Fellowship; Creationists and Evolutionists

Creation is an essential. If you don't believe that God created the whole world in 6 literal days, you don't believe the word of God. Go cut Exo 20:9-11 out of your Bible because it says "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work...For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it" which plainly shows a literal 6-day creation.

Vance said:

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.

Click to expand...

In otherwords, only those who actually care about knowing God will accept YEC, because all others (the doubthing and semi-agnostic and immoral who refuse to repent) will be too weak to think indepently of junk science. Only those who have actual potential to be committed to God will accept YEC. Thus, YEC is dangerous to the mega-church mentality where you fill the pews with a kazillion people who hardly even know what Christianity is.

Thanks JohnJones, so many YEC's get up in arms and are full of denial when we say that many YEC's actually DO go around saying that YEC'ism is an "essential", a salvation issue. The insist that no YEC's actually present YEC'ism that way. You and hess provide ready examples for us to point to. It is this very teaching, not a belief in a young earth itself, that is dangerous to the spread of the salvation message. There are many who believe in a young earth that are not causing a stumbling-block, but you have proven that there ARE YEC's still making such claims.

So, while I can fellowship with any Christian, I agree that it is essential to fight against what I sincerely believe to be false and dangerous doctrines, including the "either/or" dogmatic teaching of YEC'ism. And that is what I am doing. I do my best to do so with courtesy and grace, and I am glad many believe that I handle that part of it well, but the blatant self-righteousness of those who insinuate that TE's are not Christian or do not believe Scripture or are in some way lacking in faith will test the patience of anyone.

And I would like to add to what Vance said by saying that I am willing to bet that each one of us, without exception tests the patience of God. And yet God still has mercy, grace and forgiveness for us.

Shouldn't we extend the same as God has done for us? Or would we rather God treat us as we treat others?

JohnJones said:

Creation is an essential. If you don't believe that God created the whole world in 6 literal days, you don't believe the word of God.

Click to expand...

Is there any point? Here is my exposition on this subject: http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm.
I daresay you'll still accuse me of not believing it, but perhaps you'll yet surprise me.

Go cut Exo 20:9-11 out of your Bible because it says "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work...For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it" which plainly shows a literal 6-day creation.

Click to expand...

No. It shows that the writer of Exodus used the first creation narrative to justify a sabbath observation system.

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

No. It shows that the writer of Exodus used the first creation narrative to justify a sabbath observation system.

Click to expand...

According to modern scholarship on the authors of the Pentateuch, the commandments in Exodus 20 and the first creation narrative in Genesis were written by the same person, a temple priest living either in Jerusalem (and contemporaneous with Jeremiah) or in exile in Babylon. In both cases he is giving a reason for a long-established practice.

The reason may have existed in oral tradition long before it was written down, of course. But it is interesting that almost all references to keeping the sabbath in the OT come from exilic or post-exilic writings. Besides the two references in the Torah, all but two are found in Deuteronomy,Kings, Chronicles, Nehemiah, deutero-Isaiah and trito-Isaiah, Ezekial and Jeremiah. Most of these are dated to the exilic or post-exilic period. Deuteronomy is possibly the earliest as it is often identified with the book found in the temple during the restoration ordered by Josiah.

The only other references are one in the Psalms, (date unknown to me) and one in Amos. The one in Amos is interesting since it seems to refer to a monthly rather than a weekly event. It pairs sabbath with new moon, so could be referring to an event keyed to the full moon.

I have no desire for fellowship with evolutionists.

Click to expand...

Oh my! And there was I being berated for not showing Christian fellowship!

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

Click to expand...

You want to get out a bit more!

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.

Click to expand...

I look forward to hearing the reply of the Elders! Who are you to say who should be allowed to preach and who shouldn’t in a church you do not even attend?

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.



Yes, most of you have said that, over and over and over again.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Has it ever occurred to you that some of us TE’s might be taking the same view from the opposite side? That we think it is our duty to “stick around and correct them with the Word of God!” That we are hoping against hope that YEC’s will see the error of their non-scientific ways, and look at our world, and how it started, with new eyes. Thus removing the obstacles to others becoming Christians.

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.

Click to expand...

Amen to that Vance!

Has it ever occurred to you that some of us TE’s might be taking the same view from the opposite side? That we think it is our duty to “stick around and correct them with the Word of God!” That we are hoping against hope that YEC’s will see the error of their non-scientific ways, and look at our world, and how it started, with new eyes. Thus removing the obstacles to others becoming Christians.

Click to expand...

That's impossible since you cannot find one ounce of support for evolution in the Bible. What a ridiculous thing to say!

mhess13 said:

That's impossible since you cannot find one ounce of support for evolution in the Bible. What a ridiculous thing to say!

Click to expand...

And there wouldn't be, even if true. Do you see any specific support for photosynthesis in Scripture?

The Scriptural support for TE is twofold. If you are a TE and a Biblical literalist, like Grmorton, then it is in an analysis of how Scripture itself supports evolution. He has provided much on this approach which hess seems to have missed, since even if he disagreed with it, he would be required by intellectual honesty to at least make reference to it. If you are not a Biblical literalist, then the Biblical support is in the Scripture which indicates that it is not meant to be read as literal history, which I an others have presented. This is a direct support because I believe most YEC's would acknowledge that if it were not for their literal reading, they would not insist upon YEC'ism.

Hi mhess13,

I find it sad that you do not want fellowship with evolutionists, and indeed, as an evolutionist myself I am saddened by this, and even more by the fact that you probably will not take into consideration what I say, simply because of my origins of life view. That said;

mhess13 said:

That's impossible since you cannot find one ounce of support for evolution in the Bible. What a ridiculous thing to say!

Click to expand...

Well, there is nothing to disprove it either. All doctrines must be tested by the world itself; how else do you know that the Bible is indeed true? The Qu'ran says that it is the truth, why don't you believe that? Probably because from external scholarship, (i.e. studies of the world) you know the the Qu'ran is probably not inspired, as it makes näive claims about Christianity and Judaism, which combined with comparitive analysis of the Tanakh, Gospels, and other literature suggest that it is just a creative mix of Jewish, Christian and pagan folklore.

Indeed, Paul writes that the Bible is fit for study and doctrine. But why do you trust Paul? Because the church decided his letters were inspired, and hence the Bible is true? Without looking outside the Bible, we have no idea that the Bible is indeed true - Please, before you mention the Holy Spirit, let me remind you that millions of people have apparently profound spiritual experiences that lead them to adopt a particular religion, including non-Christian religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. As you would probably next point out, they may indeed by 'blinded' by the devil, but the fact is, without searching other religions and what nature and natural history have to say, and then comparing them to Christianity, in reality you have no way of knowing that you too have fallen victim to the same fate. Unfortunately, just because a book says it, it is true. It is only when that book is the truth that it is true, and we can't just say it is true because the book itself says so!

mhess13 said:

I cannot embrace people who embrace an entirely anti-biblical theory.

Click to expand...

Needless to say, if evolution was anti-Biblical then we would not accept it. We are Christians, Christians believe the Bible is the truth. It seems that you feel your interpretation is the only true interpretation of the Bible, and everyone else must be wrong. However, numerous people on this board, including theistic evolutionists, gap-theorists, old earth creationists, progressive creationists, intelligent design theorists, and young earth creationists have posited different theories as to our origins, which demonstrates that perhaps the issue isn't as clear cut as you think it is. I personally think that the YEC interpretation is a pretty fallible one, but I would never stop associating with YEC's just because they think the earth is younger than me! To do so would not only be selfish and judgemental, but completely contradictory to Christian values and indeed, to what Jesus himself did.

The question I must ask, is if well over half of all Christians do not think that evolution contradicts the Bible, what makes you so sure it does?

mhess13 said:

Doctrine does matter

Click to expand...

Indeed it is. But let me re-iterate; what makes you so sure that you are correct? I did not want to get into denominational discussions, but if you are unwilling to socialise with others simply for their views on the creation of the world (if you honestly believe this is essential for salvation, you will become the first person I have met who thinks this, during my ~6 months on this forum) then obviously doctrine is very important to you.

Therefore, I would like to talk about some of your other doctrines. You claim to be a premillennialist; that is, one who believes that sometime in the future, Christ will reign on Earth for a thousand years. However;

• Jesus himself said that his kingdom was "not of this world" (John 18:36), so to suggest his kingdom will be here on Earth (imho) is contradicting God himself.
• In his epistle to the Colossians, Paul writes, "He has delivered us from the power of the darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love"; in other words, as Christians, we are already living in Jesus' kingdom through our communion of the Holy Spirit. The kingdom is not in the future, it is right now.

You also claim to be a pre-tribulationist; that is, one who believes that the tribulation will occur before the Rapture. Alas, this principle was never believed by any Christian until at least the 1830's, in fact, the idea was first spread by Margaret McDonald, a young Scottish woman who had a 'divine revelation' in which she saw people being 'caught up' in the air. And for good reason: it is rather anti-Biblical;

• Paul's first epistle to the Thessalonians clearly states, "... we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will decend... and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the cloud to meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thess. 4:15-17). What happened to the Christians leaving first?
• In Peter's second epistle, he states that "the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare" (2 Peter 3:10). This passage clearly states that the end of the world and the second coming of Christ will happen simultaneously, not 1000 years apart.
• In the Gospels, Jesus states that at the end, both good and evil men will be on the Earth, and both will be judged at the same time; "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats" (Matt. 25:31-32). This flatly contradicts the concept of Christians being taken out of the world to be judged, as apparently there is one judgement when Christ comes to Earth.
• [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Also, in his prayer to His Father, Jesus prays, "My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one" (John 17:15). Why would God take his people out of the earth before the last days, despite His holy and beloved Son asking Him specifically not to?[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now, I mean no offense to you or anyone here who follows these beliefs. However, the fact is that these doctrines are not well supported by the Bible, and yet you believe them. Sure, they could be true, although by examining the passages above, and observing the fact that the Church has been teaching a post-tribulation rapture for 1800 years longer than pretribulationism has even been around, I doubt it. So the question is posed: does doctrine really matter to you? For someone who is unwilling to accept evolution because it is (apparently) anti-Biblical, you seem willing to accept doctrines that I think have much more against them in the Bible than evolution does. Indeed, it is highly posible than I am wrong, and that your pre-trib, pre-millenialist, fundamentalist theology is correct. But when it comes down to these issues, I trust what makes sense in the Bible, what makes sense in the real world, and more importantly, what the Church as a whole believes. And, as the Church as a whole does not accept premillenialism, or a pre-tribulation rapture, the Church as a whole does not accept young-earth creationism.

If you do not want to associate with me because of doctrinal issues, then I must accept your decision. But please excuse me if I think there is a lot more to the Bible and Christianity than just listening to what 'the Bible says'; or even worse, telling myself that my own interpretation is infallible. The Apostles had a thing or two to say about that as well...[/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Peace,
Alchemist
[/font]

mhess13 said:

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"

Click to expand...

You've led a sheltered life. But likewise, I have never met a Creationist until I came to the US. The US does not equal the world.

Alchemist said:

Therefore, I would like to talk about some of your other doctrines. You claim to be a premillennialist; that is, one who believes that sometime in the future, Christ will reign on Earth for a thousand years. However;

• Jesus himself said that his kingdom was "not of this world" (John 18:36), so to suggest his kingdom will be here on Earth (imho) is contradicting God himself.
• In his epistle to the Colossians, Paul writes, "He has delivered us from the power of the darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love"; in other words, as Christians, we are already living in Jesus' kingdom through our communion of the Holy Spirit. The kingdom is not in the future, it is right now.

Click to expand...

Hello there! I would be more than happy to respond to what you have said here. Lets look at your first bulleted point.

John 18:36 does indeed say not of this world, but does it say it won't be in this world?

Lets take an example first, Christ said He was not of this world, yet He was in this world. By your first bullet point, you indicated that Christ might just be a liar because of this statement He had made.

First off, the word 'of', which is ek in greek, means 'out of.' This has to do with origins. So what Christ is saying in John 18:36 is that His Kingdom does not originate here in our world. And this is true, because before this world was, Jesus Christ Was. Remeber the statement He made, I AM?

Your point you made is invalid.

Your second point, I have no clue what it is you are trying to make a point of. Those who live in Christ are apart of His Kingdom now. But does this mean that He won't have a Kingdom in the future as well? And does this mean it won't be here or wherever He so chooses?

A premillennialist doesn't disagree with being in God's Kingdom when saved. They just believe that Christ will literally be walking here on earth as He did once before for a thousand years before satan and his followers are cast into the lake of fire.

Now, I disagree with the premillennialist view point, but I see where they can get this view point.

Alchemist said:

You also claim to be a pre-tribulationist; that is, one who believes that the tribulation will occur before the Rapture. Alas, this principle was never believed by any Christian until at least the 1830's, in fact, the idea was first spread by Margaret McDonald, a young Scottish woman who had a 'divine revelation' in which she saw people being 'caught up' in the air. And for good reason: it is rather anti-Biblical;

• Paul's first epistle to the Thessalonians clearly states, "... we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will decend... and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the cloud to meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thess. 4:15-17). What happened to the Christians leaving first?
• In Peter's second epistle, he states that "the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare" (2 Peter 3:10). This passage clearly states that the end of the world and the second coming of Christ will happen simultaneously, not 1000 years apart.
• In the Gospels, Jesus states that at the end, both good and evil men will be on the Earth, and both will be judged at the same time; "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats" (Matt. 25:31-32). This flatly contradicts the concept of Christians being taken out of the world to be judged, as apparently there is one judgement when Christ comes to Earth.
• [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Also, in his prayer to His Father, Jesus prays, "My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one" (John 17:15). Why would God take his people out of the earth before the last days, despite His holy and beloved Son asking Him specifically not to?

Click to expand...

• [/font]

First off, you are incorrect about Margaret being the first to spread this thought of a pre-trib rapture. Epharaem the Syrian said, in 373 AD, "For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."

It is John Darby who made the pre-trib rapture well known by his preaching.

There were also several scholars before Maragret and John who also wrote about a pre-trib rapture.

In your second bullet on the argument against the 1000 years, this is to be after Christ's second coming. Just for your info.

Your third bullet is a weak point against a pre-trib rapture view. The reason it is, is because at the time of judgment all will have been ressurected and gathered to the judgment.

Your fourth point is also weak. If we were to apply this thinking then you will need to answer why God takes His people out of this world each day. People still die. Also Christ is not speaking of the last days in this verse.

Yet again, I don't agree with the pre-trib rapture, but I can see how one sees this view point.

Alchemist said:

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now, I mean no offense to you or anyone here who follows these beliefs. However, the fact is that these doctrines are not well supported by the Bible, and yet you believe them. Sure, they could be true, although by examining the passages above, and observing the fact that the Church has been teaching a post-tribulation rapture for 1800 years longer than pretribulationism has even been around, I doubt it. So the question is posed: does doctrine really matter to you? For someone who is unwilling to accept evolution because it is (apparently) anti-Biblical, you seem willing to accept doctrines that I think have much more against them in the Bible than evolution does. Indeed, it is highly posible than I am wrong, and that your pre-trib, pre-millenialist, fundamentalist theology is correct. But when it comes down to these issues, I trust what makes sense in the Bible, what makes sense in the real world, and more importantly, what the Church as a whole believes. And, as the Church as a whole does not accept premillenialism, or a pre-tribulation rapture, the Church as a whole does not accept young-earth creationism.

Click to expand...

[/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Well you are again wrong, there were parts of the church that did believe a pre-trib rapture, [/font]Epharaem the Syrian for one.


Actually, there is quite a bit in the Bible that just doesn't reconcile with evolution. THe only way you can do so is to create this psuedo-argument that the Scriptures are not to be taken literally in the area's where there is disagreement with evolution. Hence, the push on this site for an allegorical view of Genesis. The push for this reading alone states that the person is aware that a literal reading is in contradiction with evolution. So then we have the world, or science now dictates how we are suppose to read the Bible.


Hm, there is a large church base in the United States that does support a pre-trib rapture, and pre-mil view point. But I guess you are more concerned with what the Catholics think on these issues. Are you aware that some Catholic Bibles now teach that evolution is the truth? You can find this on the inside cover of a few of them. I suppose that would be an uplifting statement for many evolutionists here.



[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

Alchemist said:

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you do not want to associate with me because of doctrinal issues, then I must accept your decision. But please excuse me if I think there is a lot more to the Bible and Christianity than just listening to what 'the Bible says'; or even worse, telling myself that my own interpretation is infallible. The Apostles had a thing or two to say about that as well...[/font]

"... no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20)
​

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Peace,
Alchemist
[/font]

Click to expand...

I believe mhess has spent a lot of time speaking and debating with evolutionists that he is now tired of it. His wording may not have been the best, but then tell me who here has not always used the best wording?

Mhess has already received numerous people correcting him and just being rude to him. Why keep adding to it? If you want to truly follow Christ, then don't look for an apology, don't ask for one, assume Mhess didn't mean anything bad of it, and just forgive him. Ask God to bless him and move on to the next thread.

As for you 2 Peter 1:20 quote, you are way out of context. Read the next verse and you will understand what Peter is referring to. Peter is speaking of prophets.

2 Peter 1:20-21
"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

Dracil said:

You've led a sheltered life. But likewise, I have never met a Creationist until I came to the US. The US does not equal the world.

Click to expand...

I had met, I think, two young-earth creationists before I got here. I went to a Christian college and grew up going to a Lutheran church. It would never even have occurred to me that there could be people who interpreted those passages that way.