Saturday, July 18, 2009
Darwin
A new movie is coming out on the life of Charles Darwin. This is a brief trailer for the movie. It's amazing the impact on culture and the world this one man has had. It's amazing how his thoughts, only theories really, have changed the way our whole culture believes. It's amazing to me that so few realize the leap of faith they must make to believe in evolution. So now, here we are, with two clear systems of faith- one believing there is a God who made everything, and the other believing it all just happened with the help of the god of chance. For me, in case you wondered, I have made my leap of faith and believe a sovereign God made everything, and I even take it further, I believe he made it just as he said he did...in 6 days. Crazy, you may say, but may I say that to believe all of this amazing universe simply happened by accident is an even greater leap of faith than the one I make. So, here I stand, in conflict with the science of the day believing in a God who made everything. It's a step of faith I gladly make because he has proven himself to exist and he has proven his word to be faithful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Wow. What a fascinating title. I wonder how accurate the story is? It certainly was an book of great cultural impact.
Of course just believing god has made everything is not enough. We MUST accept the Bible as literally true and accept the 6 days of creation account. If not, then you cant be a chrisitan.
Mike P.
Mike,
Are you sure you want to say,
"We MUST accept the Bible as literally true and accept the 6 days of creation account. If not, then you cant be a chrisitan."
I understand what you are trying to say, but be careful. First of all what you say is not true. Millions of people have come to faith and truly been saved without knowing much at all. The ONLY thing required for salvation is faith alone in Christ alone. I agree that as a believer grows he will believe the bible is the word of God. I believe that as a believer grows he will believe that God made everything, but I don't agree that this belief is REQUIRED for salvation. Would you like to restate your comments and clarify your point?
So where do you draw the line? Can I take the crucifixion and resurrection figuratively as well? Who or what gives us the ability to know what is essential and what is not? What to be taken literally and what figuratively?
Mike P.
Hi Mike P. I hope you don't mind if I join the discussion.
Well, first, belief in the number of days of creation is never mentioned in regard to our salvation.
Take Romans 10 for example:
"10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."
Knowledge of the book of Genesis, much less the literal vs. figurative nature of the text, is never part of what we are told is required for salvation.
Second, we're told that God created things in 6 days. We're not told to believe that was 6 literal days or 6 figurative days.
The point in Genesis is that God is the Creator and He is, as creator, sovereign over all things and the only true God. The Hebrew word used for "God" 32 times in Genesis 1 is "Elohim", communicating God as Creator, Preserver, Transcendent, Mighty and Strong.
Part of figuring out if something is figurative or literal is finding out what the rest of the Bible says about it. But first, a rule of thumb is that you take things at their face value (literal) unless given good reason to view it as figurative.
There is a great deal about the literal resurrection of Jesus (he ate, people touched him, etc.) and testimony as to his actual physical death and actual physical resurrection as well as mention (as in Romans) of belief in His resurrection for salvation.
The visions in the book of Daniel, for example, are figurative. We know in part because Daniel has some of them explained to him by the angel. But they don't make any sense if we take them literally. Visions are often figurative and often written in poetic form in scripture.
Genesis 1 is the subject of discussion because we're not certain it's figurative or literal. But unless we are given some reason to take it figuratively, you take it plainly; meaning 6 days. But there are many true believers who believe both.
I'm not sure I cleared anything up there.
Since you brought it up brandon, there are other passages that seem to say something different regarding salvation. Jesus himself says "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." No mention of being raised from the dead as a requiremnt.
Jesus also said if you dont pick up "your" cross and follow him, you are not worthy of him.
So what do you do when bible passages tell you different things are required?
Mike P.
Also,
I have seen Mike Messerli lay into beople before on this blog for not taking the OT stories literally. He said if we dont believe the stories, then we dont believe the promises, then we dont believe in God.
Sounds like a lot of inconsistency here with poeple picking and choosing what they want.
Mike P.
Mike P,
I do take the bible literally. That's my position. I don't think I'm ever unkind in my defense of that position though.
But there is a big difference between THAT discussion and the discussion of what is required to be saved. Let's focus on this one thing for now-
What do you have to believe to be saved?
Let's address that question alone and defend it with scripture. The other questions, i.e. creation, inerrancy of scripture, and other topics can be a different discussion.
Can we focus on this one question first?
Mike,
They all go hand in hand dont they? How do you know what it takes to be saved if you dont know what to take literally? You simply dont, it opens up subjective interpretation whcih then allows anyone to pick and chose what they want to believe. if i cant take jonah, noah, creation, the virgin birth, etc...literally, then you cant then say "but wait, this part over here has to be taken literally and thats the requirment". At least not logically you cant.
I know people who say they are christian but they dont take the ressurection literally, they take it as an allegory or something that they apply to their lives. This is what i was hinting at when i mentioned jesus own words in my last post, pick up your cross and follow me, whcih sounds allegorical. and paul says something similar about i die wth christ, share in his sufferings, etc...
Mike P.
Mike P,
Ok, point taken. I won't "lay into you" as you state I have done to others (which surprised me....I have always tried to be kind, so that really surprised me).
Can we start with some basic assumptions? Let me list them as yes or no options. From there we can find a common place to discuss the question I would like to pursue, unless you would rather pursue other issues? Here are some basic yes/no questions, let's see where we find ourselves-
I believe the bible is the inspired word of God. yes or no
I believe the Old Testament is true. yes or no
I believe Jesus was God in flesh.
yes or no
Let's start with those. If you want to add a few of your own, let's do so.
To stick just to one topic at a time:
Regarding what the Bible says about salvation you said:
there are other passages that seem to say something different regarding salvation. Jesus himself says "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." No mention of being raised from the dead as a requiremnt.
How is that different from the passage in Romans? The words are different, but there are several ways to say the same thing. What is required in both those passages?
Brandon,
good point. it's far too easy to get off topic. I know there are other issues to deal with, but your point is good.....let's focus on the requirements for salvation. We can discuss the other topics later. Thanks for the focus, Brandon.
I wrote that before you posted yours. Maybe I'm prophetic. ;-)
I was thinking the same thing....
We are all over the place now.
brandon,
Its completely different. Jesus wasnt dead/raised yet when he said that so obviously, believing that he was raised from the dead wasnt what he was saying.
All he said was "if you hear my word, and believe him who sent me". thats very different than saying "if you believe he was raised from the dead"
You can see that right?
Mike P.
Thanks for the dialog, Mike P. I hope we are being helpful in answering your question.
All he said was "if you hear my word, and believe him who sent me". thats very different than saying "if you believe he was raised from the dead"
Yes that is different. No, that's not all Jesus said. Here is that passage from John 5:
"16So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
19Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. 21For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.
24"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. 25I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man."
That's a lot to process and a large passage, but I posted it to remind us that each verse is part of a paragraph, part of a chapter, part of a book, part of the Bible. It is completely impossible to interpret the Bible accurately if you do not do so in light of the entire Bible. We get into a lot pf trouble doing it.
Let me ask you a question: When Jesus says, "whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life", what is it that Jesus wants us to believe?
What is the word of Jesus and of the Father? It is that Jesus is the son of God and, included in the context of this passage, He is equal with God. The Jews understood that very well. For the Father to say something is for Jesus to say it - they speak with the same voice and authority.
What is the word about Jesus? What is it that we are to believe? When you answer, be cautious not to only look at that passage but at the whole book of John and the whole NT as well.
Forgot to add:
When you ask this:
All he said was "if you hear my word, and believe him who sent me". thats very different than saying "if you believe he was raised from the dead"
You are assuming that the meaning is different. Are believing "him who sent me" and "believing he was raised from the dead" different things or are they the same things?
Brandon,
It is you who is assuming they are saying the same thing. I am looking at the plain text, and they are in no way saying the same thing.
How can you even think they are saying the same thing? You are reaching and reading into the text i believe, which should be fairly obvious.
Believing in Yahweh, whcih is what jesus is saying to the jews at this juncture, is a far cry from saying that "really" means believe in something that hasnt even happend yet. A ressurecting God-man is the furthest thing from a 1st century jews mind.
Just to clarify, i am not saying Jesus wasnt raised from the dead, i am just speaking to your assumption that those passages are saying the same thing. maybe to you, looking in hindsight can come to that conclusion, but the context of the text certainly is not sayng that.
Mike P.
That sounded rather harsh, i am sorry.
Mike P.
Thanks for your response, Mike P.
Don't even worry about it, friend. Blog comments are a really cruddy way to communicate. I suggest, if you are in the Lewisville area, that you call CBC and ask Mike to chat with you over a cup of coffee. You will be amazed at how patient and gracious he is as he answers your questions.
I am indeed making an assumption. I am assumming that Jesus is not a liar and that the word of God, regardless of my ability to figure out every passage, contains everything I need to be saved. I assume that the contradictions stem from my inability to understand, not the fallibility of God's word.
If I may answer you, I hope to clarify, not muddy the waters. This sort of discussion is far better at a table over a good cup of coffee with your Bibles in front of you.
I may have missed it but I don't think you answered my question, nor did you take into account the whole story of the gospel. You cannot interpret this passage apart for the rest of the book of John. You can, but you will pile heresy upon heresy in the process.
Jesus, in this passage of John, did not say, "believe in Yahweh". They already believed in Yahweh - that is what made them Jews. He said, "whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."
Something different had happened. What was it? You must ask this question: Is that true? Is Jesus lying? Is He misleading? Because if what Jesus says here is not the truth, then He is lying. I don't believe you think He is lying, so where do we go from there?
It appears to you that this passage and Romans are in conflict. If you are a believer, then in the process of resolving the conflict you will get to know the Lord and his word better. Good things! If you are not a believer, then your responsibility is the same, given either verse. Believe or face condemnation.
I say that the passages are saying the same thing because they both, taken in the context of the NT, DO point to the same thing: we are saved through belief. To believe in the resurrection and to believe in the word of the Father are the same thing - they both testify to the same event. The Father raised the Son from the dead. At that point in John, Jesus had not been resurrected - but he would be very soon after. Both John and Romans were written after the resurrection. Both take that into account - you must keep reading to get your answer.
You are absolutely right that a resurrected God-man was the last thing on the 1st century Jewish mind. That's why we have to keep on reading!
Jesus is telling those Jews, "I have the authority to Judge and to give life. Listen to what the Father says and you will have eternal life. He tells them, "I am equal to Yahweh." In chapter 8 He will say, "I AM", the literal name for Yahweh.
The Father says that belief in Jesus is eternal life - it's all over the NT. I can say the Father said it because the Holy Spirit inspired those men to write it and to proclaim the gospel to all those around.
The context of the passage demands that we look at the entire book of John, the NT and the whole Bible. The Bible is the context. Always. That passage does not exists outside of the context of the whole Bible story and you need to be cautious saying that it does.
I am indeed reading into the text because I am reading it through the lens of the resurrection. It was written to be read through that lens. It's impossible to understand that passage apart from the rest of the story. That's why it is a story - we read it through to get the answers.
Brandon,
Thanks for the comments;) Turn about is fair play i suppose.
Your model is common, and I respect it, but i respectivly disagree.
Best wishes,
Mike P.
Mike - you are quite welcome, same to you.
I am curious, though.
How do you interpret the Bible?
PS.. You are switching models mid stream and not being consistent. either the NT docs are historical reports, or the are articles of faith. if they are articles of faith, they are not reliebale as historical documents. then the pointo f view of beliefe in historical events is null and void.
Mike P. has left the building
Well, I thought that is how this would conclude.
Thanks for the forum, Mr. Messerli.
Mike P, I welcome the debate, but your comments to Brandon were not Christ-like or loving, sorry, I had to delete them, but I do understand your frustrations with the discussion. I still welcome a good discussion on this simple question, which I asked, but did not get a reply on- What do you have to believe to be saved? That discussion is one I still want to have with those who would like to talk about it.
Mike M.
maybe i didnt say it in the right way, i will try again and be more detailed. I am not saying this to be mean, i am saying it becasue over the course of our posting, this is what i observed and felt, which you should respect enough to post.
I am only trying to give constructive critcism here so that next time he engages someone, he does it in a way that will actually be constructive. I have reviewed your posts and his name comes up a lot, and usually he is arguing with someone and the outcome is negative. something he is doing isnt working and i am trying to help him see that based on my experience with him last night.
he seems like a smart enough lad, but his delivery is very abrasive and cocky. All i wanted to do was make a simple comment, not engage in a 2 day sparring match with a guy who isnt going to listen anyway. My original comments were not even directed at him, he just pushed his way into this and then kept on at it. it is as if he was seeking out confrontation and would not let it go until i yielded to his beliefs.
Am i not entitled to my opinions? I dont know why some poeple are so adament about arguing with poeple and trying to convince them to think like them.
Mike P.
Mike P,
Now that's much better. You ARE allowed your opinions. As I have said, they are welcome here, but I insist on grace, kindness and Christian charity here...that's my priviledge since this is my blog. As to the concept of "constructive criticism" I don't think it's possible, but we all continue to try. And, I understand reading emotion into comments put in print, but I've discoved it's very difficult to read or express emotion in print. That's why I so often invite a person who really wants to talk to meet me for coffee. Once you talk with me, see my heart and my spirit, it changes everything. Then we can really discuss the issues.
Now, regarding Brandon, I have known him for more than 18 years. He grew up in my church, I guess that makes it his church too. He's a missionary in Guatemala. He's an amazing man and deeply loves the Lord. He is passionate about his faith.
Here's the problem I have seen in other posts where Brandon has responded- the person arguing with Brandon does not want to discover truth, he simply wants to argue. Sadly, that is often the case here. People do not come to a blog to discover or seek truth, but merely to vent their own views.
Brandon is a wonderful, Godly man and he loves God. He is passionate about his faith and truth, and he does a great job of defending it.
I do wish, Mike, that you could meet Brandon and have coffee with him, your view of him would be completely different.
Now, to the issues of the discussion- it did seem to me, as I watched your comments, that you were just looking for a good argument. That may not be at all true (again the problem with words alone), but it's easy to read into a discussion like this thoughts and motives that are not true.
Ok, let me close this series of comments here with this last word- thank you all for your thoughts. We are called, as believers, to love one another and look for ways to build up one another. Let's make it our goal, as we talk about these things, to honor Christ in how we do it, ok? thanks.
I thought science and religion were like apples and oranges with two totally different means, and two totally different ends. ;) Why would evolution have to be mutually exclusive to someone's Christian worldview?
Christ was all God and all man at the same time. - I believe in that.
I also believe in evolution and creation in six days. Does this put me in error according to your worldview? Seems ok to me to believe that the complex and intricate world we live in today would be created rather than resulting after billions of random chances and that things have changed throughout time (evolution).
But anyway, is it really worthwhile to tell Christians they can't believe in evolution?
I’m guessing that the other Mike is just frustrated.
You should consider checking out this link and reading between the lines: http://mikemesserli.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html
I think it will help you understand what you’re getting into when you debate online.
Salam,
You asked, "But anyway, is it really worthwhile to tell Christians they can't believe in evolution?"
No one here has done that. You can believe what you wish, but if you are a Christian you must deal with what the Bible says. That is part of this discussion and, as you note, there are different views about what the Bible means. No one here said you can't believe in evolution. Believe it if you wish. What I said is what I believe. I did not impose it on anyone. Please reread my words. And, thanks for your comments.
"It's amazing to me that so few realize the leap of faith they must make to believe in evolution. So now, here we are, with two clear systems of faith- one believing there is a God who made everything, and the other believing it all just happened with the help of the god of chance."
You're argument here makes them mutually exclusive. If this is not what you meant. Ok.
And your comment from:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=31867611&postID=8412239790896375794
""Is theistic evolution acceptable?"
If you believe the bible it would be very difficult to be a theistic evolutionist. I am not a fan of this view. I believe that the only one who was there described it accurately.""
When you mean "very hard," don't you really mean "not possible?"
"So, here I stand, in conflict with the science of the day believing in a God who made everything."
Unfortunately, real science doesn't stand in the way of religion at all. It's the big doses of philosophy in modern science that make it a problem.
And just to clear things up. The theory of evolution isn't a creation theory at all.
Salam,
First, thank you for the great thoughts and questions. May I copy your comments and answer them?
You wrote,
"You're argument here makes them mutually exclusive. If this is not what you meant. Ok."
I believe they are mutually exclusive. Evolution is built on the premise that, as Carl Sagan said, "The universe is all there is and ever will be." Evolution is a theory to explain the universe without God. I do believe the are contrasting views.
"And your comment from:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=31867611&postID=8412239790896375794"
I reread my comments. I understand your questions.
"Is theistic evolution acceptable?"
You will have to decide that for yourself. FOR ME, I cannot reconcile the two things. I don't think these two things can be put together. My view is based on what I believe the bible says about creation. It also means, and you need to know, I take the bible literally. I don't take my view from Genesis alone. I actually get my literal view of creation from Exodus 20. That's a discussion that would be fun, if you wish.
"If you believe the bible it would be very difficult to be a theistic evolutionist. I am not a fan of this view. I believe that the only one who was there described it accurately.
When you mean "very hard," don't you really mean "not possible?"
Yes, that's my implications. That's my view.
"So, here I stand, in conflict with the science of the day believing in a God who made everything."
"Unfortunately, real science doesn't stand in the way of religion at all. It's the big doses of philosophy in modern science that make it a problem."
Yes, I agree, but do realize that evolution is a way of understanding the universe without a creator God. Science would not be happy with our attempts to put the two together. Their system is built on the belief that it all happened without a creator.
"And just to clear things up. The theory of evolution isn't a creation theory at all."
Actually it is. It's a theory of how things came to be. It is a creation theory, on that point I think we disagree. It may not have been Darwin's view, but it is the view of science today.
I know this discussion should have much more content that we are able to put here, but my words are an attempt to simply share with you what I believe. Thanks for asking.
Post a Comment