"In all things . . ."

[Vance]

"In essentials, unity;
in non-essentials, liberty;
and in all things, charity."

I think we all need to keep in mind that how one believes about HOW and WHEN God created is not an "essential" in Christianity. Even those who say that if you don't believe one particular interpretation, it could lead to a disbelief in something essential, still recognize that the origins issue ITSELF is not the essential.

The bottom line is simply to ask whether a person believes in God's gift of salvation and has accepted it and is living for Christ. Period. If someone has done that, then it becomes irrelevant whether the believe in evolution or not. You can't say "hey, wait, you can't possibly accept the ressurection, or your need for redemption or [add in any "essential" here] if you don't believe in my interpretation of Genesis!" Anyone can see how ridiculous this statement is. If they believe, they believe. And maybe that shows that your interpretation of Scripture is not such a prerequisite to that belief after all.

 

[mhess13]

Just because something is not essential DOES NOT make it irrelevant. For instance, the gift of tongues. While not a salvation issue, it is VERY relevant as far as doctrine, practice, and a whole host of other things go. Once saved always saved? It's not an essential one way or the other, but it is of huge importance and when either side takes it to extremes it can cheapen the gospel message. Pre-mil, post-mil or amil? This is huge! Dispensational or covenant theology? Not a salvation issue, but what could be more important as far as understanding scripture?

 

[Vance]

Right, many doctrines are very important, but they are not salvation issues and should not be treated as such. Definitely worth discussing, but worth creating stumbling blocks over?