How hard would it be to just say this . . .

[Vance]

This entire conflict could be so easily resolved if Creationists would just consider saying the following:


"You know, it doesn't really matter. The Bible is still correct, regardless of the exact timing and procedure of the Creation process. I believe the earth is young and that all the species were created at once over six 24 hour days because I think the text is literal. But, I realize this is not the only possible reading, and other Christians DO read it differently, and so conclude that the earth is billions of years old and God created using evolutionary processes. It really doesn't matter. Scripture is true either way, and none of it is a salvation issue, and should not be a stumbling block to anyone."

Now, how hard would that be?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

You know, it doesn't really matter. The Bible is still correct, regardless of the exact timing and procedure of the Creation process. I believe the earth is young and that all the species were created at once over six 24 hour days because I think the text is literal.

For me, it is important that the Bible matches reality. If there is an obvious dichotomy then that is a serious problem. I don't just believe that the earth is young, kinds created at once over six 24 hour days. I believe that for it to be true, the evidence must support it. I cannot accept that God would give the appearance of an old earth.

But, I realize this is not the only possible reading, and other Christians DO read it differently, and so conclude that the earth is billions of years old and God created using evolutionary processes. It really doesn't matter. Scripture is true either way, and none of it is a salvation issue, and should not be a stumbling block to anyone.

I don't know about others, but I do not believe this is a salvation issue. I have family and friends who believe in the general theory of evolution, but I still consider them brothers and sisters in Christ.

That does NOT mean I consider it a harmless issue. Here's a list of controversial issues I would fight my viewpoint over, and consider ceratin conclusions harmful, yet not endangering a person's salvation:
* Homosexuality being accepted by God
* Salvation by election (as some call it, predestination)
* Baptism of infants
* Working on the sabbath
* Pacifism vs justified violence
And so on. I will consider you a brother in Christ, but I also consider your viewpoint and its conclusions to be dangerous. I don't know your particular theology regarding evolution, because it seems it differs from TE to TE, but I do know I can't see a way to reconcile Scripture with the general theory of evolution and not change the way we perceive God, and His nature.

So for as long as you hold to theistic evolution, I will be there to encourage, rebuke and correct.

 

[SBG]

Well from a reading of the Bible we understand God created in six days. Science says otherwise. From the Bible we understand God created man as a special creation. Science says otherwise.

This is the perspective of one who holds to a literal and historical reading of Genesis. You can say how old the earth is, because it can be however old God wants it to be. But to assert that science must be right and man came from non-life and then evolved into what he is now and that God didn't create in six days just doesn't fit with the Bible.

Now granted we have people like the OP above who say Genesis is not meant to be read literally. Well this goes against Apostlic teaching where the majority of the very young church fathers - ones who were alive with John like Papias - and the ones immediately after them taught that Genesis is literal history. We can ignore this and assert that because Augustine believed in an instantaneous creation that a billion year creation must be true. Augustine didn't support a billion year creation he supported a six day and an instantaneous creation.

Over and over again in this forum assertions are made that creation is mainly responsible for lost souls to the Kingdom of God. This may be true if creation was the factor that brought salvation. The problem exists that people within the church do not spend enough time preaching Jesus Christ. People rather preach creationism and evolutionism. If one person asserts they are losing faith because of creationism, an evolutionists comes to save the day and teaches evolution. This is the problem. Evolution and creation were never intended to be the ones being taught as a means to bring one back into faith when their faith is faltering.

If their faith is faltering it is because not enough time was spent on Jesus Christ and if this is not true then the person losing faith is making excuses and does't really want to follow Jesus Christ.

Instead in this forum we have prideful finger pointing with no one acting on the solution that has been known for 2000 years, Jesus Christ.

This thread is to point the finger at creationism. Another thread out there is to point the finger at evolutionism. If we are all Christians, then how does this finger pointing benefit others? Can you honestly justify that Paul spent the majority of his missions preaching about circumcisions or about Jesus Christ crucified and risen?

Instead of countering with the opposite theory, you would be wise to counter with Jesus Christ crucified and risen.

Does Adam save you? Does homo erectus save you? If they don't and someone is faltering why use one of those two to bring someone back to faith. It is Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone who saves and bring salvation.

I wonder if Jesus would rather His children spend their time talking about Genesis 1-11 or about Him and His gift of salvation. I seem to remember which one He told His disciples to tell all nations.

 

[Calminian]

For me, it is important that the Bible matches reality. If there is an obvious dichotomy then that is a serious problem. I don't just believe that the earth is young, kinds created at once over six 24 hour days. I believe that for it to be true, the evidence must support it. I cannot accept that God would give the appearance of an old earth.



I don't know about others, but I do not believe this is a salvation issue. I have family and friends who believe in the general theory of evolution, but I still consider them brothers and sisters in Christ.

That does NOT mean I consider it a harmless issue. Here's a list of controversial issues I would fight my viewpoint over, and consider certain conclusions harmful, yet not endangering a person's salvation:
* Homosexuality being accepted by God
* Salvation by election (as some call it, predestination)
* Baptism of infants
* Working on the sabbath
* Pacifism vs justified violence
And so on. I will consider you a brother in Christ, but I also consider your viewpoint and its conclusions to be dangerous. I don't know your particular theology regarding evolution, because it seems it differs from TE to TE, but I do know I can't see a way to reconcile Scripture with the general theory of evolution and not change the way we perceive God, and His nature.

So for as long as you hold to theistic evolution, I will be there to encourage, rebuke and correct.

Well said tyreth. For me the problem is the latitude this kind of hermeneutic allows. If we can merely spiritualize every portion of scripture we can't square with naturalistic theories than there really is no portion that can't be touched. This would include even the Resurrection. Most TEs of course don't do this, but they really can't fault anyone who does. And of course there are many that do reject essential doctrine and consider themselves as much a christian as anyone else. Not only this, it completely opens the hermeneutic up to all other religions and their religious books. All books can be made divine with this kind of latitude.

I don't think TEs realize how much YECs would love to be in harmony with modern scientific thought. I myself have gone through two other creation models before I had to just be honest with myself and accept what I believe is unequivocally being communicated through Genesis. I've looked for all kinds of outs. There are none. Our modern day philosophers are simply wrong about the age of the earth.

 

[Vance]

SBG, that is my entire point: we should be focusing on the Gospel, not on this issue. But it is the YEC ministries that are out there creating this dichotomy in the Church unecessarily. You don't see any TE "ministries" out there asking for money, giving seminars in churches, selling tapes and video series. It is the YEC's who are driving this problem, so it is to YEC's that I ask this question. TE's are already saying this, we are the ones making this point. All I am asking is that YEC's get on board and put this issue back in the perspective it belongs.

So, again, what is the problem with making the statement I mention in the OP when the matter comes up?

Of course, no YEC ministry would make such a statement, since it would mean they would have to shut down there enterprise, but if all the YEC's just put it back in perspective, they would not be inviting them to do seminars, buying their books and videos and contributing money to their ministries, so eventually they would go away.

 

[Calminian]

SBG, that is my entire point: we should be focusing on the Gospel, not on this issue. But it is the YEC ministries that are out there creating this dichotomy in the Church unecessarily. You don't see any TE "ministries" out there asking for money, giving seminars in churches, selling tapes and video series. It is the YEC's who are driving this problem, so it is to YEC's that I ask this question. TE's are already saying this, we are the ones making this point. All I am asking is that YEC's get on board and put this issue back in the perspective it belongs.

So, again, what is the problem with making the statement I mention in the OP when the matter comes up?

Of course, no YEC ministry would make such a statement, since it would mean they would have to shut down there enterprise, but if all the YEC's just put it back in perspective, they would not be inviting them to do seminars, buying their books and videos and contributing money to their ministries, so eventually they would go away.

This is a misrepresentation worthy of Michael Moore. I don't know of any YEC ministries that believe this is a salvation issue and don't consider OECs their brothers in Christ.

I find it hard to believe you of all people are making these disingenuous claims. I can't count how many times I've heard you accuse YEC theology of destroying the faith of christians. Your comments are more divisive than any YEC scientist I've heard. Frankly you could learn some things from them about gentleness and respect. Are you willing to change your tone?

 

[Maccie]

So for as long as you hold to theistic evolution, I will be there to encourage, rebuke and correct.

Not much Christian love there, then! Can't see any evidence of those verbs in some of the YEC posts I've read.

You don't see any TE "ministries" out there asking for money, giving seminars in churches, selling tapes and video series. It is the YEC's who are driving this problem, so it is to YEC's that I ask this question. TE's are already saying this, we are the ones making this point. All I am asking is that YEC's get on board and put this issue back in the perspective it belongs.

Exactly! Is it really going to make any difference to your salvation?

I find it hard to believe you of all people are making these disingenuous claims. I can't count how many times I've heard you accuse YEC theology of destroying the faith of christians.

Probably as many times as Vance has heard non-Christians express their inability to believe that it is true when they hear what YEC's are saying!

Your comments are more divisive than any YEC scientist I've heard. Frankly you could learn some things from them about gentleness and respect. Are you willing to change your tone?

You are joking, aren't you????

 

[Calminian]

Not much Christian love there, then! Can't see any evidence of those verbs in some of the YEC posts I've read.

Ah common Maccie. It's unloving to encourage rebuke and correct?

Exactly! Is it really going to make any difference to your salvation?

No. Nor will it to those who deny the virgin birth. There are a number of christians that do. But while I don't think God will damn someone for being confused about the miraculous virgin birth I do think it's a damaging belief to the church and should be confronted.

Probably as many times as Vance has heard non-Christians express their inability to believe that it is true when they hear what YEC's are saying!

There's another group you also need to be concerned about. Those who read the scriptures carefully and concluded the author really meant what he said. Then they go to OECs who tell them it can't mean what it says. That's very tough on one's faith. I know, I was one of those. Organizations like AiG helped me understand the relationship between science and the supernatural and the limitations of scientific investigation. But I guess vance isn't concerned about folks like me.

You are joking, aren't you????

The vitriol I see from nonYECs is way over the top. The accusations, the insults, the personal attacks. Honestly a lot of you folks need to look in the mirror. You're not as innocent as you think.

 

[Vance]

Did I say that YEC ministries claim this to be a salvation issue? No, I said that they would not want to make such a statement as I suggest, or do what SBG is suggesting and put this issue back in its proper perspective. SBG was asserting that we should not be making such a big deal over this whole issue and I agree completely. But it is the YEC ministries, and any others which present this issue in the same fashion, that are driving this issue in a divisive way. If there were no YEC's presenting their dogmatic "either/or" view, do you think TE's would being bothering much at all? As it is, do you see any TE "ministries" out on the curcuit?

No, YEC ministries don't come right out and call it a salvation issue. What the YEC ministries do is say that evolution contradicts Scripture, and that if Scripture is true, evolution is not true. No other possibilities, no humble consideration that it may be their interpretation that is wrong, but dogmatic and conclusory statements of what Scripture says on these points.

This creates the corollary that if evolution IS true, Scripture is NOT. And, this is exactly what many YEC's accept as true. YEC's even on this forum have said outright that if they discovered, without doubt, that evolution were true, they would have to abandon their Christian faith.

Even more have said, here and in the other forum, that if you believe in evolution, you can believe in the resurrection. If you don't believe in a literal Adam, you will not believe in a literal Jesus. They say outright that, in the end, it IS a salvation issue.

But the main point is that you will NOT see a YEC ministry making the statement that I suggest. Why not? Do you not think it is not the best way to go? Would you make such a statement?

 

[SBG]

I am capable of speaking for myself and I was not just asserting but trying to help others here realize that to counter with evolution is dumb. If you claim that people are losing their faith daily because of creationism then don't rival it with evolutionism.
Speak Jesus Christ crucified and risen.

The problem is in this forum, and it can be seen below my posts, is that we rather go round robin and debate who is wrong. All the while you are debating who is wrong, you have lost sight of the whole message of the Bible. Jesus Christ.

It is a simple fact and easily enough for one to derive at this that one feels they are in correct doctrine and the other is wrong. So the bickering goes back and forth why they right and the other is wrong. Neither hear what the other says and rather cooks up an argument that is mostly a strawman so that they can assert they are the ones who are right.

It is obvious that man evolving contradicts scripture. Scripture says man is created. Scripture says if God commands, it has already happened. The only way to get around this issue is to say Genesis is a myth, or is meant to be read as an allegory. These claims are not consistent with the original language usage in those chapters, nor is it consistent with how the early church fathers read them. Most all of them read them as literaly history. Origin is actually one of the only ones who wasn't sure.

But this isn't the point. There is serious claim being made here that peoples faith is being lost because a certain belief in the first few chapters of the Old Testament. The solution to this is not to start a ministry to preach evolutionism. Does evolution save you? Does give you salvation? No, Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone does. Jesus is the solution for those who are faltering in their faith, not the teachings of origins.

We as Christians can sit here and discuss how we understand scripture. But when someone falters in their faith, origins will not bring them back to faith and give them salvation. Jesus said tell all the nations what I have done. Not what is written in Genesis. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. We are under grace, not the law. Why so many here would rather spend their time pointing the finger and blaming the other because people are being lost to the Kingdom of God is not understandable. The fact that one would rather debate this issue about who is right and who is wrong is pointless and shows that one has forgotton the power of life and salvation exists in Jesus Christ alone.

If you think creationism and evolutionism are the ones that save or keep one from faltering in their faith, you have missed the message. If you think that one theory counteracting another will keep people in faith, you have missed the message. If you think God wants you to spend your time telling how you are right and they are wrong, you have missed the message. If you think God wants you to tell of evolution or creation rather than Jesus Christ, you have missed the message. If you think these two theories so how out way Jesus, you have missed the message. If you have spent your ministry talking about these two theories rather than Jesus Christ, you have missed the call.

I afraid, no matter how much I try to say we all need to go back to Jesus Christ and preach Him and Him alone and stop this evolution vs creation, no one will hear.

Forget all that I said, and answer this, did Jesus say preach about Him, or some theory?

 

[bdfoster]

Hi Vance
I'm glad you posted this question here as well as the C&E forum. Over there I commented that the first part of your suggested statement is very similar to the position taken by many YECs, and epitomized by Kurt Wise, the Harvard educated paleontologist who said:

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."

I encourage folks to read this article on Wise written by Richard Dawkins. Now I'm no fan of Dawkins. In fact he refers to people like me (theistic evolutionists) as “weaker brethren”. But he is an excellent writer and makes certain points exceptionally well. Wise, again quoted in this article, describes how he became a YEC:

“ . . . I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.”

But he makes two big mistakes here. First he pits science against scripture, an impossibility. Scripture is a thing. Science is not a thing; it’s a way of studying a thing, namely nature. Theology the way we study scripture. God gave us nature, and God gave us scripture. Science can be pitted against theology, but not scripture. His second big mistake is that he “accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it”, instead of accepting Christ and nothing else. It is wrong to worship nature, and it is wrong to worship scripture.

I’ll end with one last quote from the Dawkins article. I hate to admit it but this atheist makes a very important point, especially for those of us who have ever tried to make the TE case to a YEC:

“Whatever the underlying explanation, this example suggests a fascinating, if pessimistic, conclusion about human psychology. It implies that there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence. Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution. We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.”

 

[SBG]

You know there are opposing theories out there that are getting much credibility that say Jesus Christ never rose from the grave. We have eye witnessess who say He did, but they are just men and authors of the New Testament.

There are people who are working hard today to continue the teaching that Jesus never rose from the dead. They have stories to counter what is written in the Bible concerning Jesus' resurrection. We have no physical evidence of His resurrection. We just have some men who wrote the New Testament. In fact many will assert they have contrary evidence to prove that Jesus never rose from the dead. Some are very convincing in their presentations.

So what do you believe. Do you take the authors word for what it says in the New Testament. Do you believe what many New Testament scholars are saying these days that the resurrection is just a myth? Do you believe their evidence that they present showing that disciples carried off Jesus' body? Or do you believe what the Bible says, literally because it is the Word of God?

This is really no different than creation vs evolution. Those involved are much more significant, but the argument itself is really no different. Evolutionists state there is overwhelming evidence to support their claim. Many seem to conviently forget that evidence alone says nothing, it must be interpreted. New Testament Scholars have suprisingly come up with a lot of evidence to say Jesus Christ never rose from the dead.

So what do you believe and why do you believe it about Jesus Christ? Why do you believe He rose from the dead when many will tell you they have evidence that He did not?

 

[Vance]

SBG, the argument is very different. They have no evidence that Jesus did NOT raise from the dead, just a belief that the supernatural does not happen, or does not happen anymore. This is a completely different argument than the YEC/TE difference. TE does not disagree with the YEC position because the YEC position would require supernatural events in the least, but because the specific existing evidence is entirely contrary to it happening acording to the YEC model. Apples and oranges.

But the point of the thread is that many YEC's are taking the issue and inflating it into a divisive issue when it should not be that. We SHOULD just be teaching Jesus Christ! I agree completely. So, why are these "ministries" out there teaching dogmatic YEC'ism in this "either/or" fashion? They should not be doing this, they should be saying what I suggest in the OP, and there will be no stumbling blocks, and people can believe on this issue either way.

Again, what is the problem with that?

 

[SBG]

SBG, the argument is very different. They have no evidence that Jesus did NOT raise from the dead, just a belief that the supernatural does not happen, or does not happen anymore.

Vance, these people call themselves Christians and believe in Jesus Christ. They just believe He didn't raise from the dead. They believe His miracles are supernatural. Actually they claim they have evidence to the contrary. You can sit here in your room and claim they don't, but they say they do. I wouldn't be surprised if they did have evidence of this. I would conclude that they fashioned it themselves or distorted it. But I don't know if for a fact they do or don't, but they claim they do and I am not in the position to claim they are liars because they have no evidence. I will claim they wrong about whatever this evidence they claim says.

This is a completely different argument than the YEC/TE difference. TE does not disagree with the YEC position because the YEC position would require supernatural events in the least, but because the specific existing evidence is entirely contrary to it happening acording to the YEC model. Apples and oranges.

You can turn a blind eye to the argument and think that maybe evolutionism is more important than combating the claims made against Jesus Christ.

These anti-resurrectionists (ARs) claim they have evidence, and they claim this evidence says Jesus Christ never rose. Scientists claim they have evidence that says non-life to life, organisms to animals, animals to man. (or something of the like) I believe they have not interpreted the evidence correctly, not that they don't have the evidence.

And whether you or another claim they have interpreted it correctly because an ad populum argument, I still choose to believe that Genesis is the authority on this matter as I believe it was meant to be read as literal history. Science has never been a factor for me in this belief. I honestly don't care what science says on either side of the argument. I know what feels right to me.

It is not really apples to oranges. You may claim it, but I don't see it that way. I see two supernatural events told about in the Bible and two sets of camps saying the scriptures are wrong in that understanding. Both say a literal reading is wrong.

But the point of the thread is that many YEC's are taking the issue and inflating it into a divisive issue when it should not be that. We SHOULD just be teaching Jesus Christ! I agree completely. So, why are these "ministries" out there teaching dogmatic YEC'ism in this "either/or" fashion? They should not be doing this, they should be saying what I suggest in the OP, and there will be no stumbling blocks, and people can believe on this issue either way.

What have yec's done that is divisive? Have they tried to get people to follow them or what is written in the Bible?

These ministries are teaching their understanding of the Bible. They seem to feel the need that scientific explanations and Biblical teachings must be the same. Personally, I believe in just having faith. It seems to me that this is the main teaching of the Bible, to have faith in what we have not seen. And that faith should be in Jesus Christ.

You don't think peoples faith won't be tested? And do you think the majority of people will accept or reject Jesus Christ? Do you think that the world would rather promote Jesus Christ, or push for an atheist belief?

I was talking with an atheist last week and he shares the belief of many people today. That Christians are very dangerous because of their belief in the supernatural.

You seem to forget that there will always be stumbling blocks on the narrow road. Something will always be in the way, where people will have to grapple with. It is not necessary to remove those stumbling blocks, but rather help people get past them. That is by focusing on Jesus Christ. Stop spending your time trying to remove something. Start spending your time helping people focus more on Jesus Christ instead.

Strengthen faith is worth more than removing stumbling blocks. Paul talked about a physical act that the Jews always did and the Gentiles never did do. This act of circumcision was for the Jews not the Gentiles. It is Old Testament Law and we are not under that law anymore. There is a major difference between this law and God creating.

You will notice that in Paul's teachings, he even focused on creation a bit. He never saw creation to be a problem, but instrumental in teaching to a specific type of people. Yet, you claim it is a problem and you come into conflict with Paul.

Again, what is the problem with that?

Because you aren't basing your teachings on Biblical teachings, but rather on scientists. And you try to make the incorporate into each other.

And you seem to think that to counter this 'creation ministry' that you must start a evolutionism ministry. You seem to think that the stumbling block should be removed, even when Paul used this teaching in his own sermons, rather than helping the person through it with focusing on Jesus Christ alone. Shall you now call Paul into error for using creation as part of his sermon?

I think you have forgotton that creation and evolution have no power. It is Jesus Christ who has the power and Him alone. That should always be our focus.

 

[Calminian]

These anti-resurrectionists (ARs) claim they have evidence, and they claim this evidence says Jesus Christ never rose.

And they have the majority of experts (the historians & scientists, etc.) on their side. (See how slippery this slope can get?) So why shouldn’t they have the same liberty to allegorize that you do? Aren't we in danger of "destroying their faith??"

 

[Vance]

Vance, these people call themselves Christians and believe in Jesus Christ. They just believe He didn't raise from the dead. They believe His miracles are supernatural. Actually they claim they have evidence to the contrary. You can sit here in your room and claim they don't, but they say they do. I wouldn't be surprised if they did have evidence of this. I would conclude that they fashioned it themselves or distorted it. But I don't know if for a fact they do or don't, but they claim they do and I am not in the position to claim they are liars because they have no evidence. I will claim they wrong about whatever this evidence they claim says.

The difference is very simple: you and I agree that the TE/YEC distinction is not a salvation issue. A belief that evolution is the method by which God created does not invalidate the essential theology of the Gospel message. Do you believe the same about the ressurection?

You can turn a blind eye to the argument and think that maybe evolutionism is more important than combating the claims made against Jesus Christ.

First of all, we are not promoting "evolutionism" (which is generally a fairly silly term used to describe those who hold to evolution out of naturalistic philosophy). Second, while the teaching of those opposed to the literal resurrection would cause a great threat if it was widespread, the fact is that it isn't. It is not, at this point, having a negative effect on Christian belief. YEC'ism, however, is all over the place. It is in the courts, in the news, all over the web. There are "ministries" out there teaching this stuff. So, right now, the dogmatic teaching of YEC'ism (again, NOT the belief in YEC'ism itself, but the "either/or" presentation of it) is a greater threat.

So, in the meantime, we must combat both dangers, but focusing on the one that is causing the greater damage to the spread of the Gospel message.

These anti-resurrectionists (ARs) claim they have evidence, and they claim this evidence says Jesus Christ never rose. Scientists claim they have evidence that says non-life to life, organisms to animals, animals to man. (or something of the like) I believe they have not interpreted the evidence correctly, not that they don't have the evidence.

But again, the difference is that one is an issue about an essential doctrine to the Gospel message, the other isn't. So, why treat them the same?

And whether you or another claim they have interpreted it correctly because an ad populum argument, I still choose to believe that Genesis is the authority on this matter as I believe it was meant to be read as literal history. Science has never been a factor for me in this belief. I honestly don't care what science says on either side of the argument. I know what feels right to me.

Fine, believe that by all means. No harm done. But, go out and teach assertively that evolution is contrary to Scripture, and that if evolution is true, Scripture isn't, then you would be doing damage. Just believing what you do is no danger at all.

It is not really apples to oranges. You may claim it, but I don't see it that way. I see two supernatural events told about in the Bible and two sets of camps saying the scriptures are wrong in that understanding. Both say a literal reading is wrong.

You must look to see what the basis for that statement is, however. Are they basing their belief primarily in the question of whether supernatural events occur? And, again, is it a salvation issue?

What have yec's done that is divisive? Have they tried to get people to follow them or what is written in the Bible?

They have tried to convince people that their particular reading of Scripture is NECESSARILY the correct one. And, one tenet of this interpretation is that if it is true, evolution is false, and if evolution is true, Scripture is false by corollary. This is divisive in two ways:

1. Very often they accompany this teaching with one that says that those who DO accept evolution are compromisers, weak in faith, not trusting God's Word, placing more faith in Man's knowledge than God's, etc. This is very divisive.

2. By teaching what they believe in a dogmatic, salvation-level fashion, and in a way that calls Scripture into question, it forces the rest of the Body of Christ to take action to combat this stumbling-block. Without the YEC dogmatism and "ministries", this would not be much of an issue at all.

These ministries are teaching their understanding of the Bible. They seem to feel the need that scientific explanations and Biblical teachings must be the same. Personally, I believe in just having faith. It seems to me that this is the main teaching of the Bible, to have faith in what we have not seen. And that faith should be in Jesus Christ.

And I would prefer more YEC's be like you. But many aren't. And it is not the message of "here is what we beleive Scripture to say" that is the problem, it is the dogmatic statement that "this IS what Scripture says, no if's and's or but's".

You don't think peoples faith won't be tested? And do you think the majority of people will accept or reject Jesus Christ? Do you think that the world would rather promote Jesus Christ, or push for an atheist belief?

Oh, it is very difficult in today's secular world to get the Gospel message a fair hearing, at least that has been my experience. Which is why this additional and entirely unecessary stumbling-block is so frustrating. It is the LAST thing we need.

I was talking with an atheist last week and he shares the belief of many people today. That Christians are very dangerous because of their belief in the supernatural.

Yes, I am sure that many believe that way. And those will find it the hardest to find God. But there are a LOT of people in this world who do NOT reject the supernatural outright. And it is they who would have an open door to the Gospel message, but would find the YEC teaching a stumbling block.

You seem to forget that there will always be stumbling blocks on the narrow road. Something will always be in the way, where people will have to grapple with. It is not necessary to remove those stumbling blocks, but rather help people get past them. That is by focusing on Jesus Christ. Stop spending your time trying to remove something. Start spending your time helping people focus more on Jesus Christ instead.

And what did Paul and James have to say about stumbling-blocks? That they are just an inevitable event and should just be ignored? What did Paul DO when faced with a stumbling block?

Strengthen faith is worth more than removing stumbling blocks. Paul talked about a physical act that the Jews always did and the Gentiles never did do. This act of circumcision was for the Jews not the Gentiles. It is Old Testament Law and we are not under that law anymore. There is a major difference between this law and God creating.

No, the point is exactly the same. People were teaching a doctrine which they believed was very important to Christian life and belief, but this teaching was not essential, and was causing a stumbling block. Paul did not ignore this, he got hugely indignant and said he wished those Judaizers would accidently castrate themselves!

You will notice that in Paul's teachings, he even focused on creation a bit. He never saw creation to be a problem, but instrumental in teaching to a specific type of people. Yet, you claim it is a problem and you come into conflict with Paul.

No, there is no conflict with Paul because he was teaching an ultimate truth about the what underlies the Creation story, whether literal or figurative, and I agree with that message.

Because you aren't basing your teachings on Biblical teachings, but rather on scientists. And you try to make the incorporate into each other.

But that is besides the point. We are not talking about which teaching is correct, but what how we should approach the controversy and how the entire debate should be characterized. Read that statement I suggest again.

And you seem to think that to counter this 'creation ministry' that you must start a evolutionism ministry. You seem to think that the stumbling block should be removed, even when Paul used this teaching in his own sermons, rather than helping the person through it with focusing on Jesus Christ alone. Shall you now call Paul into error for using creation as part of his sermon?

I use the Creation story just as Paul did, so there is no problem there. And, no, the TE's are not starting an "evolutionism ministry", we are just showing that Scripture can still be true if evolution is true. And when the matter comes up in the presentation of the Gospel, I just say something VERY like what I suggest in the OP and get right on telling them about Christ, and the true Gospel message, which is exactly what I am asking you and other YEC's to do.

But you resist this idea for some reason.

I think you have forgotton that creation and evolution have no power. It is Jesus Christ who has the power and Him alone. That should always be our focus.

No, I have not forgotten this in the least, since this is exactly what I have been trying to promote all along! YEC's are the ones which are drawing the focus away from the true message. They are the ones with "ministries" and presentations in Churches and on the radio and in video series. Who has lost the focus?

Now, in this forum, things are different. This forum is not an evangelizing forum or even a fellowship forum. It is a discussion and debate forum, where this very specific issue is hashed out. Pros and cons, etc. This is not how we should evangelize or spread the Gospel, and it IS not how we do it. But Christians come to this forum to get answers to this very specific question, to hear what Christians are saying about this issue. So, of course we are going to be presenting the alternative viewpoints. That is not a problem.

But on the evangelism issue: In the United States, which group is spending more time and energy on promoting their view of this issue: YEC's or TE's?

 

[SBG]

The difference is very simple: you and I agree that the TE/YEC distinction is not a salvation issue. A belief that evolution is the method by which God created does not invalidate the essential theology of the Gospel message. Do you believe the same about the ressurection?

The point is that scripture does not support evolution.

Do I believe what about the resurrection? That it happened in literal history and it is not a myth. Yes, very much so. And it is essential theology for if Christ did not raise from the dead then we are lost and are to be the most pittied of all people.

First of all, we are not promoting "evolutionism" (which is generally a fairly silly term used to describe those who hold to evolution out of naturalistic philosophy). Second, while the teaching of those opposed to the literal resurrection would cause a great threat if it was widespread, the fact is that it isn't. It is not, at this point, having a negative effect on Christian belief. YEC'ism, however, is all over the place. It is in the courts, in the news, all over the web. There are "ministries" out there teaching this stuff. So, right now, the dogmatic teaching of YEC'ism (again, NOT the belief in YEC'ism itself, but the "either/or" presentation of it) is a greater threat.

You are promoting evolutionism (i like the term thank you very much ) when you counter creationism with it. You try and validate it by saying you believe it so it is ok for another to believe it.

You don't think that the ARs (anti-resurrectionists) are having a negative effect on Christianity? Well, I guess you don't put too much importance on it then.

I honestly cannot believe that you will assert yec-ism is worse than believing Jesus Christ did not raise from the dead and that yec-ism is more damaging than Jesus not raising from the dead.

I have seen you very dogmatic about evolution. The interpretation of the evidence put forth you have dogmatically said is truth. So to say you are not dogmatic about evolutionism is really a farse.

Honestly, I am rather blown away by a Christian thinking yec-ism is a worse teaching than Jesus Christ not raising from the dead. That you don't see a need to go against the teaching of a resurrection not happening because it isn't a threat. That is just bogus and our salvation does ride on the fact that Jesus Christ did raise from the dead.

So, in the meantime, we must combat both dangers, but focusing on the one that is causing the greater damage to the spread of the Gospel message.

Yes, the greater damage done is anyone who opposes Jesus Christ's resurrection, not evolution or creation. How you believe this isn't true is beyond me. Did you miss what Paul talked about or something?

Did Paul spend his time on creation, or on Jesus Christ crucified and risen?

But again, the difference is that one is an issue about an essential doctrine to the Gospel message, the other isn't. So, why treat them the same?

Show me where I have done so, if this is what you claim about me.

Fine, believe that by all means. No harm done. But, go out and teach assertively that evolution is contrary to Scripture, and that if evolution is true, Scripture isn't, then you would be doing damage. Just believing what you do is no danger at all.

If asked by anyone if I believe evolution and scripture are compatible, I will tell them the truth, they aren't. But I would never spend my time witnessing about creation instead of Jesus Christ. I might use creation as the beginning point if someone knows nothing about God. I have learned this approach from the Apostle Paul.

Jesus Christ not raising from the dead is far and beyond a worse teaching that creationism. And think it isn't is to completely miss the message of salvation. No matter how many people are preaching Jesus Christ not risen is of great harm, greater than creation or evolutionism.

You must look to see what the basis for that statement is, however. Are they basing their belief primarily in the question of whether supernatural events occur? And, again, is it a salvation issue?

The structure of the debate is exactly the same. You cannot deny that. Yet your contradicting your interpretation of the Bible by being on both sides of these debates.

They have tried to convince people that their particular reading of Scripture is NECESSARILY the correct one. And, one tenet of this interpretation is that if it is true, evolution is false, and if evolution is true, Scripture is false by corollary. This is divisive in two ways:

1. Very often they accompany this teaching with one that says that those who DO accept evolution are compromisers, weak in faith, not trusting God's Word, placing more faith in Man's knowledge than God's, etc. This is very divisive.

Well are there Christians who are weaker in faith? Are there Christians who don't always trust the Word of God? Are there Christians who place more faith in man's knowledge (i like how you capitalize man) than God's?

A Christian, these days is anyone who picks up the name and calls themself one. And it seems from the this Christian only forum no one is allowed to call question to anyone who throws the name on, and yet doesn't hold to the basic beliefs of being a Christian. You know this full as I am sure you have seen it here.

2. By teaching what they believe in a dogmatic, salvation-level fashion, and in a way that calls Scripture into question, it forces the rest of the Body of Christ to take action to combat this stumbling-block. Without the YEC dogmatism and "ministries", this would not be much of an issue at all.

Who says salvation rides on the belief of Genesis 1-2 rather than Jesus Christ? I honestly don't know who says this in the creation camp.

Without a yec belief, many people would just take the Bible how the choose rather than how it was meant to be taken. But that is just my belief.

And I would prefer more YEC's be like you. But many aren't. And it is not the message of "here is what we beleive Scripture to say" that is the problem, it is the dogmatic statement that "this IS what Scripture says, no if's and's or but's".

Well you have to admit, there is only one right way to understand Scripture. You think you have it, I think I have, Jim over there thinks he has it, and these ARs think they have it. There really is only one way for it to be understood. It is a matter of who has the right way. If you don't understand what Revelation is saying, it won't keep you from the Kingdom of God. But if you stop keeping your eyes affixed on Jesus Christ, then you can lose the gift of salvation.

Oh, it is very difficult in today's secular world to get the Gospel message a fair hearing, at least that has been my experience. Which is why this additional and entirely unecessary stumbling-block is so frustrating. It is the LAST thing we need.

Well, you cannot make people listen and you really shouldn't change subjects just because people won't listen. Jesus Christ alone saves, no one else, no other teaching. Stop trying to remove this so called stumbling block and start helping them fix their eyes on Jesus Christ instead. If they don't understand Genesis, it is ok, just keep your eyes on Jesus Christ.

 

[SBG]

Yes, I am sure that many believe that way. And those will find it the hardest to find God. But there are a LOT of people in this world who do NOT reject the supernatural outright. And it is they who would have an open door to the Gospel message, but would find the YEC teaching a stumbling block.

Who cares about yec teachings. Teach Jesus Christ crucified and risen. You have said yourself, because you know Jesus Christ, that you can believe that God could create in six days. See it is not a problem for you, you just believe differently. You also cannot make statements that if six day creation is true and the earth is young that God could be a liar. This is contempt against God, even if you say it as your guidance to believe otherwise. You cannot, no matter what, ascribe God to anything sinful, because we may not understand something. I have this statement made by a few people here and it is just wrong.

This so called stumbling block (no disrespect but I don't see it that way) is not what you should be concerned with. You should be more concerned with preaching Jesus Christ crucified to those who are faltering and those who are in need of salvation. The Holy Spirit can take care of the rest.

And what did Paul and James have to say about stumbling-blocks? That they are just an inevitable event and should just be ignored? What did Paul DO when faced with a stumbling block?

Creation and circumcision are two completely different things. First, circumcision is under Old Testament Law and we are no longer under this law but under grace. You understand this, right?

You will find in the book of Acts that Paul used creation in his sermons. He did not see creation as a stumbling block, but of a way to begin preaching Jesus Christ crucified and risen.

No, the point is exactly the same. People were teaching a doctrine which they believed was very important to Christian life and belief, but this teaching was not essential, and was causing a stumbling block. Paul did not ignore this, he got hugely indignant and said he wished those Judaizers would accidently castrate themselves!

Was creation under the law? Was circumcision under the law? Do you see and understand the difference between the two?

No, there is no conflict with Paul because he was teaching an ultimate truth about the what underlies the Creation story, whether literal or figurative, and I agree with that message.

You are aware that Paul taught creation in his sermons aren't you? You teach against creation. This creation is according to Genesis that Paul taught. You don't believe this account to be accurate, but rather assert it must either be a myth or allegorical.

Again, it is Jesus Christ, not anything else that saves. That should be your sole point when someone falters, not evolutionism.

But that is besides the point. We are not talking about which teaching is correct, but what how we should approach the controversy and how the entire debate should be characterized. Read that statement I suggest again.

We should approach this so called controversy with the truth and that truth is in Genesis, when we are concerning ourselves with this teaching of creation.

Just like you, I cannot admit to lies being truth. So I cannot, with a clear concious say that Genesis can be interpreted how ever you feel like. I will stand firm in my belief that Genesis is literal history and will not falter in this belief till my death and God says differently. I will not falter in reminding people that it is in Jesus Christ our hope lies, not origin theories.

Don't think my stance here is just against evolutionism, it is against creationism that doesn't look to Jesus Christ first. I haven't seen any here who do that. I do see people thinking that the best way to counter creationism is with evolutionism, so that people can have their faith saved. Again, it is Jesus who saves, not evolutionism or creationism.

I use the Creation story just as Paul did, so there is no problem there. And, no, the TE's are not starting an "evolutionism ministry", we are just showing that Scripture can still be true if evolution is true. And when the matter comes up in the presentation of the Gospel, I just say something VERY like what I suggest in the OP and get right on telling them about Christ, and the true Gospel message, which is exactly what I am asking you and other YEC's to do.

You use the creation story via evolution. You have stated this here before. You have started an evolutionism ministry when you started countering creationism with another belief, evolution.

Scripture and evolution just are not compatible, no matter how many times you want to say it, they aren't. I know you know this. And if you want to believe in evolutionism, by all means it is your choice. I am just trying to point out that Jesus Christ is the counter argument to everything. Faith in Him, saves, brings salvation.

If the question comes up in preaching the Gospel, the person you are speaking to is not ready to deal with that answer. That is the meat of Scripture and they need the milk. They need to hear Jesus Christ crucified and risen. My response would be, don't worry about origins right now, lets focus on Jesus Christ. It is that simple.

But you resist this idea for some reason.

Maybe you can show me where I have resisted this in my witnessing?

No, I have not forgotten this in the least, since this is exactly what I have been trying to promote all along! YEC's are the ones which are drawing the focus away from the true message. They are the ones with "ministries" and presentations in Churches and on the radio and in video series. Who has lost the focus?

They have moved onto the meat of Scripture and have presented it as it was meant to be understood by Moses. I don't find that be wrong.

What do you think your few years on here have been? You have focused on evolutionism and why creationism is false. You have been forging your own ministry focusing on evolutionism. If you have contempt for them, you are proceeding as they do with the opposite teaching.

I do not see anything wrong with discussing the meat of Scripture in church. Most people that go to church are regular attenders who have accepted Jesus Christ already. The Church is taking a chance on these people by taking them into the meat of Scriptures and not knowing if each individual is ready.

Are there churches that don't focus on teaching Jesus Christ out there that are Christian churches? I am not talking about mormons or other sects as these.

Now, in this forum, things are different. This forum is not an evangelizing forum or even a fellowship forum. It is a discussion and debate forum, where this very specific issue is hashed out. Pros and cons, etc. This is not how we should evangelize or spread the Gospel, and it IS not how we do it. But Christians come to this forum to get answers to this very specific question, to hear what Christians are saying about this issue. So, of course we are going to be presenting the alternative viewpoints. That is not a problem.

This is a fellowship forum. How can you say it is not? Is this solely for Christians to war then? You can have a discussion and debate and still fellowship. Unfortunately, this forum has not really participated in the fellowship part because a divisive line has been drawn between the camps and an all out fight for who is right and who is wrong is at stake.

Nothing here is hashed out. People are hashed out because of personal attacks, consistent strawman arguments, and the lack that anyone really truly listens to anyone. We only look for what we can refute and throw out the rest of what someone said. Is that Christian of us?

You are aware that many atheists view this forum. It is not hidden where we can act in such a way. We are not talking to them actively, but we are giving a presentation of Christianity in here. Is this what you want to say to them? That we are to war against ourselves? That we are treat each other with disdain instead of love? You don't have to treat someone horrible all the time, just once and an individual looking on will never forget it and Christians will be known by this one act by that person who read the spiteful words. Is that what you want presented here? Or would you rather use this time wisely and preach Jesus Christ even here? We can all use to hear about Him as often as possible.

I guess you don't see the attitudes here to be determental to Christians witnessing power. I guess you don't see that the non-believers who are reading this now don't really take this in and see how Christians act behind the curtains. Not a big deal?

But on the evangelism issue: In the United States, which group is spending more time and energy on promoting their view of this issue: YEC's or TE's?

Honestly, I don't know. I see a lot evolution everywhere. It is in the school systems, it is shoved down our childrens throats as if it is a pure fact and not a theory. That we have all the evidence ever needed and nothing new will popup to say differently. Evolutionist scientists out number creationists. Creationists are pretty much barred from any scientific journal because of their stance; it is thrown out without consideration is lies.

I have not see any churches preach evolution. I believe too many realize that it is not compatible with Scripture. The only thing one can do is say Genesis is a myth meant to be read allegorically. The hebrew language tells us differently than this, but that is of course over looked and most of the time ignored.

You have spent the last few years and energy pushing evolutionism here in this forum.

My position is still the same. I don't see why anyone would try and reach someone who is faltering in their faith with an origin issue and not Jesus Christ.

I don't see how anyone can think yec is worse than believing Jesus Christ did not raise from the dead.

Again, these are just my opinions and belief. They don't have to mean anything to you.

 

[Vance]

SBG, I am not going to go round and round with you on this, I am MORE than content to let anybody reading along see what we have both said.

But there is one essential question: are you going to write to the YEC organizations and tell them they should stop bothering with the entire origins issue, so that they can spend their time more valuably just preaching Christ crucified? Are you going to tell every YEC that comes in here preaching YEC'ism that he should not be doing so, because he should spend that time preaching the gospel message? Are YOU going to abandon your efforts to promote the YEC approach to origins so that you can focus all your efforts on teaching Jesus' more important message?

If not, then your entire position stated above is hypocritical.

Either this issue is worth spending time and energy on as Christians, or it is not. You are saying it is not, but you are still doing it.

My two-fold message is very simple:

1. Evolution and an old earth is not incompatible with a correct reading of Scripture, so you don't have to lose faith in Scripture just because you accept evolution and an old earth.

2. If you believe in YEC'ism, just don't teach it in the dogmatic fashion that states that if evolution is true, Scripture is false.

Two simple points, and both are promoting the preservation of Scripture as true and holy. Thus Scripture can still be believed. Thus, the Gospel message can still be believed. Thus, I am fulfilling Jesus' Great Commission.

 

[SBG]

Shall I write an organization because of their beliefs? You have completely missed everything I have said.

Call me whatever name you like Vance, if that is what makes you feel good. It has been demonstrated again that not one word was even heard from what I wrote, rather you looked for anything you can throw back in my face and in the process missed completely what I was saying.

I am not sure even why I spent this time talking with you when you have not even comprehended what I have been saying. This is exaclty what I have been saying this forum is like, no one listens to what is being said.

Continue away with your evolutionism ministry and may God Bless you.