I received an invitation to join here

[makesends]

God made the universe for man!

Only secondarily. He made it for himself.

 

[donadams]

Only secondarily. He made it for himself.

God is eternal and uncreated and needs nothing!

 

[makesends]

God is eternal and uncreated and needs nothing!

So what's your point? Did I say differently?

 

[John Bauer]

A LITTLE ABOUT ME

• An atheist for most of my life, I was converted in 2011 at the age of 33 and have been a Christian ever since.
  
  ​
• Baptist (2011-2015) --> Reformed Baptist (2015-2018) --> Reformed (2018-Present), URCNA.
  
  ​
• A former premillennial dispensationalist, now I affirm an amillennial partial preterist covenant theology like R. C. Sproul.
  
  ​
• A former left-leaning egalitarian, now I'm a right-leaning complementarian who strongly defends the crucial role of husbands and fathers.
  
  ​
• A former pro-choice advocate, later I became anti-abortion with certain exceptions, and now I'm a full-blown abortion abolitionist.
  
  ​
• A former left-wing Liberal voter (Canada), I was red-pilled during the so-called pandemic of 2020 and ended up moving center-right (classical liberal).

CONTROVERSIAL BELIEFS & POSITIONS

• As an "optimistic amillennialist," I hold to partial preterism.
  
  ​
• I am absolutely opposed to divorce. Just as Christ won't divorce the church for any reason, including unfaithfulness, so I won't divorce my wife for any reason, including unfaithfulness. See Hosea and Gomer.
  
  ​
• Former young-earth creationist, later an old-earth creationist (ca. 2015), now an evolutionary creationist (ca. 2018).
  
  ​
• Also, Adam and Eve were two historical people who lived roughly 6,000 years ago. However, they were not the first humans.
  
  ​
• I don't believe immaterial souls exist. The human body constitutes a soul, it does not have one (e.g., Lynne R. Baker, constitution view).
  
  ​
• I hold to a conditional immortality view, that immortality is a gift Christ bestows only on believers at his second coming (i.e., unbelievers remain mortal).
  
  ​
• Since there is no such thing as immaterial souls and only believers receive immortality, obviously I also reject the eternal conscious torment view of hell.
  
  ​
• Once a strong environmentalist and climate change alarmist, I became more skeptical when neo-Marxist authoritarians politicized the issues. Currently, my position sort of mirrors that of Steve Koonin, namely, that these issues do not represent the crisis they are purported to be and need transparent scientific debate between experts that welcomes dissent.

THINGS THAT I ENJOY DISCUSSING

• Theology: Soteriology, creationism, systematic theology, biblical studies, comparative theology, theological ethics, eschatology, etc.
  
  ​
• Science: evolutionary science, evolutionary history, artificial intelligence, space exploration (Mars colonization, search for extraterrestrial life), etc.
  
  ​
• Philosophy: Metaphysics (nature of reality, existence, time, causation, mind-body problem), epistemology (logic and reason, nature of knowledge, belief, justification), ethics (morality, virtue ethics, right and wrong, ethical principles), philosophy of religion (nature of God, existence of the supernatural, the relationship between faith and reason), philosophy of science, existentialism (existence, meaning, purpose, freedom), etc.
  
  ​
• Social issues: Abortion, feminism, racism, climate change (environmental stewardship and conservation, sustainable practices), immigration (border control, refugee crises), human rights (marriage equality, gender ideology, LGBT issues, anti-discrimination), cybersecurity and privacy (digital rights, online privacy concerns), mental health stigma (childhood trauma, autism, bullying, awareness and acceptance), etc.
  
  ​
• Politics: Political process, parties, candidates, institutions, activism (protests, advocacy, grassroots movements), critique, public policy, international relations, environmental politics, etc.
  
  ​
• The Arts: Music, movies, television shows (incl. streaming services), nit-picking at grammar.

 

[Carbon]

A LITTLE ABOUT ME

• An atheist for most of my life, I was converted in 2011 at the age of 33 and have been a Christian ever since.
  
  ​
• Baptist (2011-2015) --> Reformed Baptist (2015-2018) --> Reformed (2018-Present), URCNA.
  
  ​
• A former premillennial dispensationalist, now I affirm an amillennial partial preterist covenant theology like R. C. Sproul.
  
  ​
• A former left-leaning egalitarian, now I'm a right-leaning complementarian who strongly defends the crucial role of husbands and fathers.
  
  ​
• A former pro-choice advocate, later I became anti-abortion with certain exceptions, and now I'm a full-blown abortion abolitionist.
  
  ​
• A former left-wing Liberal voter (Canada), I was red-pilled during the so-called pandemic of 2020 and ended up moving center-right (classical liberal).

CONTROVERSIAL BELIEFS & POSITIONS

• As an "optimistic amillennialist," I hold to partial preterism.
  
  ​
• I am absolutely opposed to divorce. Just as Christ won't divorce the church for any reason, including unfaithfulness, so I won't divorce my wife for any reason, including unfaithfulness. See Hosea and Gomer.
  
  ​
• Former young-earth creationist, later an old-earth creationist (ca. 2015), now an evolutionary creationist (ca. 2018).
  
  ​
• Also, Adam and Eve were two historical people who lived roughly 6,000 years ago. However, they were not the first humans.
  
  ​
• I don't believe immaterial souls exist. The human body constitutes a soul, it does not have one (e.g., Lynne R. Baker, constitution view).
  
  ​
• I hold to a conditional immortality view, that immortality is a gift Christ bestows only on believers at his second coming (i.e., unbelievers remain mortal).
  
  ​
• Since there is no such thing as immaterial souls and only believers receive immortality, obviously I also reject the eternal conscious torment view of hell.
  
  ​
• Once a strong environmentalist and climate change alarmist, I became more skeptical when neo-Marxist authoritarians politicized the issues. Currently, my position sort of mirrors that of Steve Koonin, namely, that these issues do not represent the crisis they are purported to be and need transparent scientific debate between experts that welcomes dissent.

THINGS THAT I ENJOY DISCUSSING

• Theology: Soteriology, creationism, systematic theology, biblical studies, comparative theology, theological ethics, eschatology, etc.
  
  ​
• Science: evolutionary science, evolutionary history, artificial intelligence, space exploration (Mars colonization, search for extraterrestrial life), etc.
  
  ​
• Philosophy: Metaphysics (nature of reality, existence, time, causation, mind-body problem), epistemology (logic and reason, nature of knowledge, belief, justification), ethics (morality, virtue ethics, right and wrong, ethical principles), philosophy of religion (nature of God, existence of the supernatural, the relationship between faith and reason), philosophy of science, existentialism (existence, meaning, purpose, freedom), etc.
  
  ​
• Social issues: Abortion, feminism, racism, climate change (environmental stewardship and conservation, sustainable practices), immigration (border control, refugee crises), human rights (marriage equality, gender ideology, LGBT issues, anti-discrimination), cybersecurity and privacy (digital rights, online privacy concerns), mental health stigma (childhood trauma, autism, bullying, awareness and acceptance), etc.
  
  ​
• Politics: Political process, parties, candidates, institutions, activism (protests, advocacy, grassroots movements), critique, public policy, international relations, environmental politics, etc.
  
  ​
• The Arts: Music, movies, television shows (incl. streaming services), nit-picking at grammar.

what is

• URCNA ?

 

[Carbon]

Some fellow over at ChristianForums.com privately sent me an invitation to join this site, and it seemed related to me being Reformed. I had a brief look around and, yeah, this definitely seems like a place I could enjoy. So, allow me to remove my jacket, take off my hat, and make my way around the room, shaking hands.

I'm glad to hear this and hope you are still enjoying it.

I am a 44-year-old family man, happily married for 10 years with two baptized children. I was raised an atheist, being converted to Christianity late in life (i.e., early 30s). I began my faith journey as a dispensationalist Baptist (and young-earth creationist), but was later convinced of the doctrines of grace and started leaning toward a Reformed Baptist view of things.

Before long, however, I discovered R. C. Sproul and my spiritual development really took off. I became convinced of covenant theology and eventually embraced a fully Reformed faith.

Awesome!

I am a communicant member in good standing in a local Reformed church and subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity.

I am also an old-earth creationist who accepts the science of evolution

I lean (heavily) towards old Earth myself, but as far as evolution I agree with microevolution.

—that is, an evolutionary creationist—while maintaining a firm conviction in a historical Adam and Eve who lived 6,000 years ago. My views on origins have been influenced by the likes of John H. Walton, Gregory K. Beale, Meredith G. Kline, J. Richard Middleton, Denis R. Alexander, John R. W. Stott, Carol Hill, S. Joshua Swamidass, Joshua M. Moritz—and so many others. My views on origins are singularly unique, which makes me incredibly difficult to pigeon-hole. So, don't make assumptions about what I believe; it's probably unlike most anything else you have encountered.

 

[Carbon]

what is

• URCNA ?

I looked it up.

Sometimes I forget we have that option.

I'm still used to the 70's and 80's.

 

[John Bauer]

what is

• URCNA ?

URCNA stands for United Reformed Churches in North America. I specify URCNA because their influences include such giants as Herman Bavinck, Geerhardus Vos, Cornelius Van Til, and Abraham Kuyper—men who are my influences.

 

[John Bauer]

Ugh. Someone please like this post. Thank you.

 

[Carbon]

Ugh. Someone please like this post. Thank you.

View attachment 1057

Lol. Seriously?

 

[makesends]

Ugh. Someone please like this post. Thank you.

View attachment 1057

Smothers Brothers:
Dickie Smothers, "That's a pun, isn't it!"
Tommy Smothers, "NO! That really happened!"

 

[makesends]

Lol. Seriously?

I'll look around for something else to 'like'; y'know, to push him up over that ledge!

 

[John Bauer]

Lol. Seriously?

I am humble enough to admit my irrational superstitions.

 

[John Bauer]

I lean amillennial with partial preterist influence (e.g., Sproul), grounded in redemptive-historical hermeneutics and a strong ecclesiological focus (e.g., Riddlebarger).

 

[Hazelelponi]

...

 

[prism]

Looking at post #44, he should fit right in.

 

[makesends]

I am absolutely opposed to divorce. Just as Christ won't divorce the church for any reason, including unfaithfulness, so I won't divorce my wife for any reason, including unfaithfulness. See Hosea and Gomer.

— "Well, have you considered divorce?"

— "Oh, no, Dear. We are much too old-fashioned for that! Murder, maybe, but never divorce!"

(That was just for laughs; I agree with your reasoning, and the account of Hosea and Gomer has been a huge source of comfort and encouragement to me —not to mention a delicious poke-in-the-eye at those who insist that "God has a wonderful plan for your life (marriage, whatever). In fact, it has for about as long as I can remember been a soapbox theme for me, that "believers" go out of their way to find permission to do whatever they want to do.)

 

[Ladodgers6]

Excellent good for you.

I lean amillennial with partial preterist influence (e.g., Sproul), grounded in redemptive-historical hermeneutics and a strong ecclesiological focus (e.g., Riddlebarger).

Excellent! My assurance of salvation is rooted in the security of my salvation, which is rooted in the perfect faithfulness of Jesus Christ.

If I may add, My assurance of salvation is rooted in the Promises of my salvation, which is rooted in the perfect Harmony of the Trinity. God the Father gave to us God the Son by the Power of God the Spirit to be faithful and fulfill what we could not, to redeem us from our sinful condition and reconciles upon himself.

 

[EarlyActs]

To be clear, on my view there is a categorical difference between Genesis and evolution. Genesis marks the dawn of redemptive history, whereas evolution is about natural history. My reading of such scholars as Beale (2004), Walton (2009), and Middleton (2005) led me to experience a seismic paradigm shift in my view of origins. A sudden realization struck me that redemptive history and natural history are clearly differentiated, and thus perhaps they also have different starting points. On this view, which sees the universe as a cosmic temple, natural history records the "construction phase" which spanned nearly 14 billion years, while redemptive history records the "inauguration phase" which spanned seven days roughly 6,000 years ago—just as the construction of the earthly temple spanned many years while its inauguration took place over a matter of days. Genesis reveals redemptive history, the moment when God entered into a covenant relationship with mankind through Adam as our federal head, a history that reaches forward to the eschaton when God will head up all things in Christ. This is clearly redemptive history.

Does Genesis also mark the dawn of natural history, a material origin for the natural world? Young-earth creationists claim that it does, but they are relying on a plain or straight-forward reading of an English text using modern categories of thought. This is not how proper interpretation is done. What happens when you interpret Genesis literally using a robust historical-grammatical exegesis of the text in its original language and ancient cultural context? Walton showed us (2009; 2015). There is good reason to believe Genesis is an account of functional origins, as God established the cosmos as sacred space (temple) for his presence and rule, creating the functions and assigning functionaries in this sacred space over a six-day period and resting on the seventh. (It is worth noting that, on this view, the seventh day is no longer a footnote to creation week but arguably the most important day.)

"All right, I understand that," you might say, "and it does make sense. But couldn't Genesis 1 also be about material origins?" Sure, it could be—but is it? You see, that is the question. Our conclusions about the text must be drawn from the text, not imposed on it because it's familiar and traditional. And Walton (2009, 95) observes an important point: "Viewing Genesis 1 as an account of functional origins of the cosmos as temple does not in any way suggest or imply that God was uninvolved in material origins—it only contends that Genesis 1 is not that story."

So, on my deveoping view of evolutionary creationism, the dawn of natural history occurred several billion years ago (the "construction phase" of the cosmic temple) whereas the dawn of redemptive history reaches back to Eden around six or seven thousand years ago (the "inauguration phase" of the cosmic temple).

• The days in Genesis 1 were normal 24-hour periods, Adam and Eve actually existed as real people, the events in the garden actually happened and it was only a few thousand years ago, etc.
• Also, our planet is over four billion years old, dinosaurs went extinct around 65 million years ago, descent with modification from a common ancestor is real, the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, etc.

Thus, we have redemptive history on the one hand and natural history on the other. Both are true and fully consistent, without a shred of contradiction or even tension. The key is realizing they are not the same thing: Natural history is disclosed through general revelation (which we explore scientifically), the meaning and purpose of which is unveiled in redemptive history disclosed through special revelation (which we explore theologically).

-----
Sources:

Beale, G. K. (2004). The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. InterVarsity Press.

Congdon, D. W. (2010). "Creatio Continua Ex Electione: A Post-Barthian Revision of the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo." Koinonia, 22, pp. 33-53.

Middleton, J. R. (2005). The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Brazos Press.

North, G. K. (1982). The Dominion Covenant: Genesis. Institute for Christian Economics.

Van Til, C. (1946). "Nature and Scriptures." In N. B. Stonehouse and P. Woolley (eds.), The Infallible Word: A Symposium (pp. 255-293). Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.

Walton, J. H. (2009). The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. InterVarsity Press.

Walton, J. H. (2015). The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate. InterVarsity Press.

Note: The cruciform nature of reality also underscores the profundity of paradox and tension within the Christian faith. The cross embodies the apparent contradiction of triumph in apparent defeat, where victory emerges from apparent vulnerability. It reveals the mystery of divine suffering, demonstrating God's solidarity with humanity and inviting believers to embrace their own crosses in imitation of Christ. In ethical terms, the cruciform nature of reality beckons believers to embody the kenotic disposition of Christ—self-emptying love and self-sacrifice—within their daily lives. The transformative power of the cross calls for believers to die to self, taking up their crosses and living cruciform lives characterized by Christ-likeness and sacrificial love for others.

OK, thanks for your cosmological summary. If you haven't read mine let me know. There are procedural faults I identify that I think you may find quite interesting, if you haven't picked up on them already.

I would have to disagree on the line that 'there is not a shred of conflict or even tension. '

When you say there was a major shift between this twofold format and what you formerly believed, could you elaborate? That is to say, having read your last bullet in your list, you have made no change in that, so I would say that there is no major shift. Addition, yes; shift, no.

And yet the furthest back that Ms. Johnson on Montana dinosaur collagen would go was 200K years, nowhere close to 65M. As I recall, she was giving the most extensive research on the subject, in her LA TIMES interview.

 

[EarlyActs]

To be clear, on my view there is a categorical difference between Genesis and evolution. Genesis marks the dawn of redemptive history, whereas evolution is about natural history. My reading of such scholars as Beale (2004), Walton (2009), and Middleton (2005) led me to experience a seismic paradigm shift in my view of origins. A sudden realization struck me that redemptive history and natural history are clearly differentiated, and thus perhaps they also have different starting points. On this view, which sees the universe as a cosmic temple, natural history records the "construction phase" which spanned nearly 14 billion years, while redemptive history records the "inauguration phase" which spanned seven days roughly 6,000 years ago—just as the construction of the earthly temple spanned many years while its inauguration took place over a matter of days. Genesis reveals redemptive history, the moment when God entered into a covenant relationship with mankind through Adam as our federal head, a history that reaches forward to the eschaton when God will head up all things in Christ. This is clearly redemptive history.

Does Genesis also mark the dawn of natural history, a material origin for the natural world? Young-earth creationists claim that it does, but they are relying on a plain or straight-forward reading of an English text using modern categories of thought. This is not how proper interpretation is done. What happens when you interpret Genesis literally using a robust historical-grammatical exegesis of the text in its original language and ancient cultural context? Walton showed us (2009; 2015). There is good reason to believe Genesis is an account of functional origins, as God established the cosmos as sacred space (temple) for his presence and rule, creating the functions and assigning functionaries in this sacred space over a six-day period and resting on the seventh. (It is worth noting that, on this view, the seventh day is no longer a footnote to creation week but arguably the most important day.)

"All right, I understand that," you might say, "and it does make sense. But couldn't Genesis 1 also be about material origins?" Sure, it could be—but is it? You see, that is the question. Our conclusions about the text must be drawn from the text, not imposed on it because it's familiar and traditional. And Walton (2009, 95) observes an important point: "Viewing Genesis 1 as an account of functional origins of the cosmos as temple does not in any way suggest or imply that God was uninvolved in material origins—it only contends that Genesis 1 is not that story."

So, on my deveoping view of evolutionary creationism, the dawn of natural history occurred several billion years ago (the "construction phase" of the cosmic temple) whereas the dawn of redemptive history reaches back to Eden around six or seven thousand years ago (the "inauguration phase" of the cosmic temple).

• The days in Genesis 1 were normal 24-hour periods, Adam and Eve actually existed as real people, the events in the garden actually happened and it was only a few thousand years ago, etc.
• Also, our planet is over four billion years old, dinosaurs went extinct around 65 million years ago, descent with modification from a common ancestor is real, the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, etc.

Thus, we have redemptive history on the one hand and natural history on the other. Both are true and fully consistent, without a shred of contradiction or even tension. The key is realizing they are not the same thing: Natural history is disclosed through general revelation (which we explore scientifically), the meaning and purpose of which is unveiled in redemptive history disclosed through special revelation (which we explore theologically).

-----
Sources:

Beale, G. K. (2004). The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. InterVarsity Press.

Congdon, D. W. (2010). "Creatio Continua Ex Electione: A Post-Barthian Revision of the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo." Koinonia, 22, pp. 33-53.

Middleton, J. R. (2005). The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Brazos Press.

North, G. K. (1982). The Dominion Covenant: Genesis. Institute for Christian Economics.

Van Til, C. (1946). "Nature and Scriptures." In N. B. Stonehouse and P. Woolley (eds.), The Infallible Word: A Symposium (pp. 255-293). Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.

Walton, J. H. (2009). The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. InterVarsity Press.

Walton, J. H. (2015). The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate. InterVarsity Press.

Note: The cruciform nature of reality also underscores the profundity of paradox and tension within the Christian faith. The cross embodies the apparent contradiction of triumph in apparent defeat, where victory emerges from apparent vulnerability. It reveals the mystery of divine suffering, demonstrating God's solidarity with humanity and inviting believers to embrace their own crosses in imitation of Christ. In ethical terms, the cruciform nature of reality beckons believers to embody the kenotic disposition of Christ—self-emptying love and self-sacrifice—within their daily lives. The transformative power of the cross calls for believers to die to self, taking up their crosses and living cruciform lives characterized by Christ-likeness and sacrificial love for others.

I would suggest you look into two things 'theologically.' 1, that the covenant with humanity didn't start with Gen 1 (you could say the 'reporting' did). But the covenant was eternal, and the promise of eternal life, says Titus 1, was before creation. This is because there is pre-creation humanity to Christ (Jn 16 etc), and the covenant was with him as a rep, so much so that one line of Isaiah has 'I will make you (the Servant) a covenant for the nations.'

2, if you look closely at the exchange Peter reports on in 2 P 3, you will see that the issue with the 'stoicheans' (not to be confused with classical Stoics) is an active, intervening God. This is true 3 times: creation, cataclysm, and the final judgement. The 'stoicheans' did not want this said about the earth, harboring some sort of sacred earth belief. (I was published on 'the stoicheia tou kosmou' as far as how it relates to Judaism, but not how this 'sacred uninterrupted earth' view factored outside that--except that tight parallel drawn by Paul in Gal 4:8, the Galatian 1st stage as pagans). It seems to be that the universe, emerging earlier, was not formed in such a tumultuous way. But the 'stoicheans' didn't care about that. Peter didn't have an issue with 'long ago' and used a contrastive 'kai' about the earth's formation through water more recently. Nor an issue with the universe being formed quietly, calmly. Once again, the OT term used was 'spreading out' as done in planting seeds (Peter uses no image about the start of the kosmos, while earth's forming is that of pot-throwing). I've never thought of seed-spreading as violent or abrupt, but rather deliberate for the sake of complete coverage.