Left Powerless Over Sin? No!

[skyblue888]

I can understand why religion is a bad word nowadays because there is very little of true Christianity. We have had many centuries of false religion. But as Gerry said, how can you look at nature and not think of a Designer, a Designer with infinite power? To me it takes infinite power just to make a blade of grass. A simple blade of grass tells it all.

sky

[skyblue888]

There is more science in the Bible than many suppose.

To begin with the matter of salvation is the science of sciences. Unless we understand this science of sciences we cannot truly understand the other sciences.

The redeemed will have eternity to study the other sciences.

sky

[skyblue888]

"Salvation is not simply science, it is not simply a science; it is the chief, the key, the center of all sciences. It is the most scientific of all things that are dealt with by the minds of men in this world." A.T. Jones.

[skyblue888]

"Everybody knows that this is a very scientific age. At least in name, in profession, and in aspiration. God wants his people always to be up with the age. More than that: He wants His people always to be ahead of the age. Particularly He wants His people always to be reformers, and for a person to be a reformer, he must be ahead of the age. Then as this is a particularly scientific age, in profession and otherwise, God's cause, His people, must be scientific to meet the demands of the age. The Lord wants you and me to accept that proposition, to study it, and to build upon it, until it is demonstrated in us before the world that that proposition is scientifically correct." A.T. Jones

If this could be said more than a hundred years ago, how much more now!

sky

[skyblue888]

"Now, I am thoroughly committed to that truth. And I want you to see how completely it is the truth. You and I are committed to the salvation of God. And I want you to see by the Bible--the book of all truth--that salvation is science. Then you will, with me, be committed to that truth.

First, then, I want you to think soberly, and see for yourself not only that salvation is science; but that it is the highest of all sciences.

The word 'science' means, literally, knowledge. The science of botany is the knowledge of botany. The science of astronomy is the knowledge of astronomy. So that one scientist has defined science to be 'the product of thinking.' All the knowledge--the science--that the world has of astronony, is the product of the world's thinking on the subject of astronony.

Now salvation is the knowledge of God: "This is life eternal, that they might KNOW Thee the living and true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." It is therefore science. But this knowledge is not the product of man's thinking: it is the product of God's thinking. For "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God."

Therefore salvation being the product of God's thinking, is not only science, but is the highest of all sciences." A.T. Jones.

[Igakusei]

Well, I don't know who is missing whose point. Maybe you're right that I am. The data I'm looking at is this, and I'll repeat it again because I can't seem to make my point across either.

I see a watch, I know there's a watchmaker.

I see a car, I can be certain there's a carmaker.

I see my OS, I know Microsoft invented it.

There is nothing around me that doesn't seem to be made by someone.

So, when I see a star, my mind tells me there must be a starmaker, a DNA Maker, etc.

You believe the first three because you can go to Switzerland or Detroit or Washington to see how they are actually made. Of the last, you say - maybe, maybe not. Like PF I have some concrete ideas, but because the starmaker hasn't shown Himself, I'll withhold judgment until He shows Himself or find more evidence.

I understand that you're a creationist, but my experience as someone who has spent probably thousands of hours studying and discussing evolutionary biology has been that I have yet to meet a single young-Earth creationist who actually understands even the basics of why scientists find the consensus view of origins so convincing. In that way, it's a lot like the anti-vaccine movement (I have yet to meet someone opposed to vaccine programs who even knows what the difference between B and T lymphocytes is). I know we've talked about it before in other threads and I can't remember what happened, but you're basically making an argument from ignorance here.

We don't know what "caused" the Big Bang and we certainly don't know what process (intelligent or otherwise) governs the nature of its physical laws, but we DO know with an extremely high degree of certainty a substantial amount of what has happened since that you're being denialist about.

The problem with your analogy is that we know where watches come from, because we can talk to their designers and visit the factories that make them. Likewise, we know where cars and operating systems come. We also know where the diversity of living organisms comes from, because we can observe evolution in real time and the history of it is written in our genes for anyone with a DNA sequencer to read. We know where stars and solar systems come from because we have powerful telescopes that have found stars and planetary systems at every stage of their formation and death.

Unlike watches, cars, living organisms, and stars, however, we do NOT know where the fundamental laws of the physical universe come from and the only universe we've seen be born are the traces of our own that we can still read in things like the distribution of elements and radiation. We KNOW that unintelligent natural processes can create information and complexity because we've observed it happening in real time, and the history of science is filled with millions of examples of phenomena originally credited to supernatural entities that are now understood as solely the product of unguided natural forces. If denialism of several major fields of modern science is the only way you can maintain your argument, I hope you'll at least understand why so many of us remain unconvinced.

[phkrause]

Excellent posts sky

[skyblue888]

Thanks pk. Here is some more.

"Again, that which is recognized by the world as science--the natural sciences--is the product of men's thinking. It is with the mind that men think. It is with the mind, then, that men deal with all these sciences. But salvation deals with the mind itself. Which, then, is the higher?--that which deals with all other things, or that which deals with that which deals with all other things?--The latter, to be sure.

Then as with the mind men deal with all other sciences, and salvation deals with the mind itself, it is perfectly plain, not only that salvation is science as certainly as any other science, but that it is higher science than all other sciences. It is the highest science that can be known to the mind of man.

Yet again: Salvation deals with the mind. But who is it that in salvation and by salvation deals with the mind?--It is God Himself. Than as it is God Himself who works out, who makes known, this science; and as this science is the product of God's thinking; it follows that the science of salvation is the highest, the deepest, the broadest, science that is known, not only to the mind of man, but to the whole universe." A.T. Jones.

sky

[M. T. Cross]

Who is A.T. Jones and what kind of credentials does he/she carry that we should be taking his/her word on the matter?

Serious question.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

Who is A.T. Jones and what kind of credentials does he/she carry that we should be taking his/her word on the matter? Serious question.

Exactly. What does AT Jones mean to a non-Adventist ( a non-Christian, at that)?

We must remember that SDA's are not the only members of this forum. The world is watching.

[Igakusei]

That A.T. Jones quote is one of the most mind-numbingly stupid things I've read in months. He has a couple real zinger s like that... I think there's another one about how doubt is incompatible with a search for truth.

[skyblue888]

Exactly doubting everything before believing was the way of the Greek which was foolishness.

sky

[skyblue888]

JoeMo, whose side are you on? This is an adventist forum and for as long as I know we have been quoting from the Testimonies and from the writings of A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner.

"The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones." T.M.91.

What I have quoted from Jones so far is taken from the 1897 General Conference Bulletin.

sky

[skyblue888]

More from Jones from the same source.

"Be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind." Rom.12:2.

The only way the Lord can reach us is through the mind. He deals with us only through the mind. He governs us only through the mind. This change of mind is salvation. That renewing of the mind is wrought by God in the work of His salvation, and it can be wrought by no other. Therefore it is the highest of all sciences--the highest that is known to the mind of man, the highest that is known to the universe." A.T. Jones

sky

[skyblue888]

"Do the angels understand other sciences--biology, geology, ichthyology, astronomy--all other sciences? You know that they do. Everybody knows that the angels understand thoroughly all other sciences. Everybody knows that it is perfectly safe to say that all the angels understand all other sciences infinitely more thoroughly than any man understands, or ever understood, any one single science. But the angels are more interested in the subject of salvation than in all the other sciences. (Eph.3:8-11; 1 Peter 1:12)

They who know the most of all the others, are most interested in the science of salvation. O, well, you agreed with me a while ago that if I could cite such authority as that, you would say that we were safe in taking this position. Come along, then, we are safe. We are in the best of company--yes, the best of scientific company. There is authority that is conclusive on the subject, scientific authority.

Well, then, as the angels understand all other sciences more than any man understands any one, when they are more interested in the science of salvation than in all the others, and learn from this, is not that a fact upon which you and I can with safety trust ourselves? Then is not this, too, a subject more worthy of our thought, our highest thinking, than all others put together? And cannot we set our hearts upon this, and give our whole soul to it without being unscientific? O, we can, we can! Let us do it.

Now, do not misunderstand me. I am not making an attack on other sciences. I am not saying that all other sciences should be ignored, and counted as Will-o'-the-wisps, and unworthy of my attention. No; I am saying that this is greater than all of them; and that whatever we study in them must be studied in subjection to this which is greater than they. I am saying only that all others must take a secondary place, at least, to this one, if we would be scientific." A.T. Jones

Words of wisdom, to be sure.

sky

[Igakusei]

Exactly doubting everything before believing was the way of the Greek which was foolishness.

sky

Yeah, it's obviously better to just believe stuff without applying any sort of critical thinking to it first.

/sarcasm

[cardw]

Therefore salvation being the product of God's thinking, is not only science, but is the highest of all sciences." A.T. Jones.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Exactly doubting everything before believing was the way of the Greek which was foolishness.

sky

Yeah, it's obviously better to just believe stuff without applying any sort of critical thinking to it first.

/sarcasm

You nailed it here. This idea that I have to be simple minded to understand is along these lines.

The one thing that is true is maybe you do have to be simple minded to believe this stuff.

[M. T. Cross]

JoeMo, whose side are you on? This is an adventist forum and for as long as I know we have been quoting from the Testimonies and from the writings of A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner.

"The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones." T.M.91.

What I have quoted from Jones so far is taken from the 1897 General Conference Bulletin.

sky

Well thanks for answering the question posed............

No worries, I will google who he is.

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Exactly doubting everything before believing was the way of the Greek which was foolishness.

sky

Yeah, it's obviously better to just believe stuff without applying any sort of critical thinking to it first.

/sarcasm

Obviously! Cause the Greeks were also famous for their barbaric foolishness as well.

[Igakusei]

I started to dissect that post in the hopes of illustrating just how badly Jones misunderstands what science is and how it works, but I just didn't have the energy. I think instead I'll just go bash my face into my desk a few times.

[cardw]

I started to dissect that post in the hopes of illustrating just how badly Jones misunderstands what science is and how it works, but I just didn't have the energy. I think instead I'll just go bash my face into my desk a few times.

This is for you Igakusei

[doug yowell]

I don't do things that hurt other people in any habitual manner. I don't have to work at that at all.I'm not really interested in rating my goodness.

[doug yowell]

Salvation is not science. That is a misuse of the word unless you are trying to deceive through word games. And to suggest that salvation is the highest of all sciences is a lie designed to look like truth because you have already established the lie that salvation is a science.

This is a classic example of brainwashing. This is why Christianity is a cult in the worst sense and why it has no power other than fear and guilt.

Please define "science" before applying "lies" and "brainwashing" to the conclusion.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

I don't do things that hurt other people in any habitual manner. I don't have to work at that at all.I'm not really interested in rating my goodness.

Let us asume that your self evaluation is true,but does hurting people in a non-habitual manner rate as superior than a person who does it in a habitual manner?

Like I said, I'm not interested in rating my morality. Habitual manner was your term. I was simply responding to that.