Before and After

[1denomination]

Just curious. Where did you stand on this origins thing before you accepted Christ.


As for me I was an athiesistic evolutionist, Not because I Knew all the facts but just what I was taught in school, and the National Geographic(Parents were subscribers). Now Im a YEC, praise God he found me.

 

[Vance]

I was raised in Church, and accepted Christ at an early age. My father was the pastor and he was YEC back then, so I was YEC. As with 1denomination, it was not based on the evidence. Actually, it was due to a lack of knowledge of the evidence. I was also brought up in evangelical Christian schools until my last two years of high school, so the indoctrination continued for a long time. But, with the studies of Scripture at those schools, as well as my early studies of ancient history (later went on to get my degree in ancient history), I began to see that the early chapters of Genesis were almost assuredly meant to be read non-literally. I was still YEC at the time, however, so my developmental process was the reverse of what YEC's assume. It was not the scientific evidence which caused me to change my reading of Scripture (although I think this is a perfectly valid thing to do), but my altered reading of Scripture which made me reconsider my views on origins.

Once I began reviewing the real evidence, I almost immediately realized that the earth was old, but still hesitated to accept evolution because I had been told that it was atheistic and God-less. Thus, I fell into the OEC Progressive Creation camp for a while. Eventually, as I began to read more and more about what evolution really said, and how it was NOT atheistic in the least, it became the most obvious thing in the world to me that God simply used evolution as His method of the development of life on this planet.

Since then, I have had the most complete peace of mind and spirit about the subject.

 

[Euryale]

Never been YEC, I just think I'm a lot smarter than that.

 

[1denomination]

Never been YEC, I just think I'm a lot smarter than that.

Come on, You got me dodging stones here.

Seriously I dont think you answered the Question?

 

[versastyle]

I've been a Christian my whole life, but from the beginning of learning science, I've doubted the historical accuracy of the Old Testament.

 

[ab1385]

I was an 'evolutionist', then I became a Christian. Thought about it a lot, and decided that there was no way I could believe that evolution didn't happen. My decision then was 'is Christianity compatible with evolution, or is Christianity false?'. I decided that it was compatible, so therefore I am still a Christian.

 

[tryptophan]

Well, I've always been a Christian. When I was really young, I accepted both the literal creation account and the idea that the Earth was millions of years old. Go figure. Then, I wasn't really anything with regard to origins issues. When I entered college, I was first introduced to the idea of natural selection, and that's when I began forming the opinions I have today.

 

[Bushido216]

Heh. I've always been Catholic, and not until a few years ago did I sit down and have myself a good think about Adam & Eve and evolution / abiogenesis / big bang / etc.

Right now I'm a TE.

 

[TwinCrier]

I was an evolutionist as that was all I was taught and I never questioned it. After I accepted Christ as my Savior, I felt in my heart that God created mankind as the bible says, and after viewing the evidence for a young earth, I became convinced.

 

[versastyle]

I felt in my heart that God created mankind as the bible says

There is no biblical basis for this kind of thinking. The Holy Spirit does not dwell in history.

 

[gluadys]

Just curious. Where did you stand on this origins thing before you accepted Christ.


As for me I was an athiesistic evolutionist, Not because I Knew all the facts but just what I was taught in school, and the National Geographic(Parents were subscribers). Now Im a YEC, praise God he found me.

I was a creationist. I didn't learn about evolution until several years after I accepted Christ. So, I didn't know there was an alternative.

Once I had evolution explained to me, it made so much sense I dropped creationism immediately. And that was primarily on the basis of the theory, without much knowledge of the evidence. Since then, I have explored the evidence as well (as far as non-scientist can) and found it solidly confirms the theory.

 

[TwinCrier]

There is no biblical basis for this kind of thinking. The Holy Spirit does not dwell in history.

I never said otherwise. The Holy Spirit dwells within ME, and lead me to my faith.

John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

 

[meebs]

Just curious. Where did you stand on this origins thing before you accepted Christ.


As for me I was an athiesistic evolutionist, Not because I Knew all the facts but just what I was taught in school, and the National Geographic(Parents were subscribers). Now Im a YEC, praise God he found me.

i was atheistic evolution and now im theistic evolution

still into science pretty big

Praise God who made this universe however he made it

 

[versastyle]

I never said otherwise. The Holy Spirit dwells within ME, and lead me to my faith.

This is a huge doctrinal difference. I don't see how the Holy Spirit can lead one to believe in something not relevant to spirituality or salvation.

The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with belief in irrelevance.

 

[Vance]

Well, I think the Spirit can lead one in the proper interpetation of Scripture, so to the extent TwinCrier believes the Spirit is guiding her to a literal reading of Genesis, then this guidance is relevant, I think.

Personally, I feel equally guided by the Spirit to a non-literal reading.

 

[versastyle]

Personally, I feel equally guided by the Spirit to a non-literal reading.

What I am saying is that this would mean the Holy Spirit guides us to deception one way or the other. That is an inherent doctrinal problem.

So my logic follows as this.

1) The Holy Spirit does not deceive.
2) There is no biblical reason to believe the Holy Spirit guides in other than spiritual and salvation matters.
3) Thus, the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with how you choose to interpret the creation story.

 

[TwinCrier]

What I am saying is that this would mean the Holy Spirit guides us to deception one way or the other. That is an inherent doctrinal problem.

So my logic follows as this.

1) The Holy Spirit does not deceive.
2) There is no biblical reason to believe the Holy Spirit guides in other than spiritual and salvation matters.
3) Thus, the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with how you choose to interpret the creation story.

That is your opinion. Vance and I believe we are lead by a force greater than us in our beliefs in other matters as well. The hat is red, the hat is green and the emperor has no clothes.

 

[versastyle]

That is your opinion.

I don't see how your opinion is biblical.

Do you guys actually believe that if God took you both aside and told you the age of the Earth, He would tell you two different, contradictory figures?

Amazing.

 

[Vance]

Oh, no, one of us has that wrong, that is for sure, and the Spirit would not lead us in different directions. And, I agree with you that God does not necessarily provide specific guidance regarding scientific issues. My point was that the Spirit can give guidance regarding the proper interpretation of Scripture, and will never lead one astray in this regard. And, the study of Genesis is, obviously, a Scriptural issue.

Now, let's think about this carefully. If God is allowing Twincrier to feel at peace with her literal interpretation of Scripture, and me to feel at peace with my non-literal interpretation of Scripture, what does that mean? I think that there can only be one conclusion:

The viewpoints that we hold in common about this subject are correct, and the viewpoints upon which we differ are of so little consequence to God that our having different viewpoints does not rise to the level of needing the Spirit's guidance.

So, what viewpoints do we have in common? The theological truths that arise from Genesis.

And what viewpoints do we differ on? Whether, in addition to the theological truths, the events described are literal history or not literal history, or some mix of the two.

Therefore, this tells me that God simply does not care what we believe about the literalness or historicity of Genesis 1 and 2, as long as we get the theological messages He intends for us from those passages.

And, therefore, we should not be making the literalness/historicity issue a dividing point for Christianity, and should not be teaching that it is an important, much less an essential aspect of doctrine.