Casting stone's

[1denomination]

Hello Again CF,


I think by now you people know me or have at least seen my name. Lately it seems we are getting a little to excited about this. I am a YEC That will never change. And on another post I read today it seems that is funny to TE's that I will never change, Apparently TE's are smarter than YEC's because they understand the science and can look at the creation facts and change in the light of new facts and blah blah blah blah.........



Eph 4:14 That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

(That is in no way stone just a defense of my stance)

Now that being said let me get to the point of this post. I am foremost a Christian. I think it is safe to assume all those reading this are likewise.
So I think before we continue to bash and make smug comments about eachother we should remember wht the scripture says on matters such as this.



Rom 12:15 Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.

Rom 12:16 [Be] of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

Rom 12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

Rom 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

Rom 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Rom 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

Rom 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good


Now I do not pretend to be innocent of these matters, and for my part I apologize and I pray that we can All go forward from here being "Likeminded" Showing compasion for our brothers and sisters rather than discontent.

God Bless

 

[gluadys]

Hello Again CF,


Eph 4:14 That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

I appreciate your post 1denom, but I don't think the scripture passage is applicable. It speaks of being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine and I agree we should not allow ourselves to be so moved.

But evolution is not doctrine. It is science. It responds to evidence, not to cunning craftiness. (With some minor exceptions like Piltdown Man. But even these get found out by science.) Changing a theory in response to new evidence is not at all like changing on a whim from one doctrine to another. It is more like a situation in law where a person is freed from prison when evidence of his innocence turns up. That would be a good reason to change a verdict, wouldn't it?

Now that being said let me get to the point of this post. I am foremost a Christian. I think it is safe to assume all those reading this are likewise.
So I think before we continue to bash and make smug comments about eachother we should remember wht the scripture says on matters such as this.

I confess, I am not wholly innocent of making smug comments either, and I likewise ask forgiveness and will try to keep on topic, not attack people.

 

[1denomination]

I appreciate your post 1denom, but I don't think the scripture passage is applicable. It speaks of being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine and I agree we should not allow ourselves to be so moved.

But evolution is not doctrine. It is science. It responds to evidence, not to cunning craftiness. (With some minor exceptions like Piltdown Man. But even these get found out by science.) Changing a theory in response to new evidence is not at all like changing on a whim from one doctrine to another. It is more like a situation in law where a person is freed from prison when evidence of his innocence turns up. That would be a good reason to change a verdict, wouldn't it?.

AH. But Theistic Evoultion is a doctrine or atleast to me it is just as creationism is. and according to this poll http://www.christianforums.com/t85721 Most of the TE's said they would change their position in light of new evidence. now should someother evidence they would most assuedly go back.

I confess, I am not wholly innocent of making smug comments either, and I likewise ask forgiveness and will try to keep on topic, not attack people.

For this I commend you, and I look forward to many healthy debates with you. May God truly Bless you.

 

[versastyle]

I always thought doctrine had to do with the what the scriptures mean part. Not the how or when.

 

[1denomination]

I always thought doctrine had to do with the what the scriptures mean part. Not the how or when.

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: doc·trine
Pronunciation: 'däk-tr&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French, from Latin doctrina, from doctor
1 archaic : [size=-1]TEACHING[/size], [size=-1]INSTRUCTION[/size]
2 a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : [size=-1]DOGMA[/size] c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relationsE]


If you teach TE then it is your doctrine or at least part of it.IMO

 

[versastyle]

If you teach TE then it is your doctrine or at least part of it.IMO

Well according to that definition a spanish teacher teaches doctrine. Heh.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I think by now you people know me or have at least seen my name. Lately it seems we are getting a little to excited about this. I am a YEC That will never change. And on another post I read today it seems that is funny to TE's that I will never change, Apparently TE's are smarter than YEC's because they understand the science and can look at the creation facts and change in the light of new facts and blah blah blah blah.........

1Ti 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires {to do.}
1Ti 3:2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1Ti 3:3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
1Ti 3:4 {He must be} one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
1Ti 3:5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),
1Ti 3:6 {and} not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.
1Ti 3:7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside {the church,} so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Is the New Testament elder to be a man who is "able to teach" or a man who is "teachable" (1 Timothy 3:2)? The latter is the rendering of the ISV, for several reasons. Not only is the translation "teachable" allowed by the Greek lexicons, but it is also in keeping with the context. Paul’s list of qualifications for elders has more to do with a man’s character than with his abilities. And, if you think about it, aren’t the best teachers "teachable," that is, people who are constantly excited about what they are learning and therefore eager to pass it on to others? If a man wants to be an elder, let him be teachable in the hands of the Master and open to the teaching and reproof of others. The man who has nothing to learn has nothing to teach and no place in the ministry of the church.

from: http://www.isv.org/musings/musing10.htm

II. GOD NEEDS TEACHABLE MEN

A. WILLING TO BE TAUGHT BY OTHERS...
1. Unless men are willing to be taught, God's method won't work!
2. Timothy himself provides a good example:
a. Willing first to be taught by his mother and grandmother
- cf. 2 Ti 1:5; 3:14-15
b. Willing to go with Paul and be taught by him - cf. Ac 16:1-3
-- Men who willing to be students first, then teachers

B. WILLING TO BE TAUGHT BY THEMSELVES...
1. Self-study is an important part of preparing to teach - cf.
2 Ti 2:15; 1 Ti 4:13,15-16
2. As illustrated by Ezra the priest - Ezr 7:10
-- Men who do not wait for others to teach them, but study on
their own!

[In other words, men who take advantage of every opportunity to learn;
whether it be at the feet of someone else, or in the privacy of their
own study. They love the truth that much! Then notice that God
needs...]

from: http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/2tim/2ti2_2.htm

teachable, not an option but rather a command, addressed specifically to leaders.

 

[1denomination]

teachable, not an option but rather a command, addressed specifically to leaders

No arguement here.
But if I'm going to teach it I 'm going to be sure its not going to change tomorrow

 

[versastyle]

No arguement here.
But if I'm going to teach it I 'm going to be sure its not going to change tomorrow

Are you saying that you would actually prefer that scientists NOT change their theories in the face of contradiction?

Thats the wonderful thing about scientists. They are the first to admit that their theories could be wrong.

 

[Vance]

No arguement here.
But if I'm going to teach it I 'm going to be sure its not going to change tomorrow

Why? As long as you are teaching that it CAN and SHOULD change as the evidence warrants, this is not a problem. In science, change is good because it means we are getting more accurate and more detailed knowledge as we go.

Belief in creation or evolution is not a doctrine, in my opinion, it is simply a belief about how God created. Believing God created everything is a doctrine. Your belief about how God created comes from your interpretation of Scripture (necessarily a human endeavor) and the evidence from God's Creation (another human endeavor). Since human endeavors are known for their getting things wrong on occasion, I would hate to say my belief in either human endeavor would not change. My belief that God created everything, however, is a doctrine I will not change.

 

[billwald]

You'll change when the space aliens announce themselves.

 

[gluadys]

AH. But Theistic Evoultion is a doctrine or atleast to me it is just as creationism is. and according to this poll http://www.christianforums.com/t85721 Most of the TE's said they would change their position in light of new evidence. now should someother evidence they would most assuedly go back.

Yes, theistic evolution is a doctrinal position. But it is the theist part that is doctrinal, not the evolution part.

In essence, the TE position is that scientific truth is part of God's truth. So when a theory such as evolution has strong scientific backing, we need to accommodate our interpretation of scriptures to the truths that science reveals. For since the truth of scripture and the truth of science both come from God, they cannot be self-contradictory.

Now, if the time comes that the scientific backing for a specific theory is shown not to be all that strong after all, then we are no longer dealing with God's truth revealed through science, but with something else. After all, a basic principle of science is that even its best, most secure theories are accepted as provisionallytrue based on current evidence. So, it is no problem if the science changes over time. We never expect it to be immutable.

Being a theistic evolutionist does not mean being committed to evolution at all costs. It does mean being committed to the unity of God's truth no matter how that truth is revealed to us. We cannot uphold the truth from one source to contradict truth revealed in another source. If it looks like that is what we are being called to do, we need to re-think our position.

 

[Vance]

You can look at it as kind of a sliding scale: the stonger the likelihood that evolution is true, the more likely a Biblical interpretation contradictory to it not correct. And, the more essential and assured a Biblical doctrine is, the less likely any scientific principal which contradicts that doctrine is correct. So, the degree to which you believe that a young earth and creation of all the species as they are now is an essential doctrine is the degree to which you should refuse to accept the evidence that evolution and an old earth are true. But ONLY to that degree.

The classic example of this, of course, is the Church having to change it's interpretation of Scripture once we discovered that the solar system was heliocentric. For a while many stubbornly stood their ground and refused to let "Man's scientific wisdom" overule "God's Word". But eventually they had to realize that it was their interpretation which would be changing, not God's Word.

But, for me, since I did not have an entirely literal interpretation of Genesis anyway, I saw no seeming contradiction that I had to balance in any case.