demonstrating that it DOES come from your side. I'm saying nothing about what comes from mine. I'm sure you will admit that you know nothing of my correspondence between AiG and myself, so don't assume that I am being one sided, Kurieuo.
As I'm sure you agree, two wrongs don't make a right. If you really do believe that YEC is as divisive as you claim, the last thing you should be doing is engaging in such behavior yourself, and still less should you allow it to go on on the boards generally.
For what it is worth, I find it instructive that the public proponents of YEC aren't here anymore, the ones you have had such positive interactions with . . . I hope you can come to see that I'm not defending YEC when they are in the moral wrong. I am telling you, as a brother in Christ, that returning evil for evil is hardly the appropriate Christian response. Pretending like OEC is clean on this matter is intellectually dishonest. When you are willing to disavow Deem for saying that YECs who promote the appearance of age should not be tolerated within the church and that their god is not the God of the Bible as firmly as you do Ham and Hovind, I'll be far more inclined to take your arguments against them as being objective.
More to respond to in this thread, I know, but it is now late, and I have to be up very early.
God bless
