Category Archives: Theology

Creed of Calcedon

Posted on by

Source: Protestant Reformed Churches in America:

https://www.prca.org/about/official-standards/creeds/ecumenical/chalcedon

The Chalcedonian Definition (also called the Chalcedonian Creed or the Definition of Chalcedon) is the declaration of the dyophysitism of Christ’s nature, adopted at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451.

This refuted monophysitism.

The Creed of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, is not mentioned by name in any of our three forms of unity, but the doctrine set forth in it is clearly embodied in Article 19 of our Confession of Faith. It constitutes an important part of our ecumenical heritage. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon settled the controversies concerning the person and natures of our Lord Jesus Christ and established confessionally the truths of the unity of the divine person and the union and distinction of the divine and human natures of Christ. It condemned especially the error of Nestorianism, which denied the unity of the divine person in Christ; the error of Apollinarianism, which denied the completeness of Christ’s human nature; and the error known as Eutychianism, which denied the duality and distinction of the divine and human natures of our Lord Jesus Christ. What was confessionally established at Chalcedon concerning the person and natures of Christ has continued to be the confession of the church catholic ever since that time.

The Creed

We, then, following the holy fathers, all with one consent teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; coessential with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the creed of the holy fathers has handed down to us.

I believe in the creed because I reject monophysitism.

Athanasian Creed

Posted on by

Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.

Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith:

    That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
    neither blending their persons
    nor dividing their essence.
        For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
        the person of the Son is another,
        and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
        But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
        their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

    What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
        The Father is uncreated,
        the Son is uncreated,
        the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

        The Father is immeasurable,
        the Son is immeasurable,
        the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

        The Father is eternal,
        the Son is eternal,
        the Holy Spirit is eternal.

            And yet there are not three eternal beings;
            there is but one eternal being.
            So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
            there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

    Similarly, the Father is almighty,
        the Son is almighty,
        the Holy Spirit is almighty.
            Yet there are not three almighty beings;
            there is but one almighty being.

        Thus the Father is God,
        the Son is God,
        the Holy Spirit is God.
            Yet there are not three gods;
            there is but one God.

        Thus the Father is Lord,
        the Son is Lord,
        the Holy Spirit is Lord.
            Yet there are not three lords;
            there is but one Lord.

    Just as Christian truth compels us
    to confess each person individually
    as both God and Lord,
    so catholic religion forbids us
    to say that there are three gods or lords.

    The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
    The Son was neither made nor created;
    he was begotten from the Father alone.
    The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
    he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

    Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
    there is one Son, not three sons;
    there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

    Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
    nothing is greater or smaller;
    in their entirety the three persons
    are coeternal and coequal with each other.

    So in everything, as was said earlier,
    we must worship their trinity in their unity
    and their unity in their trinity.

Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.

But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that one also believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.

Now this is the true faith:

    That we believe and confess
    that our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son,
    is both God and human, equally.

     He is God from the essence of the Father,
    begotten before time;
    and he is human from the essence of his mother,
    born in time;
    completely God, completely human,
    with a rational soul and human flesh;
    equal to the Father as regards divinity,
    less than the Father as regards humanity.

    Although he is God and human,
    yet Christ is not two, but one.
    He is one, however,
    not by his divinity being turned into flesh,
    but by God’s taking humanity to himself.
    He is one,
    certainly not by the blending of his essence,
    but by the unity of his person.
    For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
    so too the one Christ is both God and human.

    He suffered for our salvation;
    he descended to hell;
    he arose from the dead;
    he ascended to heaven;
    he is seated at the Father’s right hand;
    from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
    At his coming all people will arise bodily
    and give an accounting of their own deeds.
    Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
    and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.

I agree with the creed. I am a trinitarian.




Source: https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/creeds/athanasian-creed

Nicene Creed

Posted on by

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
 of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
 the Only Begotten Son of God,
 born of the Father before all ages.
 God from God, Light from Light,
 true God from true God,
 begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
 through him all things were made.
 For us men and for our salvation
 he came down from heaven,
 and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
 and became man.
 For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
 he suffered death and was buried,
 and rose again on the third day
 in accordance with the Scriptures.
 He ascended into heaven
 and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
 He will come again in glory
 to judge the living and the dead
 and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
 who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
 who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
 who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
 I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
 and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
 and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I affirm the Nicene Creed.

Source: https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Comparison of Nicene Creed 325 AD and revised Nicene Creed 381 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Comparison_between_creed_of_325_and_creed_of_381

Greek Version
Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, Πατέρα, Παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων.
Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων·
φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο.
Τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ σαρκωθέντα
ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα.
Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα.
Καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς.
Καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρός.
Καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.
Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζῳοποιόν,
τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον,
τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον,
τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.
Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν.
Ὁμολογῶ ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.
Προσδοκῶ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν.
Καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος.
Ἀμήν

Berean Baptist Church Statement of Faith

Posted on by

The points of belief number 15. I may have further comments in the future as I ponder the reference scriptures. These 15 are doctrinal beliefs, but I personally have more than the 15. Such as the Nicean Creed. I adhere to certain creeds and certain confessions and that is part of my personal faith separate from these 15 points but not in conflict with them.

Point 1: The Word of God

We believe the Bible is the Word of God, fully inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and has supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.

Psalm 119:89; Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11; 2 Timothy 2:15; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Peter 1:23-25; 2 Peter 1:21

I believe the manuscripts were inspired and given error free. In the original manuscripts. Do we have those? I don’t know. Have they been preserved intact? Good question. I don’t know.

I do know a lot of alleged Christians claim interpretations about the meaning of the manuscripts which are vastly flawed.

Point 2: The Trinity

We believe there is one living and true God, eternally existing in three persons; these are equal in every divine perfection, and they execute distinct but harmonious offices in the work of creation, providence, and redemption.

Genesis 1:1; Deuteronomy 6:4; Matthew 3:16; Matthew 28:19; John 5:18; Acts 5:3-4; Romans 1:20; Philippians 2:6


I agree with this.

Point 3: God the Father

We believe in God the Father, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, an infinite personal spirit perfect in holiness, wisdom, power, and love. We believe he concerns himself mercifully in the affairs of men, hears and answers prayer, and saves from sin and eternal death all who come to him through Jesus Christ.

Genesis 1:1; Matthew 6:9-13; John 3:16, 4:24, 5:26, 17:11, 25; Romans 8:33

I agree. Spirit.

Point 4: Jesus Christ

We believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only begotten Son, conceived by the Holy Spirit. We believe in his virgin birth, sinless life, miracles, and teachings. We believe in his substitutionary atoning death, bodily resurrection, ascension into heaven, perpetual intercession for his people, and personal visible return to earth.

Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:34-35; John 1:1, 3:16, 11:25; Acts 1:3, 9, 16:31; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5; Revelation 1:7

I agree.

Point 5: The Holy Spirit

We believe in the Holy Spirit, who came forth from the Father and Son to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment and to regenerate, sanctify, and empower all who believe in Jesus Christ. We believe that the Holy Spirit indwells every believer in Christ and is an abiding helper, teacher, and guide.

John 14:17, 16:8; Acts 5:1-4; Romans 8:1-17, 15:16; I Corinthians 2:12, 3:16; Titus 3:5; I John 2:27

I agree.

Point 6: Man

We believe that all people are created by God in his image to glorify him forever. Because the first couple, Adam and Eve, disobeyed God’s command when tested, they and all people since are alienated from God and are sinners by nature and by choice. Because God is holy and cannot tolerate sin, all people are under condemnation and unable to save themselves.

Genesis 1:26; Psalm 50:15; Matthew 5:16; Romans 3:23, 15:6; Revelation 4:11

I agree.

Point 7: Salvation

We believe that Jesus Christ was crucified to bear our condemnation and that “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” By doing so, we are freed from condemnation and given eternal life. 

Romans 10:9; John 1:12, 3:8, 6:40, 14:6; Ephesians 2:8-9; Isaiah 53:5-6; 1 Peter 2:24; 2 Peter 3:9

I agree. There is absolutely no statement here about the age of the earth, or how the earth was made. There is no belief requirement pertaining to those issues.

Point 8: The Church

We believe in the Universal Church, a living spiritual body composed of all regenerated believers of whatever race or nation. We believe in the local church consisting of a company of believers in Jesus Christ, baptized in a credible profession of faith, and associated with worship, work, and fellowship.

Matthew 28:17-20; Acts 2:41-42; I Corinthians 12:12-31

I agree.

Point 9: Christian Conduct

We believe that Christians should live for the glory of God and the well-being of others, that their conduct should be blameless before the world, that they should be faithful stewards of their possessions, and that they should seek to realize for themselves and others the full stature of maturity in Christ.

I Corinthians 2:14-3:3; Galatians 5:22-26; Ephesians 5:1-33

I agree.
On conduct I have run into some issues at Berean.
Part of promoting the well being of others is speaking the truth in love and being edifying. And that means allowing others Christian freedoms. It means allowing the Holy Spirit to convict Christians of sin and not trying to take over his job as if a human could ever do a better job than God. It means not being a busy body but to focus on one’s own relationship with God, one’s own sin, not the sins of others.


Point 10:The Ordinances

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has committed two ordinances to the local church: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. We believe that Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Triune God. We believe that the Lord’s Supper was instituted by Christ to commemorate his substitutionary and atoning death. We believe that these two ordinances should be observed and administered until the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 8:26-40; Romans 6:3-5; I Corinthians 11:17-34

I agree.

Point 11: The Last Things

We believe in the personal and visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ to earth and the establishment of his Kingdom. We believe in the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, the eternal joy of the righteous, and the endless suffering of the wicked.

John 14:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; Revelation 20:11-15

I agree.

Point 12: Religious Liberty

We believe that every human being has direct relations with God and is responsible to God alone in all matters of faith and that each church is independent and must be free from interference by any ecclesiastical or political authority.

I agree.

Point 13: Church Cooperation

We believe that local churches can best promote the cause of Jesus Christ by cooperating with one another in a denominational organization. Such an organization, whether a regional or district conference, exists and functions by the will of the churches. Cooperation in a conference is voluntary and may be terminated at any time. The church may likewise cooperate with interdenominational fellowships on a voluntary independent basis.

I agree.

Point 14: Baptism

We believe that Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Triune God. It is the first step of obedience following salvation and serves as a public declaration of the believer’s devotion to Christ and a commitment to their local community of faith. Immersion in water identifies the believer with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as one dies to self, surrenders to him, and is raised with him in newness of life.

Romans 6:1-5; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Acts 8:36-39; Acts 2:38, 41

At Berean, baptism is required for membership. Attending our First Connection gathering is the first step in baptism and/or membership. If you are interested in being baptized or becoming a member of Berean, sign up for First Connection here: 

I agree. I was baptised by immersion at the age of 18 in my home town.

Point 15: Church Membership

We believe that membership is a covenant relationship with God and one another to pursue the gospel in our lives, our community, and our world. The Bible explains the existence and importance of local churches, as well as the necessity to belong to a local church for our spiritual growth and health. 

Accountability:
Hebrews 13:17
Church membership provides accountability for the members and church leadership. Accountability is designed to help us be faithful in our walk with Jesus as well as to help the pastors and elders shepherd and protect the body.

Belonging:
Hebrews 10:24-25
Belonging to a local church provides love, acceptance, stability, and purpose as we intentionally live our lives together as Christ-followers. 

Care:
Acts 20:28; Ephesians 4:11-16
As members, we come alongside each other to encourage, equip, and empower one another to grow in our relationship with Jesus.

Biblical Requirements for Membership:

Salvation
Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man and is offered freely to all who put their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Baptism

Baptism takes place after salvation when a professing believer is immersed in water in the name of the Triune God. Baptism is not essential for salvation; however, it is essential for obedience.


I agree.

ITS NOT ENOUGH.

I feel like I do not fit.



As of August 2024 I am in a dazed state of confusion.

The church has not proven to be safe space for me. But WHY?

I have constantly been badgered by some of the members to believe in ideas I do not see in scripture. This is on both doctrinal and on practical levels. And I have been badgered to follow a vocation that has not been assigned to me by God, effectively becoming a busy-body. For example, I have been told by parishioners to care too much about people outside the church (people who the church does not even know) and to get involved in the lives of those parties in unhealthy ways that would result in further abusive relationships.

Then there is the matter of becoming excessively involved in the lives of the folks inside the church. I have sometimes been urged to sin-hunt other believers when there is no obvious sin evident. I am supposed to assume there is sin and hunt for it because this does a service for the other person. But this is God’s job, not mine. It is not my task in life to watch other people’s sin and try to convict them of it. Only a busy-body would do such a thing! I am constantly protesting “leave it to God.” It also is not my job to impose external standards of righteousness on anybody.
I do consider it a duty to exhibit GRACE.

These aspects are obviously a Christian life-style choice of some. But they do not derive from the above 15 statements of faith and as far as I can tell they do not derive from scripture either. I want to stick to just the 15 listed points in the statement of faith. I want to stick to just the 15 points and not go beyond that.


A toxic environment.

I have come to a point where I dare not tell anyone about my life, who I am, what is going on with me, or what my personal concerns might be. Why? People have to comment and try to fix me. It seems like they think it is their duty to fix others by giving unwelcome advice not asked for. And they urge others to do likewise!!!! They do not seem to be able to just listen or to tell (teach) solid principles and practices. They have to comment on a person’s journey, on their story, to tell them what they are doing wrong. It is called cross-talk, or, well, gossip. The gossip level is, well, really high.

This creates fear.

It is very important for a person to be able to tell their story without judgement. If you cannot do that then you are not going to trust anybody. You are going to HIDE.

Since I am in treatment for addiction the commentary is incredibly most unwelcome. I cannot hear the voice of God when people are clamoring at me. So, I just have to hide myself and do technical bible study.

This then is the traditional church I have always experienced. People judge and they judge out-of-turn. This kind of fellowship has kept me a stranger for most of my life. I never connected with a church body anywhere. it is a stumbling block.

What is weird is I have found secular (outside the church) organizations that foster trust. The church is failing.

What about Point 15, Belonging: “Belonging to a local church provides love, acceptance, stability, and purpose as we intentionally live our lives together as Christ-followers.”

I don’t find love, acceptance, stability, and purpose. I am an adult child of alcoholics and I am not like other people.  I pursue 12 step recovery. And most Christians do not want to hear about that let alone accept it, even though it is in accordance with biblical teaching. As an adult child I have characteristics most people don’t have. Such as the Laundry List. (See other posts — links forthcoming).

How does the church minister to Adult Children? It should be part of the church’s mission, shouldn’t it?

Stackhouse On Fundamentalism

Posted on by

In looking at fundamentalism it may be helpful to refer to John Stackhouse. He wrote an article in christianscholars.com about how the Fundamentals aren’t fundamentalist.



Everyone knows that American Protestantism generally divided into fundamentalist and liberal camps in the 1920s. And many people know that fundamentalism derives from The Fundamentals, early-twentieth-century tracts that reduced the rich doctrinal heritage of Christianity down to five points of do-or-die orthodoxy. Neither of these putative facts, however, is true. This paper shows that The Fundamentals were not fundamentalistic in either respect and that they instead represent the broad mainstream of Anglo-American evangelicalism that continues to this day: not merely conservative, not fundamentalist, and certainly not liberal. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., holds the Samuel J. Mikolaski Chair of Religious Studies at Crandall University, Moncton, Canada. The author wishes to thank the extraordinarily assiduous and sapient reviewers marshalled by the editor to assist him in the revision of this article.

Arguably among the most famous American religious works of the twentieth century, The Fundamentals (1910-1915) gave its name to the movement whose implications are with us to this day. Paradoxically, however, The Fundamentals gave only its name to that movement. This series of small books does not, in fact, reflect the outlook nor the doctrine that would soon be characteristic of American fundamentalism. It does not, in fact, set out the famous Five Points with which it is often credited, including by the tribune of the contemporary vox populi, Wikipedia.1 Instead, The Fundamentals represents the broad mainstream of Anglo-American evangelicalism flowing out of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth. This mainstream might have appeared to submerge beneath the currents of fundamentalism, but it surfaced again into public attention a generation later as, indeed, evangelicalism: as authentic, vital, and missional Protestantism—not merely a kinder, gentler form of fundamentalis.2

John’s Footnotes:

1. The article “Christian fundamentalism” perpetuates the idea that The Fundamentals prompted fundamentalism and taught the elusive “five points”: “Christian Fundamental- ism,” Wikimedia Foundation, accessed October 5, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Christian_fundamentalism.

2. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., Evangelicalism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2022).

Not Fundamentalist, not Conservative, and not Liberal: The Fundamentals and the Mainstream of American Evangelicalism

This clears up a lot for me.



I look at Christian Fundamentalism as being a Christian Doctrine and a Christian Doctrinal Statement. Essentially a Statement of Faith.

When people rage against fundamentalism they are raging against Christianity and Christian religion and against all Christians who hold to that statement of faith. Some people write entire books about how horrible fundamentalists are. The word is used as a pejorative like the N word, or ‘white supremacy” or “christian nationalist”. When scholars do this I often ask them to define their terms. The reaction is mixed.

Stackhouse explains that The Fundamentals are the beliefs of evangelicalism, which is different from fundamentalistic-ism. The people raging against fundamentalism really mean fundamentalistic-ism, not evangelicalism. If they mean the latter then they are anti-Christian.

Keep in mind the irreligious can be fundamentalistic. If you are attacking anyone fundamentalistic then you may want to look in the mirror just to be sure you yourself are not being fundamentalistic.

But fundamentalistic-ism in the context of Christian belief is associated with evangelicalism because people who become evangelicals can go further and go off track and become militant over the wrong concepts. This is because of social movements and culture. It is a subset of evangelicalism and is a deviation from evangelicalism. Those attacking fundamentalistic-ism often conflate the two groups based on some arbitrary factor such as militantism. This is what George Marsden sounds like, at least at first. In 2024 I watched no less than four people blame fundamentalists using George Marsden as their excuse. This is why I started reading Marsden. To find out what he really says. He does a lot of analysis on CULTURE. But he calls himself a fundamentalist. How confusing! Stackhouse helps bring clarity.

Now, if I could just get my militant brother-in-law to just stop being militant about football and baseball I might get to go to heaven.





A Comment To Joel Duff

Posted on by


I wrote this to Joel Duff today. He had done a movie review of The Ark and the Darkness.
His review is called My Reaction to The Ark and the Darkness: Background, Themes and Thoughts.
On Maundy Thursday I am too busy to watch his review, perhaps tomorrow.


I said:

“I haven’t looked at the movie review yet. But today some movie fans became overly exuberant and claimed some things that are clearly wrong about how we all descend from Noah. No other humans survived anywhere on earth.

My hobby is genetic genealogy. Just today the ftdna blog announced George Washington’s Y-DNA is R-U152, which originated 4500 YBP (years before present) , ummm…during the flood!

I have low confidence that God faked DNA and high confidence that humans understand human DNA reasonably well. My church people haven’t yet told me what their confidences are or why they have them. All I know is they are affirming faith in God by affirming they believe no other humans survived the flood. They are hitching their faith in God to that wagon. I am going to guess they think they are preserving the truth of Christ. I am puzzled as to why that works. I can only guess what fallacies may be involved.

Thanks.”

https://youtu.be/yBMOZavfGiw is the URL of his review.


Why Do Christians Ignore Lexicography?

Posted on by

One sane man explains  YEC, Concordism, and Answers In Genesis  in a nutshell.

Paul A. Miller

As a retired linguist, these types of discussions as to whether the sun is a star remind me of similar examples like whether or not a tomato is a vegetable. As lexicographers would say, a tomato is a CULINARY fruit but it is a BOTANTICAL vegetables. That is, it suits the purposes of chefs to include the tomato among the vegetables even while it suits the purposes of botanists to call it a fruit because it is a reproductive product containing seeds. Neither is more “correct” than they other, because tomatoes don’t care what humans call them. Accordingly, tomatoes will continue to do what tomatoes do and be what tomatoes are. The labels don’t change them. Indeed, labels and classifications/groupings are about human convenience.

To state another way: Humans have countless labelling systems which involve groupings of similar things. It is a matter of communication and convenience—but naming does NOT somehow control ontology.

Likewise, to an astronomer, the sun is just another star. But to a poet or a painter, the sun is unique in beauty and significance for human experience. It is clearly “set apart” from stars, which are mere pinpoints in the sky. Indeed, that is how the Hebrew language of Genesis reflects its culture: the sun is the greater light and the moon is the less light—and the stars are far less significant. Nothing erroneous about that. It is a matter of perspective.

By the way, Genesis 1 is clearly not meant to be a scientific treatise, so we can’t make dogmatic arguments that it requires a “separate” creation for the sun and moon versus the stars. The main theme of Genesis 1 is “God made everything” and it uses the literary form of that culture and era to declare that message. The Answers in Genesis dogma on Genesis entails all sorts of anachronistic impositions of modern cultural notions (including scientific ones) on a text from an ancient culture.

My Response:
I am not a linguist. But I have never met a Christian who is one. But they often tell you what words mean. Because they KNOW.   Or do they?

David Buddrige says,

I agree (with Reverend Graham) on this point.Genesis isn’t talking about biological life, but rather spiritual life.You can see this by observing that God promised Adam that on the very day he ate of the fruit that he would “die”.The day he ate the fruit, he didn’t (physically) drop dead, but what *did* happen was that he was thrown out of Eden, and lost his friendly relationship with God.Consequently, what “death” *means* in the Bible is to be thrown out of God’s place and out of relationship with God.If “death” means to lose one’s relationship with God, then to be alive means to gain the relationship with God.Therefore when the Genesis creation account says that God breathed the breath of life into Adam, he is describing that moment in history when the biological human creature first became aware of their special relationship with God and the promise of blessing and life with him – if only they would look to God for the definition of good and bad.It is for this reason that Paul could – with a straight face – tell the Ephesians that they were previously “dead”, and had now been made alive in Christ.

Excellent! This is another point where a linguist can tell us how words work.

My take on the subject is the concordists are wrapped around the axel on the topic of death in the world before Adam sinned. But the bible isn’t talking about biological death. it is talking about spiritual death. The concordists actually have a DOCTRINAL DISPUTE with other Christians.

If the Sun Is Created on Day 4, What Is the Light on Day 1?

Posted on by

If the Sun Is Created on Day 4, What Is the Light on Day 1?

TESTING POSTING OF LINKS INTO A FACEBOOK PAGE.

https://www.thetorah.com/article/if-the-sun-is-created-on-day-4-what-is-the-light-on-day-1
https://randomraindrops.com/day-1/

https://www.thetorah.com/article/if-the-sun-is-created-on-day-4-what-is-the-light-on-day-1

https://www.thetorah.com/article/if-the-sun-is-created-on-day-4-what-is-the-light-on-day-1
https://randomraindrops.com/day-1/

https://www.thetorah.com/article/if-the-sun-is-created-on-day-4-what-is-the-light-on-day-1

https://www.thetorah.com/article/if-the-sun-is-created-on-day-4-what-is-the-light-on-day-1
https://randomraindrops.com/day-1/

Todays YEC Rumors

Posted on by


A friend posted this:

I wrote to her the following:


My friend David Rhoads tells me the YEC people claim the laws of physics change (when it is convenient for their viewpoint). I dont know if thats true. It seems to be. He has studied this for years. So, let us assume its true. God changes the laws of physics. OK, so then tell me why God cannot tweak the DNA of 100 organisms in a species to cause 50 reproducing pairs to suddenly exist to make a new species?

If God can and does change the laws of physics WHY cant he spawn a new species every day of the week?

Keep in mind the YEC claim is that the ENTIRE COSMOS had the laws of physics changed the first few days of creation and also changed the day Adam sinned.

Their claim is the speed of light everywhere changed.

Well, thats waaaaaaayyyyyy bigger of an effect on the universe than making a new species would be on tiny little earth.

So I am having a hard time understanding why god cannot do macroevolution.

I dont believe in naturalistic macro-evolution. I believe in theistic-macro-evolution. So to me what we seen in the natural world and what we see in the bible is One-Seamless-Truth.

So….”Evolution requires a lot more faith than the Creator view”… why do the YEC people limit God’s power? They believe God cannot do evolution. He is constrained to only being able to do creative acts at the beginning. Even if it means he changed all the physical laws of the universe. But during history? Oh, well, he is not allowed to tweak biology.

So I think this evolution versus theology idea seems to be a false dichotomy invented in the middle of the 19th century.

If we believe God can heal people and can resurrect people, why cant he make new species? I don’t get it. I used to go visit Henry Morris at his school in San Diego. I believed his world view. But now it doesnt make any sense.

On Cosmic Origins

Posted on by

LINK TO THIS POST: https://randomraindrops.com/2023/11/30/on-cosmic-origins/

Image of LINK TO THIS POST

On cosmic origins, Sy Garte says on page 52 of his book The Works Of His Hands,

“The third possible solution, one that is not commonly considered to be within the realm of science, is that God created the universe in a way that allowed stars, planets, and us to exist. While scientists typically reject any supernatural explanations, it must be said that the God hypothesis is not any more removed from testing or scientific confirmation than the multiverse. Therefore, a rational thinker is free to choose between two equally plausible and equally non-provable ideas. I now choose God.”



Let me pull out the two conclusions.

1. THE GOD HYPOTHESIS IS NOT ANY MORE REMOVED FROM TESTING OR SCIENTIFIC CONFIRMATION THAN THE MULTIVERSE.

2. THEREFORE A RATIONAL THINKER IS FREE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO EQUALLY NON_PROVABLE IDEAS. I NOW CHOOSE GOD.

Lets look at how Sy leads up to the third possible solution and his conclusions. Lets see what he says about the other two logical possible solutions.

Sy Garte On Cosmic Origins
Starting on page 49 of his kindle book The Works of His Hands Sy says the following about “Fine Tuning in Cosmology”



“What I learned about chaos and complexity helped remove my faith in materialism, rationalism, and the other philosophical reasons I started out with for not believing in God. But I also learned something that was more radical—something that actually made me think of a Creator God as a rational idea, or at least as rational as any alternative. This lesson did not make me a theist (that is still to come), but it did suggest a positive reason to believe rather than merely taking away reasons not to believe. That lesson was the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants.
Most physical laws include arbitrary constants that cannot be derived from theory but can only be measured experimentally—they simply are what they are. I will discuss the unsolvable mystery of the physical constants as an example of a hard limit on what we can discover through science in chapter 8. But for a small subset of these constants, the mystery has even greater significance. These are the cosmological constants—the constants related to how the universe was initially formed.
There are anywhere from six to about twenty of these numbers (depending on different interpretations), and it turns out that their values are highly fortuitous. If they were at all different (in some cases by extremely small differences), our kind of universe couldn’t exist, and neither could we.
According to modern physics, there are four forces that underlie all the physical laws of the universe. Two nuclear forces, the strong force and the weak force, govern interactions between particles within the atomic nuclei. At the other end of the scale of object size, interactions between large bodies such as stars, planets, and galaxies are dependent on the third force, gravity. Finally, magnetic and electrical forces between atoms and subatomic particles are different aspects of the fourth, the electromagnetic force.“



Ok, so far so good. I think we need to come back to this “unsolvable mystery of the physical constants”

The great goal of modern physics has been to find a unified theory that can integrate all these forces with each other and show how each force is related by some logical mathematical formulation to all the others. Some progress has been made. The weak force and the electromagnetic force have been shown to be interrelated; at a very early stage in the history of the universe (within the first billionth of a second of the start of the big bang), these two forces were actually one.
The relative strengths of the four forces are determined by specific equations that include some of the cosmological constants. Martin Rees, the distinguished British astronomer, writes in his book Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe that these four physical constants (and two others) need to be exactly the values they are, or the universe would be radically different than it is. Changes in any of these constants would make stars, planets, and life impossible.
The fraction of the mass of two hydrogen atoms that is released as energy when they fuse to produce helium is 0.007 (0.7%). That is the source of the heat produced in the sun and in a hydrogen bomb. It is the amount of mass (m) that is converted to energy (E) in the famous Einstein formula E = mc2, and it is a direct measure of the strong nuclear force. If the strong force had a value of 0.006 or less, the universe would consist only of hydrogen—not very conducive to the complexities of life. If the value were greater than 0.008, all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang, and there could be no stars, no solar heat—again, no life.
As Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow put it in their book The Grand Design, “Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration.”2

There are three possible solutions to the mystery of fine-tuning of the physical constants. One is that there is in fact a good theoretical explanation for these constants, and it will turn out that they had to be exactly what they are. This explanation would most likely be derived from the long-sought “theory of everything,” which will connect gravity to quantum physics and answer all questions. However, the theory of everything has so far been elusive. The latest disappointing results from CERN, the largest particle physics laboratory in the world, cast further doubt on these expectations.3
Another possibility is that there are or have been an infinite number of universes. We happen to be in this one because this is the only one out of billions or trillions, each with different constants and characteristics, that we could be in. The multiverse theory is favored by many physicists, but it has the problem of being unprovable, since information cannot travel between universes.

Lets re-iterate the three possible solutions.

1. THEORY OF EVERYTHING (that connects gravity to quantum physics and explains everything)
2. INFINITE NUMBER OF UNIVERSES (unprovable)
3. GOD (unprovable)

Origins and Science Note 1.

Posted on by

The mobile version removes background colors and images. Then in the facebook app they edit the words. They remove links so you cannot click them.

On November 28, 2023 I made a note of a discussion on origins, below. It has to do with YEC.

David Rhoads and Susan Haywood. Off topic of what the OP was….but …. I am puzzled by the theology of anyone who claims God can and did alter cosmological constants like the speed of light willy nilly and they think that is perfectly proper. But God cannot tweak mutations in DNA. For example, in a population of organisms God cannot invoke a mutation in two individuals or in 100 individuals all at the same time in order to make a new species that can reproduce with itself. That is too much for God to do, yet he can alter the physics of the entire universe! Are they serious?

I also do not see where the bible makes any claim about physics or about biology or DNA or species. Seems to me beliefs about these topics are conclusions jumped to by fallible humans. They are contrived notions or fabricated notions. Where does the bible say God cannot be involved in the evolution of biological organisms? Why do YEC’s believe God is forbidden to do any such interaction with biology in the universe? And yet he can snap His fingers and the speed of light changes “just like that” based on some decision some human made 6000 years ago. It makes no sense to me as a theology.

Here is the link: [Facebook users copy and paste into a URL in a browser to go to web page]
https://randomraindrops.com/2023/11/28/origins-and-science-note-1/

Language of God Excerpt #3

Posted on by

While reading Language of God something important caught my eye and I wrote about it at the time.

This is cross posted here: https://randomraindrops.com/2023/10/21/naturalism-of-the-gaps/

Francis Collins writes,

Science is not the only way of knowing. The spiritual worldview finds another way of finding truth. scientists who deny this would be well advised to observe the limits of their own tools, as nicely represented in a parable old by astronomer Arthur Eddington.

He [Eddington] described a man who set about to study deep-sea life using a net that had a mesh size of three inches. After catching many wild and wonderful creatures from the depths, the man concluded there are no deep-sea fish that are smaller than three inches in length! If we are using the scientific net to catch our particular version of truth, we should not be surprised that it does not catch the evidence of spirit.

Reference: Language of God, p 229 https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744

Collins is quoting this fellow:

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington OM FRS[2] (28 December 1882 – 22 November 1944) was an English astronomer, physicist, and mathematician. He was also a philosopher of science and a populariser of science. The Eddington limit, the natural limit to the luminosity of stars, or the radiation generated by accretion onto a compact object, is named in his honour.


My remarks:

Eddington points out an epistemological mistake that is then used to draw an ontological conclusion that is not warranted. This is exactly what believers in philosophical naturalism (PN) commit when they tell us “science says there is no god.” PN believers are actually asserting that the natural world comprises all of reality and therefore theists must give up theism because the supernatural is impossible. This, BTW, is scientism.

I label this as Naturalism of the Gaps. I coined the phrase as a satire and later realized it is a serious position that invokes questions about human knowledge. I recently mentioned Naturalism of the Gaps to Jonathon Blocker. That afternoon I also read the remarks by Collins. It seems many physicists and philosophers have pondered these questions. I only noticed it because of the virulent and boisterous criticism of theists by science students who are looking for their daily student dose of confirmation bias.

Language of God Excerpt #2

Posted on by

The poverty of an objectivistic account is made only too clear when we consider the mystery of music. From a scientific point of view it is nothing but vibrations in the air, impinging on the eardrums and stimulating neural currents in the brain.

How does it come about that this banal sequence of temporal activity has the power to speak to our hearts of an eternal beauty? The whole range of subjective experience, from perceiving a patch of pink, to being enthralled by the performance of a Mass in B Minor, and on to the mystic’s encounter with the ineffable reality of the One, all these truly human experiences are at the center of our encounter with reality, and they are not to be dismissed as epiphenomenal froth on the surface of a universe whose true nature is impersonal and lifeless.

REFERENCE:
J. Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an age of Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 18 – 19.

Science is not the only way of knowing. The spiritual world view provides another way of finding truth.

REFERENCE:
Francis Collins, Language of God, p. 229.

Naturalism of the Gaps

Posted on by

Francis Collins writes,

Science is not the only way of knowing. The spiritual worldview finds another way of finding truth. scientists who deny this would be well advised to observe the limits of their own tools, as nicely represented in a parable old by astronomer Arthur Eddington.

He [Eddington] described a man who set about to study deep-sea life using a net that had a mesh size of three inches. After catching many wild and wonderful creatures from the depths, the man concluded there are no deep-sea fish that are smaller than three inches in length! If we are using the scientific net to catch our particular version of truth, we should not be surprised that it does not catch the evidence of spirit.

Reference: Language of God, p 229 https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744

Collins is quoting this fellow:

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington OM FRS[2] (28 December 1882 – 22 November 1944) was an English astronomer, physicist, and mathematician. He was also a philosopher of science and a populariser of science. The Eddington limit, the natural limit to the luminosity of stars, or the radiation generated by accretion onto a compact object, is named in his honour.


My remarks:

Eddington points out an epistemological mistake that is then used to draw an ontological conclusion that is not warranted. This is exactly what believers in philosophical naturalism (PN) commit when they tell us “science says there is no god.” PN believers are actually asserting that the natural world comprises all of reality and therefore theists must give up theism because the supernatural is impossible. This, BTW, is scientism.

I label this as Naturalism of the Gaps. I coined the phrase as a satire and later realized it is a serious position that invokes questions about human knowledge. I recently mentioned Naturalism of the Gaps to Jonathon Blocker. That afternoon I also read the remarks by Collins. It seems many physicists and philosophers have pondered these questions. I only noticed it because of the virulent and boisterous criticism of theists by science students who are looking for their daily student dose of confirmation bias.

Francis Collins Language of God

Posted on by

My latest audio book in September 2023. Stimulating many thoughts.

So on vacation in the mountains I listen to this. Part of the reason is the insane Answers In Genesis agonists who call everybody heretics.

Francis Collins has a degree in physical chemistry. And medicine. He took up biology and genetics after pchem. And reading CS Lewis caused him to reconsider his agnosticism and after applying some logic he became a christian!

I may have thoughts on his book after finishing it. Those will be topical and appear in various categories.