tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post5713418315800080052..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Biblical Evidence of Men Participating in Their Own Salvation (Always Enabled by God's Grace)Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger215125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-24468796478976493732010-01-09T03:09:11.048-05:002010-01-09T03:09:11.048-05:00I feel that it was you Dave who jumped too quickly...<i>I feel that it was you Dave who jumped too quickly on me with your harsh judgment.</i><br /><br />Do you think I was as harsh with you as Bishop White was with me in his latest hit-and-run post, that I documented on this blog?<br /><br />If not, will you condemn what White wrote, and at least call it a "harsh judgment"? Or will that get you into too much hot water with your anti-Catholic cronies?Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-4386609162605079332010-01-09T03:04:20.273-05:002010-01-09T03:04:20.273-05:00Do you believe that also? (what Adomnan believes?)...<i>Do you believe that also? (what Adomnan believes?)</i><br /><br />I am agnostic on the question, and have been for several years now, though for years I was a "progressive creationist" a la Bernard Ramm.<br /><br />My primary concern in this area is to oppose materialism and atheism, not evolution, though I continue to be very critical of the many excesses and unproven aspects of evolutionary theory, particularly traditional Darwinianism.<br /><br />Whatever is the actual truth of the matter, I don't think it can be explained by natural laws alone; hence I am an avid proponent of Intelligent Design.<br /><br />How old do you think the earth is?Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-82690262606574389902010-01-09T02:10:09.147-05:002010-01-09T02:10:09.147-05:00Ken: soul-less monkeys, apes, and hominids
Adomn...Ken: soul-less monkeys, apes, and hominids <br /><br />Adomnan: Just a clarification. The Catholic Church teaches that all animals, and indeed all plants, have souls, the former animal souls and the latter vegetative souls. Every living thing has a "soul." <br /><br />Only human beings have rational, immortal souls, because only human beings are made "in the image and likeness of God." This likeness to God demonstrates, I believe, that the first human souls were immediately created by God, as every human soul has been since. <br /><br />I have a particular reason for saying that the human body may only possibly have evolved. However, my reason involves a speculation about human origins that I have not yet formulated with sufficient clarity in my own mind to air on this forum.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-10990908837497846542010-01-09T01:45:14.619-05:002010-01-09T01:45:14.619-05:00Ken, I already told you that I reject young earth ...Ken, I already told you that I reject young earth creationism and any kind of fundamentalism or "biblical" literalism out of hand and don't intend to waste my time discussing these things with you or anyone else.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-67478256868292780662010-01-09T00:42:42.509-05:002010-01-09T00:42:42.509-05:00I wrote:
He will have to flesh out more as to wh...I wrote:<br />He will have <i> <b>to flesh out more</b></i> as to what he means, but on the face of it, it <b> <i>seems</i> </b> he does not believe Adam and Eve are historical, the first humans directly created by God.<br /><br />"seems" is being careful; and asking for clarification; so I feel that is was you Dave who jumped too quickly on me with your harsh judgment.<br /><br />Dave,<br />I think I was careful with the above and Adomnan did clarify.<br /><br />However, (if this is what you guys are doing) the view of fitting thousands of years and evolutionary paradigms of Darwins' macro-evolution into the sixth day and the phrase, "The Lord made Adam from the dust of the earth" seems a stretch.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-83900051765484504782010-01-09T00:32:16.188-05:002010-01-09T00:32:16.188-05:00What Adomnan wrote in no way requires (logically o...What Adomnan wrote in no way requires (logically or grammatically) what you claim it did. <br /><br /><i> Until he fleshed it out a little more, it was unclear and he used terms and phrases that seemed to imply he doesn't take Adam and Eve as history, but that they are images and symbols.<br /><br />I have only heard the view that the bodies of Adam and Eve evolved and are consistent with the Darwinian theory of Evolution (seems to be saying that the bodies evolved over thousands of years through stages of monkeys, apes, and soul less hominids) - if I recall right, from Hugh Ross. Do you believe that also? (what Adomnan believes?)</i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-23539727567749840652010-01-09T00:24:02.070-05:002010-01-09T00:24:02.070-05:00Their bodies may have been the product of evolutio...Their bodies may have been the product of evolution, however. I don't know. <br /><br /><i>"I don't know" is wise caution. <br /><br />So, you seem to think their bodies were products of thousands of years of soul-less monkeys, apes, and hominids and then there eventually evolved a pair where God breathed into them a soul? Seems like a lot to fit into "God took dust from the earth and formed a man . . . "</i><br /><br />. . . <br /><br /><br />You'll note that Genesis says God took earth, or "dust" or "clay," and made Adam out of it by breathing a soul into him. That suggests to me that Adam's body was formed from existing matter, which is consistent with evolution; <br /><br /><i> Not really, does not seem consistent with macro-evolution (transition from one species to another) or the Darwinian theory of evolution. Looks like God is directly forming and creating from the dust/earth/chemicals/minerals etc. And then there is the woman He shapes from the rib of the man.</i><br /><br />that is, his body wasn't created out of nothing on the spot. <br /><br /><i> that's what the text seems to say.</i><br /><br />His soul, on the other hand did not come from the preexisting earth, but was "breathed" into him directly by God.<br /><br />Genesis 2:7: "the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground <br /><br /><i> Sounds like you put thousands of years into this little phrase.</i><br /><br />and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."<br /><br />The human body may have evolved; the human soul didn't.<br /><br /><i> "may have" is cautious; good for you.</i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-83619768777445867582010-01-08T19:29:44.585-05:002010-01-08T19:29:44.585-05:00I see no other way to conclude that he doesn't...<i>I see no other way to conclude that he doesn't really think that Adam and Eve were historical, but symbols and images.</i><br /><br />Then it is yet more evidence that you are A) a very poor reader, or B) not very good at logical analysis, or C) unable to comprehend opposing positions that are very different from your own; or some combination of the above.<br /><br />What Adomnan wrote in no way requires (logically or grammatically) what you claim it did. You simply imposed your fundamentalist-type exegesis onto it. You couldn't comprehend anything outside of your paradigm (and of course you take the most uncharitable guess as to what a Catholic like Adomnan or myself believes about such things). You do the same with Scripture.<br /><br />The fact that you simply reiterate your position rather than <i>explain</i> exactly what he said to make you conclude this (as a matter of simple logic) is part of the proof of my contention.<br /><br />You couldn't do so because there is no sensible logical process that led to your false conclusion. You were caught in your shoddy reasoning (that goes on constantly, where Catholics are concerned).Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-9394761751896532432010-01-08T18:29:34.297-05:002010-01-08T18:29:34.297-05:00Ken: But what is the Hebrew and Greek meaning of t...Ken: But what is the Hebrew and Greek meaning of the words? There are more than one words for sacrifice and offering, right?<br /><br />Adomnan: "Thusia" is sacrifice in Greek. "Prosphora" can also be used. This latter word is often translated as "offering." Sacrifice and offering are basically synonyms. <br /><br />The etymology of "thusia" is somewhat uncertain, but some think it comes from a root related to smoke and breath, the idea being that a burnt sacrifice turns the victim into smoke that goes up to heaven. "Prosphora" means "bringing to" and indicates that a sacrifice is a gift; i.e., an offering (the latter word having a parallel etymology from Latin).<br /><br />I don't know the Hebrew.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-79620085257351258962010-01-08T18:21:31.340-05:002010-01-08T18:21:31.340-05:00Ken: Ok, on the English etymology from Latin; I ta...Ken: Ok, on the English etymology from Latin; I take your word for it. Bare etymology does not give us a complete picture of meanings of words though.<br /><br />Adomnan: By analogy with a word like purificare (to make pure, purify), sacrificare would originally mean "to make holy." <br /><br />In any event, the purpose of a sacrifice is not to punish the victim, but to make the victim holy by giving it to God. Once the victim, or it's life/blood is holy, then the priest can use it to expiate or cleanse from sin people, places and objects. This is why the priest sprinkles it or "pours it out" on people, places and objects and why it is said of the Day of Atonement sacrifice that "without the shedding (i.e., pouring out) of blood, there is no forgiveness (really, 'remission') of sins." Sacrifice remits sin by cleansing it, removing it -- not by punishing it. <br /><br />Additionally, the statement "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins" applies in the context only to the unintentional sins expiated on the Day of Atonement. It is not a general statement that forgivess of sin always requires the shedding of blood. In the OT, sins could also be forgiven by repentance alone, without sacrifice.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-15522717206064284842010-01-08T17:02:27.977-05:002010-01-08T17:02:27.977-05:00Ken, I wrote:
"I believe that the first huma...Ken, I wrote:<br /><br />"I believe that the first human couple fell.."<br /><br />"As Genesis puts it, Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They fell..."<br /><br />Evidently, I believe that we are all descended from a first human couple, who fell. <br /><br />When I say that I don't read the Genesis story as "history in the modern sense," that doesn't imply that it has no connection with historical events. <br /><br />I believe that God created the souls of "Adam and Eve" directly and instantaneously. Their bodies may have been the product of evolution, however. I don't know. Seems likely in view of the fact that all lower animal species evolved physically. But perhaps the human species was an exception. For me, the historical appearance of the human species, how it took place as an event in time, is a mystery.<br /><br />You'll note that Genesis says God took earth, or "dust" or "clay," and made Adam out of it by breathing a soul into him. That suggests to me that Adam's body was formed from existing matter, which is consistent with evolution; that is, his body wasn't created out of nothing on the spot. His soul, on the other hand did not come from the preexisting earth, but was "breathed" into him directly by God.<br /><br />Genesis 2:7: "the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."<br /><br />The human body may have evolved; the human soul didn't.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-44205043991045623972010-01-08T16:53:35.577-05:002010-01-08T16:53:35.577-05:00By what logical process do you conclude that from ...By what logical process do you conclude that from his words?<br /><br /><i> By what logical process can you conclude otherwise? He says he doesn't take the Adam and Eve story in the garden as history; (qualified by "historical" in quotation marks and "in our modern sense" (that is why I said, that he needs to flesh it out some and declare his position) and he calls it images and symbols.<br /><br />Adomnan - spell it out more clearly - do you think Adam and Eve are historical persons, created directly by God?</i><br /><br />I see no other way to conclude that he doesn't really think that Adam and Eve were historical, but symbols and images.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-50138901387287914532010-01-08T16:33:52.269-05:002010-01-08T16:33:52.269-05:00By what logical process do you conclude that from ...By what logical process do you conclude that from his words?Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-23798908634207364582010-01-08T13:38:46.333-05:002010-01-08T13:38:46.333-05:00Dave,
Adomnan wrote:
I might add, by the way, th...Dave,<br /><br />Adomnan wrote:<br /><br />I might add, by the way, that I don't take the Adam and Eve/Garden of Eden story as "historical" in our modern sense. I see it as a description of the human condition in images and symbols.<br /><br /><i> He will have to flesh out more as to what he means, but on the face of it, it seems he does not believe Adam and Eve are historical, the first humans directly created by God.</i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-10938571353418811842010-01-08T13:30:45.848-05:002010-01-08T13:30:45.848-05:00Adomnan: Etymology. The Latin word "sacrifici...Adomnan: Etymology. The Latin word "sacrificium" comes from "sacrum facere," which means "make holy." <br /><br /><i> Ok, on the English etymology from Latin; I take your word for it. Bare etymology does not give us a complete picture of meanings of words though. <br /><br />But what is the Hebrew and Greek meaning of the words? There are more than one words for sacrifice and offering, right?<br /><br />I will also try to look deeper into the Hebrew and Greek terms, especially the Hebrew.</i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-27184929889565933182010-01-08T13:12:41.632-05:002010-01-08T13:12:41.632-05:00But Adam and Eve, it seems to me are real historic...<i>But Adam and Eve, it seems to me are real historical people, the first created humans directly by God - to not believe that is serious danger - . . . Paul takes them as real history in I Timothy 2:11-16</i><br /><br />I don't see anywhere, that Adomnan has denied this. Could you please document it? And if you discover that he didn't make such a ludicrous claim, then it seems that an apology and retraction is in order for such an outrageous claim about what someone supposedly believes.<br /><br />On the other hand, if Adomnan believes as you claim (as he can verify, if so), then he is a flaming liberal, and that seems quite implausible. Looks like you sinmply engaged in more misrepresentation of your opponent's view. Perhaps you should ask yourself what accounts for such sloppiness, and how it can be avoided in the future, for the sake of your own credibility as a Protestant apologist?Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-59738916493017859462010-01-08T13:07:40.962-05:002010-01-08T13:07:40.962-05:00When it is conceived as the whole of what faith is...When it is conceived as the whole of what faith is, yes. My point in all my Bible passages (to be finished today: I got interrupted yesterday) is that faith involves both assent and trust: "both/and": and that it is wrong to reduce it to either bare assent or to trust alone. <br /><br />"Faith alone" is incorrect insofar as it neglects the inherent place of works in the equation, overlooks the aspect of obedience, and formally separates sanctification from justification. It also (in Calvinism) denies the possibility of falling away, which is all over the Bible.<br /><br />As I've always said, there is much more common ground on this than many on both sides seem to realize: especially when the question is looked at in practical, day-to-day Christian life terms.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-71369364490443472372010-01-08T12:48:54.813-05:002010-01-08T12:48:54.813-05:00I should add, in support of my critique of Protest...I should add, in support of my critique of Protestant trust/fiducia ("trust, as Protestants understand it, is inconsistent with true faith"), that the Council of Trent also condemned the "vain confidence (vana fiducia) of the heretics."Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-55971917243373723772010-01-08T12:48:45.092-05:002010-01-08T12:48:45.092-05:00I should add, in support of my critique of Protest...I should add, in support of my critique of Protestant trust/fiducia ("trust, as Protestants understand it, is inconsistent with true faith"), that the Council of Trent also condemned the "vain confidence (vana fiducia) of the heretics."Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-59732645196445045302010-01-08T12:38:56.742-05:002010-01-08T12:38:56.742-05:00I agree with Dave's demonstration that biblica...I agree with Dave's demonstration that biblical faith includes both assent to revelation and trust, although NT "hope" may be a closer match to OT "emunah/faith." I overstated the case against faith as trust in the NT in an effort to stimulate discussion.<br /><br />Yet, Dave's citations from the Bible do show, I think, that the NT sees faith primarily as assent to revelation. Faith as trust is more typical of the OT. That is because what was merely foreshadowed and promised in the OT was fully revealed in the New in Jesus Christ, so that one could move from a general trust in God's providence to a recognition that He has in fact accomplished what He had promised. <br /><br />Trust in God's providence is appropriate when God has not revealed His will explicitly. So if we pray for something, we can trust that God will give it to us; but if God has revealed something, then it is not a matter of trust, but of assent (belief). <br /><br />I wrote:<br />"Again, faith is nothing more or less than assent to what God reveals. In fact, I would go so far as to say that trust, as Protestants understand it, is inconsistent with true faith."<br /><br />This is true, in my opinion, when Protestants call on people to "trust" in what God has revealed (for example, that Jesus Christ "died for our sins and was raised for our justification"). No, one should "believe" this. The articles of faith call for assent, not trust. I don't see that Paul, say, "trusted" that Christ was "raised for our justification." He acknowledged that God had revealed this.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-56876837264898389722010-01-08T12:11:18.426-05:002010-01-08T12:11:18.426-05:00Ken: "In the day you eat of it you shall sure...Ken: "In the day you eat of it you shall surely die" - Genesis 2:17.<br /><br />Adomnan: This is evidently a warning, not the imposition of a punishment.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-79386822445596975312010-01-08T12:07:11.867-05:002010-01-08T12:07:11.867-05:00Ken: where do you get the idea that "sacrific...Ken: where do you get the idea that "sacrifice" means "making sacred/holy" ??<br /><br />Adomnan: Etymology. The Latin word "sacrificium" comes from "sacrum facere," which means "make holy." <br /><br />Whatever you call it, sacrifice (in any language) has nothing to do with judicial execution.<br /><br />So, you believe that Hebrew priests, Aaron and the rest, were nothing but gussied up executioners and the Temple was a place of mass execution? Don't you have any sense of decency or reverence? Is there no insult you won't fling at God or what is holy to uphold your opinions?Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-48782278450728579362010-01-08T10:13:43.801-05:002010-01-08T10:13:43.801-05:00And "sacrifice," even though it means &q...And "sacrifice," even though it means "making sacred/holy," actually is just another word for execution?<br /><br /><i> where do you get the idea that "sacrifice" means "making sacred/holy" ??</i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-50400534972911955912010-01-08T10:06:23.985-05:002010-01-08T10:06:23.985-05:00I don't want to get into an argument over youn...I don't want to get into an argument over young earth vs. old earth either . . . <br /><br />But Adam and Eve, it seems to me are real historical people, the first created humans directly by God - to not believe that is serious danger - it means you don't take the genealogies seriously at all, and Genesis and Chronicles treat them as real time and space history.<br /><br />Paul takes them as real history in I Timothy 2:11-16 on why women cannot be elders/pastors/teachers with authority over men. How do you deal with that?<br /><br />Plus,<br />I Samuel 2:6 - "The LORD kills and makes alive, He brings down to Sheol and raises up."<br /><br />see also Deuteronomy 32:39 and 2 Kings 5:7<br /><br />You don't seem to believe in God's sovereignty and that it was God's decree of punishment for sin - "In the day you eat of it you shall surely die" - Genesis 2:17.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-43653145291239923032010-01-07T16:53:29.331-05:002010-01-07T16:53:29.331-05:00Ken: For humans, especially, yes it was. Romans 5:...Ken: For humans, especially, yes it was. Romans 5:12; and Genesis 2:17 and Romans 6:23 certainly seem to be saying that.<br /><br />Adomnan: So the Hebrew priests were merely executioners and the holy altar of God was a gallows, a place of execution? And "sacrifice," even though it means "making sacred/holy," actually is just another word for execution?<br /><br />Actually, the Bible doesn't present death as a punishment from God, but rather as a consequence of sin. So, Paul writes that death is "the wages of sin;" that is, something that sin "pays out," not God -- unless you think that not only Jesus Christ, but the Father, is "sin." Death is not the "wages," or punishment, of God.<br /><br />Romans 5:12: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." <br /><br />So you see, Paul doesn't blame death on God (as if He inflicted it as punishmnet), but on sin. <br /><br />Finally, God warned Adam and Eve that they'd die as a consequence of sinning. He didn't impose death on them. <br /><br />I might add, by the way, that I don't take the Adam and Eve/Garden of Eden story as "historical" in our modern sense. I see it as a description of the human condition in images and symbols. So your speculations about whether animals died or not before the first human sin strike me as inane and superstitious. The geologic record shows that animals have been dying for billions of years. (And, no, I don't want to get into a debate about Biblical literalism/fundamentalism and young earth creationism. So please don't start.)<br /><br />I believe that the first human couple fell from a higher state of being by forgetting their union with God and so entering into a condition of dualism/division, which is only possible in separation from God. In fact, sin is simply separation from God. As Genesis puts it, Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They fell into a state where their "flesh" was not completely governed by spirit (as opposed to our future, "spiritual" -- as Paul calls them -- resurrection bodies). I hasten to add that this is not a Gnostic contempt for "matter" as such, but a recognition of the problematic status of the material aspect of human existence, what Paul calls "the flesh," when it is not governed by spirit. The Incarnation redeems matter and the flesh by spiritualizing it.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.com