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

[Vance]

Nothing you wrote would require a different response than the points I had already made in this very thread. So, we had both stated our position and I simply think you are wrong, and I am willing to let those points stand on their own for anyone to consider. As I said, MORE than willing, given the substance of the discussion.

But one point you have been making in this and other threads is that we should not be arguing over this origins issue, but should be simply preaching Christ and the Gospel message. But you are only saying this to those who believe in the YEC approach. You are telling US that we should not be bothering to oppose YEC'ism and show that TE'ism is a valid alternative because this entire issue is NOT the Gospel, and we should be teaching the Gospel.

But, are you telling your fellow YEC's the same thing? The ones who are spending vastly more time and energy on this issue across the country than TE's are? I am not talking about telling these YECs, including the "ministries" that their beliefs are wrong, but simply that they should not be wasting time and energy on this subject.

Why the double-standard?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

SBG/Cal

Point of interest for you.

I do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead just because the Bible says He did. I believe it because He is a living reality now.

Working from first principles, why would I believe anything just because the Bible says it? Why not pick the Q'ran? Or the Vedas? Conviction has to come before trust in a written record.

 

[Vance]

Karl, I agree faith comes by faith in the truth of the message. But for me, once the truth is accepted, and I see that truth set out in Scripture, I believe that the Scripture contains the inspired and holy messages from God. I have this faith in the writing of the message (in addition to the message itself) AS faith, but also on the basis that as time passed and the Apostle's died off, such a writing would become necessary to maintain the correctness of God's message and aid in it's spreading.

But, you are definitely correct in that it is the message itself that creates faith, since we had at least 100 years of Christianity before anything like the NT canon was compiled, and few hundred before it was actually canonized. Paul and others, including missionaries and preachers today, have been able to spread the Gospel message and the Spirit can call people from the verbal message alone.

I see the text as holy and inspired, and inerrant in its message because we, as humans, need that type of reminder and guide to help avoid false doctrines from arising and to combat them when they do.

Which is why Augustine was adamant that when science presents solid evidence about something in nature, we must show how such a finding, if true, fits within Scripture. He realized that human nature would be to reject all Scripture when any part of it has been invalidated. And human weakness is such that, even if one came to believe by faith from hearing, an invalidation of the Scripture itself could weaken or even destroy faith.

And, this is the ultimate problem with the doctrine of strict FACTUAL and historical inerrancy and why it is so dangerous to Christianity.

 

[SBG]

Nothing you wrote would require a different response than the points I had already made in this very thread. So, we had both stated our position and I simply think you are wrong, and I am willing to let those points stand on their own for anyone to consider. As I said, MORE than willing, given the substance of the discussion.

You demonstrate very well how to not hear what I have been saying. By all means let your points stand. I will point to Jesus Christ.

I am fine with you declaring I am wrong and you are right.

But one point you have been making in this and other threads is that we should not be arguing over this origins issue, but should be simply preaching Christ and the Gospel message. But you are only saying this to those who believe in the YEC approach. You are telling US that we should not be bothering to oppose YEC'ism and show that TE'ism is a valid alternative because this entire issue is NOT the Gospel, and we should be teaching the Gospel.

Are we switching to a different position now Vance? You originally stated that you are here to help those who are faltering in their faith and those who are non-believers that hold to the evolutionary thought. Are we now changing this position?

I have been replying to this stance you have taken here. You, in your ever debating fashion, have taken my words out of the context into a broader scope when they were not meant for that.

Again, let me be very clear to you: I am replying to how you and others take up this position of reaching those who are faltering in their faith and those who are non-believers with evolutionism.

I would not have even responded to you if it wasn't for your blatant attempt at a gross misrepresentation of my argument. If you are not going to stick with the actual points and rather run off with your strawman, then don't bother even commenting back. But if you would like to engage in the actual points, then can you atleast be consistent?

Let me be clear, once again, I do not see any power in evolutionism to help one from faltering in their faith or for the non-believer. I know the power that is in Jesus Christ and He alone will bring people to faith and keep them in faith. Evolutionism has no power and it will not save anyone. It is a poor excuse to use and to lay the blame on because an individual has decided they are not sure if they want to pick up their cross and follow Jesus Christ. Adam did it, and so do many others. Will you fall for this excuse or will you understand that Jesus Christ is the answer to everything?

But, are you telling your fellow YEC's the same thing? The ones who are spending vastly more time and energy on this issue across the country than TE's are? I am not talking about telling these YECs, including the "ministries" that their beliefs are wrong, but simply that they should not be wasting time and energy on this subject.

Can you prove that these scientists and others are spending most all of their time on this instead of Jesus Christ? You admitted that you spend your time on evolutionism to counter creationism.

Evolution is the predominant theory out there. You and others are upset that creationists have not accepted evolution and evolution is being engaged by another theory. Creationism is trying to bring people to the realization of what is written in the Bible. For some reason you have a problem with people trying to get others back to the Bible rather than science. Your excuse is that it is bad science and you cannot accept that people see differently than you. Furthermore you think that the best way to counter this is by going to the opposite extreme when it concerns people who falter in their faith and for the non-believer.

Evolution is more widely accepted than creation. Yet, so many still have a problem that their is a minority of people who believe creation to be the true explanation of origins. To try and counter this, you will claim it is yec that is at fault for people faltering in their faith. You have even claimed that yec is more damaging to the Christian faith than believing Jesus Christ did not raise from the dead.

Creation is such a small denominator in the whole scheme of Christianity and yet so many want to lay the blame on it for people not being a Christian. Times never change, people will not take responsibility for their own actions.

Why the double-standard?

There is no double-standard. There is you who chooses to misrepresent my argument and create a strawman. Again, if you are going to keep at this, don't even waste your time commenting back. This is not the first time you have done this with my arguments here. It is looking as if the key to making your arguments is misrepresentation of the opponents arguments, hence strawman.

And in case you forget here is my argument in a simple and easy to understand message: Your position is that of helping those who falter and non-believers with evolutionism. You claim creationism is at fault, hence the evolutionism counter. My position is you are wasting your time and putting too much stock into evolutionism and should rather preach Jesus Christ crucified and risen instead.

The power of salvation and keeping of the faith is in Jesus Christ alone, period.

 

[Vance]

1. Our position is, and has always been, that we have to do what we can to offset the negative effects of YEC during witnessing only when it arises. We do not make that a platform for evangelism. We have said this over and over, but you don't seem to get this point. Here, on this forum, this is all that is discussed because IT IS THE TOPIC OF THE FORUM. Your mantra for a long while now has been that we should just be preaching Christ, and not talking about origins. Now, I KNOW you can not be talking about here on this forum, since origins is the topic, so I assume you are talking about out in the world, in our evangelism. And, since you know that we don't actually bring it up as a primary topic, but only in response to peoples doubts and confusion on this issue (because you have been told this over and over), I am not quite sure what you are talking about. Maybe you can explain it a bit more clearly.

2. If the reason for the faltering or doubt is this very issue, then how should we address that issue except by showing how there is no conflict, no problem, if that is what we believe? I have already told you that just telling them to trust Jesus does not work if they doubt Scripture. So, in that situation, we are bound to address those concerns.

3. Well, I definitely never said that even a majority of my time was spent on this topic, much less all of my evangelizing time. It does come up pretty often when witnessing, of course, but not the majority of the time. Now, the impression I got from you (and feel free to correct it) was that we should not be spending as much time as you think we are discussing these issues. I know that it is guaranteed that people like Ken Ham and Hugh Ross spend a LOT more time on this issue than I do. So, if you think I am spending too much time and energy on it, then how are they NOT? Feel free to clarify your point here.

4. Well, you know that I don't have a problem with ANYONE bringing people to the Scripture. This is so knowingly false, you surprise me by saying it. The problem I have is when people are presenting their own personal and specific readnig of Scripture as THE one and only possible way it can be read. And then telling people that if evolution is true, Scripture is false. You already know THAT is what I object to, and that is all I object to. So, why do you say it is something else that I have a problem with?

5. And, no, I don't go to the opposite extreme, I present what I believe to be the best reading of Scripture and the best reading of God's Creation. The opposite extreme, in case you have forgotten, is naturalistic philosophy. It is insisting that God was not in the process at all.

6. Actually, in the US, more people believe in Creationism that evolution. And, yes, right now the dogmatic YEC teaching is definitely causing more people to lose their faith than the teaching that Jesus did not raise from the dead. While the latter is definitely the more damaging doctrine in and of itself, it is held by so few and taught by so few, that it is not having much of an impact. YEC on the other hand, is everywhere, being dogmatically pushed by ministries specially designed for the purpose and actually being taught from our pulpits.

7. Here is what you THINK my position is "Your position is that of helping those who falter and non-believers with evolutionism. You claim creationism is at fault, hence the evolutionism counter. My position is you are wasting your time and putting too much stock into evolutionism and should rather preach Jesus Christ crucified and risen instead. "

No, I do not attempt to help all those with faltering faith by presenting theistic evolution. And I NEVER present "evolutionism", as you well know. What I do is this: when I am sharing the Gospel message and someone expresses doubts and skepticism over Scripture because of YEC teaching (which happens with regularity), then I show them how Scripture is still true and trustworthy even if evolution is true and the earth is old. Your statement is actually very bizzare in that you assume I am actually NOT teaching Jesus crucified and risen. A very strange concept, indeed. But when the point is raised it MUST be answered and that is what I, and other TE's do.

Again, during my Gideon distribution at college campuses, it happens all the time.

Now, on this forum, it is very different. This is a specific forum to debate this very issue. People come here seeking answers to this very question, many (based on the PM's I get) confused and starting to doubt Scripture. So, it is important that when they come here they are exposed to the TE alternative, and I can not count how many people have either PM'ed me, mentioned in giving reps, or even said outright on this forum and the other, that the TE message has helped solidify and bolster their faith. This is good fruit.

Now, even here, though, what has been my basic mantra? Exactly what I said in the OP. We should STOP making this an issue, and as soon as the dogmatic teaching of YEC'ism as an "either/or" proposition is no longer being taught the body of Christ will be a better place.

 

[RThibeault]

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?

To be honest, I tend to agree with the statement. I was not there and I am not God. Only God knows what really was involved. Afterall wasn't it mankind who came up with the idea that a day was 24 hours.

Anyway, why argue petty points like this, when so many people are dying without knowing Christ as thier personal savior. Kind of seems silly to me.

 

[The Lady Kate]

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.

Perhaps we've misunderstood?

This is the perspective of one who holds to a literal and historical reading of Genesis.

Indeed it is.

You can say how old the earth is, because it can be however old God wants it to be.

Of course. But why would God want the Earth to be any age other than it is?

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.

The Bible as you understand it.

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.

Perhaps our very young church fathers also misunderstood?
They were, after all, only human.

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.

I doubt the word "billion" was in Augustine's vocabulary.
Are we to know what the early church fathers knew, and no more?

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.

It is a tempting distraction, isn't it?

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.

Except that this is not the case. Creationism isn't the reason people lose faith... it's the believe that belief in Creationism is necessary to the faith that makes people lose faith...

Similarly, evolution is not a means to "rescue" those whose faith is faltering... it's the understand that one can be an evolutionist and still have faith.

And understanding of what evolution is and is not shows how it can be reconciled both with God's Word (as we understand it in Scripture) and with God's actions (as we understand them in creation)... YEC can't do that, not without twisting, misrepresenting, and omitting certain truths.

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.

If only it were that simple...

I became a Christian six years ago. Were it not for certain people who claimed to represent Christ, I would've become one sooner.

There are many stumbling blocks to the faith...many are placed inadvertantly, and with the best of intentions...

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.

But it helps to know what the problem is... an answer works a lot better with a question (especially when the answer is 42).

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?

Sometimes the stumbling blocks need to be dealt with first... so that others have an easier time finding the solution.

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

That answers the big problems, but not the little ones.

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.

Preaching to the choir...

 

[Vance]

Of course the answer is 42!

 

[herev]

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?

as hard as getting a camel through the eye of the needle?

 

[SBG]

as hard as getting a camel through the eye of the needle?

That could be a bit condeming there, considering the teaching behind the statement of 'camel through the eye of a needle.'

I am curious, will you say the same thing with those from the Jesus Seminar that say Jesus Christ didn't raise from the dead? Are they equally right too because they interpret differently then you?

 

[Delta One]

Hello Vance,

But it does matter! Please answer these few questions:

• Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity?
• What is sin and how do you define it?
• When did man get souls and how? It is assumed that you believe that animals do not have souls, as that are, according to a literal reading, not made in the Image of God, only mankind was (Genesis 1:27).

Of course creationists know that the literal view is not the only view of Genesis, because we are having this discussion now. It is, however, the only view that is in complete harmony with the Bible. The verse Exodus 20:11, for example, obviously denies the foreign idea that the creation is billions of years old and took millions of years of evolution to produce the variety of species that we see today.

The verse 1 Corinthians 1:23 says, But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.

Why is the message of Christ's sacrifice a stumbling block to the Jews, and why is it utter foolishness to the Greeks? What is it that the Jews had that the Greeks did not? That had the basis or foundation of the Gospel, i.e. Genesis. The Jews knew that they were already sinners in rebellion against God's law in the likeness of Adam. The Greeks did not have this basis. They believed some naturalistic view about their origins, and either did not know of Genesis or rejected it. Hence, they did not have the proper foundation for understanding why Christ was crucified on the cross.

The message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was a stumbling block to the Jews becase they didn't believe that He was the Messiah that they had been waiting so long for, and He wasn't what they expected. They expected that the Messiah would be a powerful leader that would crush their enemies. They misunderstood the prophecies regarding Jesus.

Our world is becoming increasingly like the Greeks, i.e. they don't have the correct basis for understanding the Gospel. Hence, sometimes when Christians try to preach about the saving works of God people either scoff or ignore it because they see the whole message as foolishness. I believe that we should follow Paul's example in Acts 17. Establish the correct foundation first for understanding the Gospel (i.e. Genesis - a literal Adam with a literal original sin), and then proceed to build the structure of the Gospel of Christ on top.

God Bless,

Delta One.

 

[mhess13]

SBG/Cal

Point of interest for you.

I do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead just because the Bible says He did. I believe it because He is a living reality now.

Working from first principles, why would I believe anything just because the Bible says it? Why not pick the Q'ran? Or the Vedas? Conviction has to come before trust in a written record.

always interesting to hear a Christian with such a low opinion of the Bible

 

[SBG]

This is actually a thought of Darwin's in his Autobiography that is expressed by Karl.

 

[herev]

That could be a bit condeming there, considering the teaching behind the statement of 'camel through the eye of a needle.'

relax, it's an expression, no condemnation is required or intended with the quote.

I am curious, will you say the same thing with those from the Jesus Seminar that say Jesus Christ didn't raise from the dead? Are they equally right too because they interpret differently then you?

I do not agree with the Jesus Seminar in any way shape or form. My criteria for accepting someone as a Christian is that they believe that Jesus Christ is the way to salvation. I personally do not see how they could be a Christian if not believing He rose from the dead, however, as always, it is not my place to condemn. But you asked are they equally right. I would say they are equally wrong. I doubt that any of us has it "right.--no, not one.

 

[herev]

always interesting to hear a Christian with such a low opinion of the Bible

my guess is that you missed his point

 

[SBG]

relax, it's an expression, no condemnation is required or intended with the quote.


I do not agree with the Jesus Seminar in any way shape or form. My criteria for accepting someone as a Christian is that they believe that Jesus Christ is the way to salvation. I personally do not see how they could be a Christian if not believing He rose from the dead, however, as always, it is not my place to condemn. But you asked are they equally right. I would say they are equally wrong. I doubt that any of us has it "right.--no, not one.

I didn't think it was condemnation, but I know there can and may be a few who could have seen it that way. It was rather ambiguous and left open to the readers interpretation.

 

[Vance]

Kind of like a lot of Scripture in that regard.

 

[SBG]

I would figure that you would insist to add that in. We will just have to differ once again on what you are truly referring to - Genesis.

 

[shernren]

This doesn't look like a Christian forum. This looks like the intellectual version of a WWE grudge match. And it takes two to tango.

 

[The Lady Kate]

always interesting to hear a Christian with such a low opinion of the Bible

It helps to have a high opinion of Christ.

The Bible is a tool, an instruction manual for a relationship with God through His son Jesus Christ.

But is the Bible necessary for salvation?