Fellowship; Creationists and Evolutionists

[ethos]

All or most of the membership of this forum are truly interested in one thing; Fellowship with other Christains, and I for one will do my best to seek this goal. Maybe we all should back off a little and embrace each other in christain love, I'm certain we can reconcile some of the differences of opinion we have if we will all remember that our Lord is the Master, and we as his children should first consider the example of his love for each of us. Let's do our best to follow this example, remember that a soft answer turns away wrath.

 

[Gold Dragon]

All or most of the membership of this forum are truly interested in one thing; Fellowship with other Christains, and I for one will do my best to seek this goal. Maybe we all should back off a little and embrace each other in christain love, I'm certain we can reconcile some of the differences of opinion we have if we will all remember that our Lord is the Master, and we as his children should first consider the example of his love for each of us. Let's do our best to follow this example, remember that a soft answer turns away wrath.

 

[Vance]

As Augustine said:

In essentials, unity.

In non-essentials, liberty.

In all things, love.


Since most seem to agree that how you believe about origins is one of the non-essentials, we should always treat the subject accordingly. It is still worth discussing and debating, just we should not treat it as a matter of dogma for fear of it becoming a stumbling-block to those on either side.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

As Augustine said:

In essentials, unity.

In non-essentials, liberty.

In all things, love.


Since most seem to agree that how you believe about origins is one of the non-essentials, we should always treat the subject accordingly. It is still worth discussing and debating, just we should not treat it as a matter of dogma for fear of it becoming a stumbling-block to those on either side.

Adiaphora

Adiaphora is a Greek word [adiaphora] literally, [a] meaning not, and [diaphora] meaning different. It implies an indifference by not really being against whatever is in view. In a theological debate or discussion, it means a matter of moral indifference, or that which has neither moral merit, nor which lacks moral merit. i.e., that regarded as something which is tolerable. For example, doctrines which are neither explicitly condemned by scripture, nor explicity stipulated. Often used in connection with religious tolorance of what is sometimes called, 'the non-essentials.'

from: http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/glossary.html#adiaphora

the problem is that the adiaphora distinction is not clear in most cases. for instance, in retrospect slavery was not a non-essential in the US in 1820-1861 despite several general assembly declarations* that it was. apparent in retrospect, not in the midst of the crisis.


i'm just trying to grease the slippery slope

*sorry, General Assembly is a Presbyterian organizational term, i spend so much time reading on the issues that i forget that all Christians aren't Presbyterian and know the lingo *grin*
....

 

[Vance]

Yes, but I wonder whether, even today, we would call slavery an "essential". Thinking out loud, I would propose that slavery, in itself, would not be an essential issue, but the implication of the "love thy neighbor" commandment, which IS an essential. The question would be whether a person could love his neighbor while holding him as a slave. Most today, including myself, would say "no", it is impossible.

This fine-tuning of the point is essential, I believe. Just as with origins, the essential is not whether you believe that there was a literal Adam (non-essential), but whether you believe that Man is in a fallen condition and in need of redemption (essential). Now, the question would be whether you can believe that man is in a fallen condition without believing in a literal Adam. The answer to that is self-evident by the simple fact that so many, many Christians DO believe in the fallen state without believing in a literal Adam.

 

[mhess13]

I have no desire for fellowship with evolutionists.

 

[ethos]

I have no desire for fellowship with evolutionists.

I am totally committed to the Creationist view point. I find it rather disturbing however that you could feel free to make such a remark. When we all stand before the Lord in Glory, you may find that the one standing next to you believed in evolution. Even though I disagree with the evolutionist view, I believe that all who accept the Lord as Savior, will stand with me in Glory.

 

[Vance]

I am totally committed to the Creationist view point. I find it rather disturbing however that you could feel free to make such a remark. When we all stand before the Lord in Glory, you may find that the one standing next to you believed in evolution. Even though I disagree with the evolutionist view, I believe that all who accept the Lord as Savior, will stand with me in Glory.

Exactly.

No matter how much I believe that YEC'ism creates a stumbling-block, I would never let it effect my personal fellowship with someone who holds that viewpoint of origins. This is especially important since I attend (and teach Sunday School at) a church committed to YEC'ism!

 

[mhess13]

I am totally committed to the Creationist view point. I find it rather disturbing however that you could feel free to make such a remark. When we all stand before the Lord in Glory, you may find that the one standing next to you believed in evolution. Even though I disagree with the evolutionist view, I believe that all who accept the Lord as Savior, will stand with me in Glory.

Are we not commanded to seperate ourselves from those who teach false doctrine?
Ephesians 5:11 ". . . have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."
Evolution is positively anti-biblical, and I cannot fellowship with anyone who teaches evolution, just as I won't fellowship with anyone who doesn't believe in the virgin birth, I won't fellowship with those who believe abortion and homosexuality are ok, etc

We do Christ a diservice with all this "I'm ok, you're ok, it doesn't matter what we believe" garbage.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Are we not commanded to seperate ourselves from those who teach false doctrine?
Ephesians 5:11 ". . . have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."
Evolution is positively anti-biblical, and I cannot fellowship with anyone who teaches evolution, just as I won't fellowship with anyone who doesn't believe in the virgin birth, I won't fellowship with those who believe abortion and homosexuality are ok, etc

We do Christ a diservice with all this "I'm ok, you're ok, it doesn't matter what we believe" garbage.

the problem is the boundary line.
1. how to determine it
2. how to codify it
3. how to enforce it
4. how to change it over time

i've been reading for several months on the issues here and don't see a solution. in fact, i don't believe most Christians even realize how big of a problem it really is.

creedalism>confessionalism>subscriptionism

....

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I have no desire for fellowship with evolutionists.

you may already be.
how does your church enforce discipline?
on the basis of what confession?

outside of a very few denominations, no one even tries to police the boundary of the visible church as you propose.

 

[mhess13]

the problem is the boundary line.
1. how to determine it
2. how to codify it
3. how to enforce it
4. how to change it over time

i've been reading for several months on the issues here and don't see a solution. in fact, i don't believe most Christians even realize how big of a problem it really is.

creedalism>confessionalism>subscriptionism

....

When you have people who TEACH evolution is ok (like you and Vance) once it's out in the open, I would not have fellowship with them.

Generally speaking, people in fundamental churches do not believe in evolution. In fact, I have never known christian who do believe evolution until I came to this "community"

Many churches in their statement of faith have a blurb at least coming out against evolution. Does that mean an evolutionist can't attend the church? NO! Of course not. But, someone like Vance has no business teaching Sunday school. The elders of his church aren't doing their job if they know his position and are letting him teach anyway.

 

[SBG]

Are we not commanded to seperate ourselves from those who teach false doctrine?
Ephesians 5:11 ". . . have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."

This verse is a rather interesting one, isn't it? On one hand Christ says we are love our neighbor as ourselves. Paul seems to be saying if others don't agree with you in doctrine, then seperate yourselves from them. Would this be a loving act to treat another as someone you don't want anything to do with? I don't think so, and I believe this verse is commonly misunderstood.
Let me elaborate for a moment.

The basic word in question in this verse is fellowship. First, in english fellowship means to share similar interests. It can also mean friendship. That still is not saying have nothing to do with another.

Now, lets look at this word in how Paul used it. This word in greek is sugkoinoneo which means to become a partaker together with others, or to have fellowship with a thing.

I believe Paul was meaning that we should not partake in their beliefs as our own and that we should not make friendship with their ungodliness. The part where Paul says 'the darkness' is skotos in greek which means the accompanying ungodliness and immorality.

Now if Paul wants us to not have anything to do with those who are ungodly then why did Paul follow up this sentence with tell us to correct them? For surely in order to correct them, we must speak with them.

I believe Paul was speaking that we should not make their beliefs our own, but we should correct those beliefs which are wrong. These beliefs that Paul is referring to are of ungodliness and immorality.

Evolution is positively anti-biblical, and I cannot fellowship with anyone who teaches evolution, just as I won't fellowship with anyone who doesn't believe in the virgin birth, I won't fellowship with those who believe abortion and homosexuality are ok, etc

I agree with you here that evolution and the Bible cannot be made to harmonize. I agree with all of your points that the virgin birth did happen, that abortion is wrong, and homosexuality is wrong.

I believe we to not take their beliefs as our own, but we are to stick around and correct them with the Word of God.

Because we are God's children, we are called to show mercy and grace and forgiveness, no matter what. No matter how much harm as been done to us, we are to respond in love.

Correct with God's Word and you show love. Correct with God's Word and be offensive as well is not showing love.

We do because God has done so for us.

We do Christ a diservice with all this "I'm ok, you're ok, it doesn't matter what we believe" garbage.

I agree here again. We shouldn't be saying it is ok, but rather pointing to what God's Word says. But we cannot force someone to believe as we do, and if that seems the only alternative, then we should just leave them be and still love them.

Even when upholding God's Word, we can still sin doing so. For it is how we do so that can be the sin. If it is not in love, then we have nothing, and God's Word will not be heard.

Too often in this forum, only a yec will correct a te, and a te correct a yec. But never have I seen a yec correct a yec, or a te correct a te. Why is this? Are we so bent on being right in our origin beliefs that we forget that which is greater, Love? If we cannot debate in a loving way, then what is the point? Shall we just wallow in our sinfulness and call it ok, because we think we are right?

I don't care what I think and neither should any of you. We all should be focused on what God thinks and what God wants of us and do it. It is God we all must answer to, and if God appeared to you today and asked you why were you so rude to one of His children, what shall you say to Him? That it was ok because you were in the right? I don't think God will buy that.

Always keep in mind, that as Jesus was being tortured, He gave up His life for the one who was torturing HIm. As He was being mocked, He gave His life for the mocker. As He was being nailed, He gave His life to the nailer. As He hung there, He gave His life to the Pharisees who mocked Him and wanted Him dead. And if Christ can show that mercy and grace to those who actually did the killing of His body, can we not do the same for those whom we interact with here? And if that cannot persuade you, then ask yourself, do you desire God's grace, mercy and forgiveness? Then show it to others.

 

[Vance]

The irony here is that mhess has consistently shown the least Christ-like attitude of anyone on these forums, including the actual atheists over on the C&E Forum. While I believe that YEC'ism is a false reading of Scripture, a false teaching, and, in the way it is currently presented, hugely detrmental to the Church and probably the greatest tool of Satan in the Church body today, I would NEVER refuse to fellowship with any other Christian.

My wife and I are doing the "40 Days of Purpose" along with our whole Church, and it is exactly mhess's attitude that Rick Warren so strongly warns against in the chapter on the "Fellowship" purpose.

As far as "teaching" evolution, this is just silly. I have been consistent for the VERY long time I have been here. I don't teach evolution, I teach that we must not let the beliefs about origins become a stumbling block to the Cross. It currently IS a stumbling block and I have argued vehemently against those who DO TEACH this stumbling block, including all the YEC "ministries". But if anyone chooses be believe in YEC'ism, then that is fine with me, and I would never try to convince them otherwise. When someone argues that evolution won't work, I will show them how it does work. When someone argues that it is contrary to Scripture, I will show how it is not. But this is just the nature of the debate, not a call to join the TE position.

My call is that the issue of origins will be put in the same category as the issue of geocentrism. Those who hold to geocentrism should not argue to the world that if heliocentrism is correct then the Bible is incorrect, and vice-versa.

 

[mhess13]

I agree here again. We shouldn't be saying it is ok, but rather pointing to what God's Word says. But we cannot force someone to believe as we do, and if that seems the only alternative, then we should just leave them be and still love them.

No disagreement here. That is what I'm saying when I say do not desire fellowship with evolutionists. It doesn't mean I don't love them, but I cannot embrace people who embrace an entirely anti-biblical theory. So I let them be. Just as I let people be who go to churches that ordain homosexuals.

Doctrine does matter

 

[Vance]

Yes, doctrine does matter. Which is the only reason I oppose YEC'ism. As a doctrine, a dogmatic statement, it is incredibly dangerous to the salvation message, as shown by the evidence I have presented over and over. I would love to see it removed from the Church root and branch and let the gospel flourish, but I would not refuse to interact and involve myself with those who believe YEC'ism. As an individual belief, it does no harm. As a church doctrine, a dogmatic statement, it is poison in the body of Christ.

I also oppose homosexuality and abortion, and probably every other moral issue you oppose, but that does not mean I am going to refuse to fellowship with those who believe differently on those points.

 

[SBG]

Ok, this is not to be a mhess bashing either! Saying he has the least-like Christian attitude does nothing to solve anything. I have seen him make statements that are very much from a loving Christian. It would have been better just to leave it alone.

We are to correct each other, BUT we are to uplift one another as well.

As mhess said, he does love those who don't believe as he does. If we do not take him for his word here then we are giving false testimony against him.

And I agree mhess doctrine does matter. I too would not attend a church where the pastor is a homosexual, and I cannot attend a church where a woman is the pastor. I believe these go against the teachings within the Bible. I will not share in their beliefs.

 

[mhess13]

Ok, this is not to be a mhess bashing either! Saying he has the least-like Christian attitude does nothing to solve anything. I have seen him make statements that are very much from a loving Christian. It would have been better just to leave it alone.

We are to correct each other, BUT we are to uplift one another as well.

As mhess said, he does love those who don't believe as he does. If we do not take him for his word here then we are giving false testimony against him.

And I agree mhess doctrine does matter. I too would not attend a church where the pastor is a homosexual, and I cannot attend a church where a woman is the pastor. I believe these go against the teachings within the Bible. I will not share in their beliefs.

Hahaha! It's always hess bashing around here! But I can take it, I have a thick skin.
my puppy dog still loves me

 

[SBG]

That is such cute dog!!

 

[mhess13]

That is such cute dog!!

So UGLY that it's cute! That's a face only a mother can love!