News:


Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - George Rahn

#1
Your Turn / Re: Women in Ministry
May 23, 2024, 12:47:29 PM
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on May 23, 2024, 12:13:15 PM
Quote from: George Rahn on May 23, 2024, 12:09:08 PM" We don't find mammals in precambrian dated rocks."

Here evidence is cited.  But the scientific hubris continues.  If the evidence is not exhaustive, IOW, if we do not have all the conditions covered, all Precambrian dated rocks and their fossil evidence, then the assertion that there were no mammals during that time period cannot be sustained. 

I can't stop you from quote mining.  We do find shared ERV's between humans and chimps, at the same points in our DNA.  You can test that if you want to.  I'm willing to bet some money you'll find the same ERV in the same spot that I have, and any chimp dna you get.  Would you be willing to bet money?

Sorry, your response is a non sequitur.  I will not continue with you here.
#2
Your Turn / Re: Women in Ministry
May 23, 2024, 12:09:08 PM
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on May 23, 2024, 11:57:15 AM
Quote from: aletheist on May 23, 2024, 11:37:58 AM
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on May 23, 2024, 11:04:52 AM1) So you're saying you have no evidence for the laws of nature changing.
As I have said before, there can be no scientific evidence either way, even in principle. That the laws of nature are unchanging is a fundamental presupposition of the modern scientific method as applied to the very distant past.
But you're still declaring fundamental changes in biology, geology, physics, astronomy have indeed occured.  You're not speaking to when those changes occur, and where there would be an overlap in items of known age.

Quote from: aletheist on May 23, 2024, 11:37:58 AM
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on May 23, 2024, 11:04:52 AM2) Do you acknowledge that what we test assumes the laws of nature haven't changed and results are reliable and predictable?
Provisionally, yes, depending on exactly what you mean by "reliable and predictable." Do you acknowledge that what we test assumes the laws of nature haven't changed and results are being misinterpreted if that is not actually the case?
You haven't provided any evidence that they have changed.  We can make tests for the wheres and whens of things.  We don't find mammals in precambrian dated rocks. 

Quote from: aletheist on May 23, 2024, 11:37:58 AM
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on May 23, 2024, 11:04:52 AMThe different dating methods work for objects of known age within the timeframe you allow.
Sure, but what I find problematic is then extrapolating them a lot farther into the past.
you've left that vague and have not accounted for the overlaps in dating. 

Quote from: aletheist on May 23, 2024, 11:37:58 AM
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on May 23, 2024, 11:04:52 AMWe have observed several speciation events.  Ring species debunks this immediately.
Have we observed two different primate species coming from a common ancestor? What about a fish and a mammal, or a reptile and a bird? The secret ingredient for these alleged evolutionary steps is supposed to be lots and lots of time, but from where I sit, that is just another article of faith for those who believe it.
don't shift the goalposts.  We've observed speciation events.  You don't have to ask about the others, you have to deal with the ones at hand.  After that, we can get back to handwaving transitional forms, like archaeopteryx, the relation betweens scales and feathers, atavisms, the gene for teeth in chickens, the osteocytes breakdown product in the t-rex bones that resemble that of ostryches (recent discovery), the times which we discover and predict these fossil appearance that all correspond with the dating methods in the layer and developments and time frames that meet our predictions. 

Quote from: aletheist on May 23, 2024, 11:37:58 AM
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on May 23, 2024, 11:04:52 AMYou probably missed the other thread, but the human line is rather arbitrary.  You always are your ancestors.
As you know by now, I believe that there is nothing arbitrary about it, and that all our ancestors are humans.
Yes, and we share dna, erv's, broken genes, etc.  with our distant cousins, chimps. 

Quote from: aletheist on May 23, 2024, 11:37:58 AM
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on May 23, 2024, 11:04:52 AMThis is an appeal to incredulity in spite of ...
It is not an appeal to anything, just an expression of my own view on the matter--I am not trying to persuade anyone else. I can appreciate your persistence, but it is misguided if you are attempting to convince me otherwise.
This is more for outside readers.  I know that you have your faith committments.  If it doesn't fit with your assertions, then it's not true.  I got that part.


" We don't find mammals in precambrian dated rocks."

Here evidence is cited.  But the scientific hubris continues.  If the evidence is not exhaustive, IOW, if we do not have all the conditions covered, all Precambrian dated rocks and their fossil evidence, then the assertion that there were NO mammals during that time period cannot be sustained. 
#3
Quote from: aletheist on May 22, 2024, 08:24:14 PM
Quote from: George Rahn on May 22, 2024, 08:20:43 PM
Quote from: aletheist on May 22, 2024, 06:19:24 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 22, 2024, 06:01:59 PMThe creation account in Genesis 1 plainly tells us that it took just 6 days if you insist on reading that account literally. But, a literal reading may not be what the author of the autograph intended.
I am not aware of any textual evidence in Genesis 1 itself suggesting that Moses intended it to be understood as anything other than a divinely inspired historical narrative. Besides, Jesus says that God created the first humans "from the beginning" (Matthew 19:4-5, Mark 10:6-8), not billions of years later.
"...from the beginning" is from the beginning of the first man.  Not the beginning of the creation at the first.
On the contrary, in Mark's account, Jesus explicitly states, "But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'"


That is correct.  I have deleted my original post on this.
#4
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 22, 2024, 03:42:42 PM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 22, 2024, 03:19:37 PMI think the timeframe is theologically irrelevant in and of itself. It becomes relevant as it affects the reliability of Scripture and salvation history, but is not something that concerns me in and of itself.

Any investigation of things beyond firsthand knowledge is really an explanation of the observable present. We gain or lose trust in any account of how the present got to be the way it is as it gains or loses explanatory power. Theories about the past are constantly changing based on new discoveries. That's because they are always subject to discovery of further data or perhaps more ingenious explanations. Chesterton light-heartedly challenged the theory of gravitation by claiming that water runs downhill because it is bewitched. Either way it is just an explanation of why reality it is the way it is. Astrophysicists constantly challenge long-accepted theories as they observe new things. But the acceptance or rejection of the old theory or new proposed theory depends on how well it explains the present, observable reality.

Human history as history only goes back as far as written language, i.e. only a handful of millennia. That is history we can understand from the inside, so to speak, by assuming common humanity with the one who wrote the account. Everything else is by definition conjecture. Every week some new discovery makes us "question all we thought we knew about x" because some new piece of data doesn't fit in our prior understanding of x. Such conjecture can only ever address what things look like now and how to imagine how it got that way. For example, for hundreds of years people assumed the ancient accounts of the Romans building a ramp to Masada were legends made up for propaganda value. Then someone discovered Masada, and they had to rethink their prior take on those ancient accounts. Or think of it this way. Many high power thinkers say the best explanation for our world is that we live in a simulation. I don't agree, but I enjoy reading their article to see why they think that. They're trying to explain the present, observable reality and think the idea that we live in a simulation has the most explanatory power.

If we begin with the present and with knowledge that we have "from the inside", that is, that we simply know to be true because we are human, then we have a starting point for investigation and evaluating any explanation for how things got the way they are. And one thing that nearly all human beings agree on is that somehow we are not what we are supposed to be. The very idea that some actions are wrong/bad/forbidden but that we do those actions anyway must be treated as something as close to absolute data that we can get. As John Mundinger frequently says here, original sin is the only Christian doctrine that is observably true. For any account of reality to have explanatory power, it must explain how what we all know to be true came about.

Genesis explains it perfectly well. The NT takes up that explanation. Romans 5 explains to me how I got the way that I am (the way I unarguably know myself to be) with convincing explanatory power. Believe or not believe it, it does explain the present, observable world. And it explains it in a way that evolution cannot. To accept evolution, you have to begin by pretending not to know what you know from the inside about the human condition and the way you are in favor of only accepting demonstrable, objectively acquired data as really being reliable. Christian evolutionists cannot explain the relationships among disobedience, guilt, and death. It cannot explain how we can think and act in ways we know to be wrong. It certainly cannot predict or explain the resurrection of the body, which is another crucial historical data point in keeping with the Genesis account of salvation history.

The key to the Genesis account is that it distinguishes clearly why the way things are is not the way they were created to be. Creation and fallen creation are separated. Scientific investigation or theories about the past cannot account for that. At all. It is as though they account for all kinds of details like how fish fossils got on mountaintops but fail to account for the primary, absolutely known thing that must be accounted for, and then claim they have better explanatory power than Genesis. It strains at gnats and swallows camels.       
Yet Jews have the same Genesis and come to a different conclusion about the way humans are. They do not call it the "Fall." They do not believe in Original Sin.

More explanation is needed for me to see the difference.
#5
Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 22, 2024, 03:33:40 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 22, 2024, 03:22:34 PMI have said, more than once, in this forum that I think creation v. evolution is a false dichotomy, perpetuated by scientists practicing bad science and theologians practicing bad theology.  I'd put folks like Richard Dawkins in the former category.  I'm not familiar with him but, based on the above description, I'd consider Hugh Ross to be an example of the latter category.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.  That statement is a spiritual truth - accepted as truth, by faith.  Necessarily accepted by faith because it is truth well beyond the limits of human reason.

Evolution is one description of the creation - given that the creation already exists and based on our ability to understand the various physical, chemical and biological systems by which we experience the creation as it already exists.

The logic employed in the creation v. evolution is akin to that employed were mathematicians and grammarians arguing about how to calculate the cubed root of dangling participles.  We would be better off ignoring the argument than trying to either reconcile creation with evolution or trying to use one to dismiss the other.


I've always been amused by the comparison of creation/evolution arguments to arguments about the square root of a dangling participle. It is a rare feat for a tired cliche to make zero sense. A literal reading of Genesis and evolution are mutually-exclusive accounts of the same thing-- the origin of life and how it got the way it is. Square roots and grammatical errors are never addressed to the same thing.

Thus is good to draw out that one categorically cannot relate to the other because each is of different kind.
#6
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on May 22, 2024, 12:25:34 PMThis is a great topic. I'm going to try not to get off into the tangents of mechanics or veracity of the evidence, but stick to the question at hand.

The LCMS rejection of Evolution is one of the reasons I left the LCMS, but not Christianity.  I don't see how to reconcile Evolution with a subscription to the Augsburg Confession as the LCMS understands it.  My read is that it necessitates an Historical Adam, and a subsequent fall. 

I don't see gap theory working at all.  Every exegetical take has had the 7 days as 7, 24 hour periods.  The could be an apparent age, but that has all sorts of problems wrapped up in it. 

Catholics have it like so
https://www.catholic.com/tract/adam-eve-and-evolution
They require a real Adam and Eve, and most of the Catholics I spoke to have it to where Adam's kids somehow procreate with other evolved human like creatures and give birth to beings with souls. 


I'd love to hear some takes on this.  I definitely understand it if sympathetic minds don't want to risk accusations of heresy.

There was a first man and first woman.  Logically that makes sense to me.  Prior to the fall and exile from the garden of Eden the first man was created.  We do not live as relatives of this first man except as those born after the fall and exile from the garden, as the first man was found to be in exile from the garden.
#7
Your Turn / Re: Francis
May 22, 2024, 04:31:12 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 22, 2024, 04:19:53 PM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 22, 2024, 04:14:19 PMI disagree. The Law is one application of God's Word and the Gospel is another. You cannot highlight the Bible with which are Law passages and which are Gospel passages. The same passage can be Law to some and Gospel to others.

You and I agree. 

Try reading this, if you can get a hand on a copy:  https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=31786587063&dest=usa.


#8
Your Turn / Re: Francis
May 22, 2024, 04:26:15 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 22, 2024, 04:17:56 PM
Quote from: George Rahn on May 22, 2024, 04:05:08 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 22, 2024, 02:09:37 PM
Quote from: George Rahn on May 22, 2024, 12:21:59 PMNot one word but two distinct words.  The word of the law killed Jesus in order to fulfill the righteousness under the law.

That sounds very much like one Word - Law/Gosepl

Quote from: George Rahn on May 22, 2024, 12:21:59 PMJohn 1:17 "...the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

I'd pose the same question to you.  Do you make sure your Sunday school kids are sufficiently terrorized by the Law before you teach them to sing "Jesus loves me"?

The law is one word and the Gospel is another.  Do not combine the two or the distinctions are lost, imo.

I don't advocate "combining" the two.  I just don't think the relevance of either can be heard if preached without the other.  We can't know that we are dead if we don't know that we are alive in the Gospel.  And we can't know that we are alive if we don't know that we are dead in the Law.

The one on the verge of suicide is ruled by the law alone. 
#9
Your Turn / Re: Francis
May 22, 2024, 04:24:30 PM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 22, 2024, 04:14:19 PM
Quote from: George Rahn on May 22, 2024, 04:05:08 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 22, 2024, 02:09:37 PM
Quote from: George Rahn on May 22, 2024, 12:21:59 PMNot one word but two distinct words.  The word of the law killed Jesus in order to fulfill the righteousness under the law.

That sounds very much like one Word - Law/Gosepl

Quote from: George Rahn on May 22, 2024, 12:21:59 PMJohn 1:17 "...the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

I'd pose the same question to you.  Do you make sure your Sunday school kids are sufficiently terrorized by the Law before you teach them to sing "Jesus loves me"?

The law is one word and the Gospel is another.  Do not combine the two or the distinctions are lost, imo.
I disagree. The Law is one application of God's Word and the Gospel is another. You cannot highlight the Bible with which are Law passages and which are Gospel passages. The same passage can be Law to some and Gospel to others.


You just restated the Reformed understanding.  The principal teacher of this is not the Lutheran  Confessions, but Karl Barth, the Swiss theologian.
#10
Your Turn / Re: Francis
May 22, 2024, 04:12:58 PM
Quote from: Michael Speckhard on May 22, 2024, 03:51:53 PM
Quote from: George Rahn on May 22, 2024, 03:50:04 PM
Quote from: Michael Speckhard on May 22, 2024, 09:50:30 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 22, 2024, 09:48:20 AM
Quote from: Michael Speckhard on May 22, 2024, 09:45:22 AMSo you'd agree that for those who reject the gift, Jesus ceases to be Gospel and becomes Law?

I'd agree that those who reject the gift reject Jesus and the Law prevails and they incur the consequences of their own decision.  It is not necessary for Jesus to become law for the formula to work.

What then do you do with the various passages of scripture that show Jesus condemning those who rejected Him? Is it not really Him who is doing the condemning?

Examples of Jesus condemning others beyond restating the law, please?

I'm not following you here, pastor. Could you explain what you mean?

No problem.  If unbelief in Jesus, then it is the law that speaks.  Unbelief cannot receive the forgiveness of sins.  So beyond Jesus simply restating the law to unbelievers, they receive in their persons condemnation already.  All Jesus does is give to them what they only will hear, ie. Law. 

But yes, there are passages that Jesus gives out "woes" to the scribes and Pharisees only because they choose to only have ears for the law.  And they refuse to undergo Jesus' authority in that through him they recognize their sin, stand convicted.  Jesus at that point, is angry and sad that they only gave ears for what is inevitable if they do not receive Christ as they are as sinners both in truth and in fact.
#11
Your Turn / Re: Francis
May 22, 2024, 04:05:08 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 22, 2024, 02:09:37 PM
Quote from: George Rahn on May 22, 2024, 12:21:59 PMNot one word but two distinct words.  The word of the law killed Jesus in order to fulfill the righteousness under the law.

That sounds very much like one Word - Law/Gosepl

Quote from: George Rahn on May 22, 2024, 12:21:59 PMJohn 1:17 "...the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

I'd pose the same question to you.  Do you make sure your Sunday school kids are sufficiently terrorized by the Law before you teach them to sing "Jesus loves me"?

The law is one word and the Gospel is another.  Do not combine the two or the distinctions are lost, imo.
#12
Your Turn / Re: Francis
May 22, 2024, 03:53:28 PM
Quote from: Michael Speckhard on May 22, 2024, 10:09:50 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 22, 2024, 10:01:08 AM
Quote from: Michael Speckhard on May 22, 2024, 09:57:12 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 22, 2024, 09:54:58 AM
Quote from: Michael Speckhard on May 22, 2024, 09:50:30 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 22, 2024, 09:48:20 AM
Quote from: Michael Speckhard on May 22, 2024, 09:45:22 AMSo you'd agree that for those who reject the gift, Jesus ceases to be Gospel and becomes Law?

I'd agree that those who reject the gift reject Jesus and the Law prevails and they incur the consequences of their own decision.  It is not necessary for Jesus to become law for the formula to work.

What then do you do with the various passages of scripture that show Jesus condemning those who rejected Him? Is it not really Him who is doing the condemning?

The Law condemns.  God is love.  God desires all to be saved.  I do not believe that a loving God would condemn anyone.  But, I do believe that a loving God would allow persons who reject the promise to incur the consequences of their own choices.

That didn't answer my question. I'll ask again.

What then do you do with the various passages of scripture that show Jesus condemning (or judging) those who rejected Him?

I interpret them in the context of all of Scripture which reveals loving God who desires that all persons be saved.  Whether it is God sitting on the bench or people, in effect, judging themselves, the outcome is the same.  And, the outcome would be the same for you an me because we are under the same judgement - but we have the better "attorney".

Gotcha. So when Matthew 25, Psalm 96; 98; 110, 1 Sam 2, 2 Cor 5, Romans 2, John 9, James 5, Acts 10, et al, declare that God will judge, you simply focus on the action and ignore the One doing it.

Remember that judgment falls on you, as well.  It is not only for others.
#13
Your Turn / Re: Francis
May 22, 2024, 03:50:04 PM
Quote from: Michael Speckhard on May 22, 2024, 09:50:30 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 22, 2024, 09:48:20 AM
Quote from: Michael Speckhard on May 22, 2024, 09:45:22 AMSo you'd agree that for those who reject the gift, Jesus ceases to be Gospel and becomes Law?

I'd agree that those who reject the gift reject Jesus and the Law prevails and they incur the consequences of their own decision.  It is not necessary for Jesus to become law for the formula to work.

What then do you do with the various passages of scripture that show Jesus condemning those who rejected Him? Is it not really Him who is doing the condemning?

Examples of Jesus condemning others beyond restating the law, please?
#14
Your Turn / Re: Francis
May 22, 2024, 03:45:34 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 22, 2024, 08:12:10 AM
Quote from: Terry W Culler on May 21, 2024, 04:17:07 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 21, 2024, 11:20:31 AM
Quote from: Terry W Culler on May 21, 2024, 10:59:53 AMThe Law must accuse before the Gospel will comfort.

and vice versa

That makes no sense to me

For either to accomplish their purpose, the Law and Gospel should be preached together.


Not preached together.  One kills the other raises up.  Both cannot even logically be preached together.
#15
Your Turn / Re: Women in Ministry
May 22, 2024, 01:00:19 PM
Quote from: Tom Eckstein on May 22, 2024, 11:25:58 AM
Quote from: Donald_Kirchner on May 22, 2024, 10:51:31 AMIgnorance strikes again!  ::)

Here's something that I cut-and-pasted from an email of some years ago, written to a young, fellow pastor in my circuit.

"I pulled up a conversation that I had with a guy. Hopefully, this will give some help to where I was coming from:

He wrote: 'The creation account is not the key doctrine on which the church stands or falls, but once you start dismissing the historicity of one part of scripture (the parts that were written as history, granted) than you inevitably undermine the key claims of scripture which are also falsifiable historical claims.

Lots of people believe lots of things about the origins of the world, but the account of Genesis is either literally true as history or it is not. And if it is shown to be not true than the entire redemption metanarrative of the Bible unravels; our faith is in vain and we're still in our sins.'

My response:

That would be the Fundamentalist view, that faith is based on an inerrant Scripture. It is not the Lutheran one, that coming to faith through the Gospel, we then confess an inerrant Scripture. I.e., faith is not a house of cards.

I then referred him to some sites:

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2524

"Gospel and Scripture," CTCR, November 1972

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/gospel_scripture.pdf

E.g.:

'The truthfulness of the Gospel does not depend upon the inerrancy of the Scriptures.' [footnote 13]

and,

'Relative to the role of the Gospel as norm in the Scriptures, however, it is important to observe that it is one thing to say that it is contrary to the Holy Spirit's intent when Scripture is interpreted in such a way that the Gospel is obscured; it is quite another thing to say that since the Holy Spirit's intent in the Scriptures is to proclaim the Gospel, it was never His intent that His Word in Genesis 1-11, for instance, should be understood as relating facts of history, or to say that in view of "the perpetual aim of the Gospel" (AC XXVIII, 66; Latin) apostolic directives for the church's life may be set aside. It is one thing to search the Scriptures to discover ever more fully how they witness to Christ and relate to His Gospel; it is quite another thing to explore the implications of the Gospel for freedom in handling the Scriptures. The interest of one is to see the richness and the glory of the Gospel to aid preaching; the interest of the other is to explain the alleged limitations and flaws of the Bible in a way that avoids the embarrassment of defending it as God's very own inerrant Word while at the same time upholding and affirming its authority. The Gospel is the norm in the Scriptures in the sense that it absolutely prohibits understanding any passage to teach salvation by works. It is not norm in the sense that the center of Scripture becomes a device to sanction a view of the Bible and a method of interpreting it which virtually denies that the whole Bible is God's inspired, authoritative Word on all matters concerning which it speaks.' [page 11]

This also came up with a [pastor formerly from another synod]. That's the reference I mentioned to Shawn yesterday. [That pastor] advised a lay person [in an online conversation]: 'If the Bible is wrong about creation, there is no Gospel. It's as simple as that'-  that if one Biblical doctrine (such as a literal 6-day creation) fell your faith would fall because one's faith is based on a conviction that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant word of God (a Fundamentalist view) rather than the other way around (the Lutheran view), that, coming to faith through the Gospel, we then confess an inerrant Scripture. [The lay person] was thereby led astray into thinking that inerrancy and the Gospel is a 'house of cards' (her term) and that if one point falls the gospel falls. I went on to explain the above, and concluded that faith is not such a precarious thing that she should be placed in doubt."

Don, I essentially agree with you, but I would like to make some clarifications.

For example, you quote PART of footnote #13 from the CTCR "Gospel and Scripture" document, but that same footnote goes on to say:  "Because the Bible is inerrant, it teaches the truth of the Gospel inerrantly. Biblical inerrancy assures that the Gospel (which is true per se) is correctly presented in the Scriptures. An errant medium might distort the message.  Since the truth of the Gospel is communicated to us in words which God Himself provided, matching terms to content (1 Cor. 2: 13), the content did not suffer
perversion in the process of transmission by men who were able to err and be deceived."
  Simply put, by quoting only the first sentence of this footnote, you give the impression that one can believe the Gospel but also deny that the Scripture is inerrant.  But that's NOT what this CTCR document is saying!  They are saying that the Gospel depends on God's acts in history through the person and work of His Son, and that this historical fact is taught in an inerrant Scripture inspired by God.  Therefore, it would be wrong for one to say "Believe that Jesus died and rose for you, even though the Scriptures that teach us about this could be errant!"  No!

Therefore, even though those who deny the historicity of Genesis because they believe the Scriptures to be errant about that past event many still believe the Gospel because they believe the Scriptures to be INerrant about that past event are engaging in Pieper's "felicitous inconsistency" which is actually a dangerous spiritual state because, if left unchecked, can, indeed, lead one to say:  "Hey!  If Scripture is errant about creation, then I guess it is probably also errant about the person and work of Christ.  If I'm going to be consistent, I guess I'm going to reject the whole thing!" This is precisely why denying ONE doctrine because one believes the Scripture to be ERRANT about it can potentially lead to a "house of cards" effect.

So, even though denying what Genesis teaches about creation because one believes Scripture to be ERRANT about that past event may not immediately lead to a "house of cards" situation, the fact is that such a view of Scripture is spiritually dangerous and can POTENTIALLY lead to a "house of cards" situation - and, in fact, I have seen this happen in people's lives over the years.  This is the very point being made in the longer quote you share from the CTCR document!

I'm challenging this only because as a sinner who has never lived prior to the exile from the Garden of Eden, can I only "hear" what God and Adam did prior to that exile?  I do not have relatedness to the ebendbild which existed between God and Adam in the Garden of Eden prior to the Fall and subsequent exile.  That is not to say that the bild is no longer present.  But then the "abbild" is so disrupted that only God could repair it, as was finally repaired in Christ.  Inerrancy of scripture from God's side is assured, all the time, prior and post Fall.  But as sinners, the inerrant scriptures are fraught with interpretive issues.  By always making the scriptures the final appeal since from God's side they are inerrant, our interpretations are never the final word as the default is always away from us onto God's word itself, which is inerrant.
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk