Is belief for/against creationism important for salvation?

[Floodnut]

I'd hate to stir up havoc, but I really don't see why an apology of the sort is necessary. The words Floodnut uses are very specific Biblical terms which always apply strictly to the unsaved:



What is unbelief? Unbelief, in the Bible, is always associated with non-Christians. I say this with my rudimentary, flawed, and figurative interpretive knowledge of the Bible; Floodnut, who is surely well-versed in such matters, must know this much better than I do. But unbelief is a technical term and in the Bible is never once applied to anyone who is currently believing in the Lord:

Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword...chtype=any&version1=31&spanbegin=1&spanend=73

Really, avoiding the technical terms of Scripture is very simple. If Floodnut just wants to say that we happen not to believe in a particular facet of what he holds to be Christianity, there are a lot of synonyms. "You'll never be convinced." "You're always doubting." (which it is perfectly biblical for fellow brethren to do.) "You just don't see what you're trying to believe in." "Why are you being so contrary?"

But the word unbelief is loaded, so much that to use it repeatedly and consistently is bordering on the edge of excommunicating one's brothers. It is similar to the use of the concept of the "fool". Modern English renders "fool" as someone simplistic or uneducated in intellectual matters. A fool might be called a fool because he thinks that 1+1=3. But the word "fool" used in the context of Judeo-Christian thought, and especially in discussions about Scripture, implies someone who is not only wrong-headed, but has a wrong heart and lives life wrongly. The fool in the Bible is a fool because he says in his heart "there is no God", disregards living according to God's laws, follows the adulterer into her lair, and ultimately dies a wretched victim of sin.



Really, I think it's quite unbiblical to propose such a method of salvation. Unbelievers simply go to hell. There is no record in Scripture that a person can have God impose a belief in the atonement and resurrection, remain an unbeliever everywhere else, and still go to Heaven. Unbelievers rescued from unbelief completely reject unbelief, or at the very least know enough of their unbelief to know that it is completely wrong, even if they are not strong enough to escape it yet. John 3:16 does not read "that whoever believed that He died for their sins and rose three days later should not perish ... " Ananias and Sapphira surely believed in the atonement and resurrection, but that did not save them from an obvious display of divine wrath when they tried to lie to the Holy Spirit. And when Simon Magus wanted to sell the Holy Spirit, his belief in the atonement and resurrection didn't matter to Peter who quite literally told him to go to hell with his money.

No, I'm not angry. But words like "unbelief" and "fool" are very powerful when used in the right places ... and their tang is dissipated when they are thrown around. Champagne is good for anniversaries and New Years' and F1 podium finishes; if everybody everywhere in the world could drink champagne any time they wanted it wouldn't take long before everybody was sick of it. And so I would advise everyone:

Keep words on a short leash: easily recalled at a moment's notice.

And just so you know, I don't agree with this approach to the use of the term "unbelief." Shernen seems to suggest that any, or partial unbelief suggests complete unbelief. Thomas was in less than perfect faith, and some disciples stayed in the boat while one walked on water. Stephen was full of faith, suggesting that others may have been less than "full."
Unbelief about the literal premillenial second coming does not make some one unsaved. Unbelief that God can use doctors does not make one unsaved, and unbelief that God cannot use doctors does not make one unsaved. There is so much that is hard to be understood, and also so much that is difficult to believe. Let every man be persuaded in his own heart, but meanwhile let us continue to communicate and strive for the unity of the faith while we Keep the unity of the Spirit.

 

[shernren]

Isn't this the same argument atheists and agnostics use?

Yep, most YEC arguments are actually arguments that atheists and agnostics use, too.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=26529686#post26529686

 

[shernren]

And just so you know, I don't agree with this approach to the use of the term "unbelief." Shernen seems to suggest that any, or partial unbelief suggests complete unbelief. Thomas was in less than perfect faith, and some disciples stayed in the boat while one walked on water. Stephen was full of faith, suggesting that others may have been less than "full."

I am glad that you are not using "unbelief" in such a way. But you could very well have been, especially noting the tone of some of your posts in the Creationists-only forum (which I did not respond to there, respecting its restructions). What I am suggesting is that the use of the word "unbelief" to describe a brother or sister in Christ is irresponsible, in light of the way Scripture uses the word. The Bible doesn't call Thomas an "unbeliever" or even a "partial unbeliever", it calls him a doubter (something I know myself to be much of the time), and it doesn't call the people around Stephen who may have had less faith "unbelievers" either unless they were specifically persecutors of the church.

Words are dangerous things to be used with caution.

 

[pgp_protector]

Dose God Lie ? Or Create Lies ?

I think & hope that everyone will answer these no.

If so why would he create an illusion of OLD age if it's not ?

 

[laptoppop]

It is not a "lie" to make a sculpture one way as opposed to another. Adam was created as a "man", not a baby. It is not a lie if God chose to make the universe the same way. Perhaps it was necessary in order to create something with enough stability. In any case -- He doesn't answer to me. He can do it any way He chooses, and there are no scriptures which indicate one way or the other, so this ends up being speculation.

 

[vossler]

yes they can. proteins, prions, viruses, archaea, protists, multicelled organisms. There you go, easy Give me a petri dish, agar and some friendly staph from your skin and I'll breed you a super killer bug in a few weeks. Evolution while you wait!

I'm not asking you to breed me a bug, I asked for molecules to man.

I respectfully disagree (as a Christian) I get weary with creationists who want to put their trust and faith in an unsupported book, rather than what their senses and mind can tell them by direct observance of God's creation.

Therein lies our problem, you want me to put my faith in my senses and I wish to put it into God and His Word. Is it any wonder we have a disconnect here.

 

[vossler]

How long have you been around here and all you have are the same strawman arguments? This isn't about not having faith in God or compromising scripture. It's about Creationists not understanding the nature of God's complete revelation.

You obviously didn't read the post right above yours.

 

[furry001]

Where?

[bible]Genesis 1:11-12[/bible]

God creates trees yielding fruit (and in case you are wondering, fruit either is or contains the seed).

 

[furry001]

Dose God Lie ? Or Create Lies ?

I think & hope that everyone will answer these no.

If so why would he create an illusion of OLD age if it's not ?

I have a question for you:

If God made seeds instead of trees, or eggs/cubs instead of full grown animals, or perhaps He made babies instead of adults, who would take care of this creation? What would prevent all His hard work from being completely destroyed, because it could not look after itself.

God didn't create an illusion of old age, He created a world that was functional. If you made a car, you would expect it to work. If you planted a seed, you would expect it to grow (providing you watered it and looked after it of course). So God created a functional world, not one that had the possibility of not surviving.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

f God made seeds instead of trees, or eggs/cubs instead of full grown animals, or perhaps He made babies instead of adults, who would take care of this creation? What would prevent all His hard work from being completely destroyed, because it could not look after itself.


the direct answer to this question is that God created a universe that evolved from the very simple to what we see now. it grew up and became suitable for human life. essentially God did create a seed and let it grow rather than create a full grown tree and all the supporting cast from the very beginning.


google
howard vantil
fully gifted creation
the fourth day of creation (a book use amazon)

 

[furry001]

f God made seeds instead of trees, or eggs/cubs instead of full grown animals, or perhaps He made babies instead of adults, who would take care of this creation? What would prevent all His hard work from being completely destroyed, because it could not look after itself.


the direct answer to this question is that God created a universe that evolved from the very simple to what we see now. it grew up and became suitable for human life. essentially God did create a seed and let it grow rather than create a full grown tree and all the supporting cast from the very beginning.


google
howard vantil
fully gifted creation
the fourth day of creation (a book use amazon)

Are you suggesting that evolution is a fact?

 

[pgp_protector]

I have a question for you:

If God made seeds instead of trees, or eggs/cubs instead of full grown animals, or perhaps He made babies instead of adults, who would take care of this creation? What would prevent all His hard work from being completely destroyed, because it could not look after itself.

Also how would a Mother who never even saw a baby know how to take care of it, teach it to talk, walk, behave ?
Well I guess God could of implanted the knowlage required, but if So wouldn't that take away from there free will ?

Quite a few critters are able to take care of themselfs right from birth, just look at some of the oldest sea turtles, the mothers lay the eggs & then leave.
But we're not saying He created children, we're saying He designed the system so they would grow / evolve slowly.

God didn't create an illusion of old age, He created a world that was functional. If you made a car, you would expect it to work. If you planted a seed, you would expect it to grow (providing you watered it and looked after it of course). So God created a functional world, not one that had the possibility of not surviving.

God created the world the perfictly, it's how He created it where we differ.
If he created it 6-10K years ago then He created it with an illusion of Old age, just in dealing with the parrallex of stars & there distance. Most stars are will in excess of 6-10K light years away.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Are you suggesting that evolution is a fact?

there are several people who argue well that evolution is both a fact and a theory. i'm personally uncomfortable with that and use evolution to refer to the theory in biology that common descent and random mutations filtered by natural selection explain the variety of living creatures we see today.

so i would say that evolution is not a fact but a theory. however if evolution is defined more narrowly as a change in a population of the various percentages of different alleles at particular loci between the generations then it is a fact and has been observed.

 

[laptoppop]

so i would say that evolution is not a fact but a theory. however if evolution is defined more narrowly as a change in a population of the various percentages of different alleles at particular loci between the generations then it is a fact and has been observed.

I'm not trying to be picky -- but wouldn't that be the definition of natural selection, not evolution? Doesn't evolution also need to include the mechanism for generating the variation for natural selection to work on?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

so i would say that evolution is not a fact but a theory. however if evolution is defined more narrowly as a change in a population of the various percentages of different alleles at particular loci between the generations then it is a fact and has been observed.

I'm not trying to be picky -- but wouldn't that be the definition of natural selection, not evolution? Doesn't evolution also need to include the mechanism for generating the variation for natural selection to work on?[/b]

no, be picky, that's why we are all here, afterall.

i think it is the definition of evolution. natural selection postulates a change in allele %'s due to a better fit to the environmental niche. mechanism is just additional information to the changing populations, the significant thing is that the % of various variant alleles change between the generations.

but i'm always open to suggestions.

 

[shernren]

I personally don't think the mechanism really matters overall. Evolution needs imperfect replicators. Why exactly those replicators are imperfect isn't really too much of an issue when considering evolution qualitatively. The basic idea of evolution wouldn't change if, say, I proposed that DNA changes because little green gnomes inside the nuclei use nucleic acids to play marbles and don't put them back properly after they're done.

But quantitatively we would expect to see different mathematical properties of observed evolution depending on what the mechanism of variation is. For example, I think (though I'm not sure if this statement even makes sense) that a change in allele frequency due to reassortment of existing genetic material would go much faster than a change caused by the introduction of a novel allele. When you start labeling the various phenomena with rates and limits and numbers then the individual mechanisms might be important.

So, no and yes. Mechanisms aren't important in the overall scheme of how evolution works. But they are when you get down to the nitty-gritty.

 

[Calminian]

God didn't create an illusion of old age, He created a world that was functional. If you made a car, you would expect it to work. If you planted a seed, you would expect it to grow (providing you watered it and looked after it of course). So God created a functional world, not one that had the possibility of not surviving.

This is right on the money. And He created this world via a miracle, which is out of the realm, to some degree, of scientific investigation. Examining the evidence with a science alone epistemology would never yield correct conclusions in ex nihilo creations. It would be like scientists examining the dried fish Jesus created for the 5,000 in an attempt to determine its age apart from any testimonial evidence. They would try to do so based solely on the physical evidence. Fish takes a certain amount of time to naturally mature to a particular size and the natural drying process take a certain amount of time as well (it was likely dried fish that Jesus multiplied). But if it was generated via a miracle, then these natural process would have been skipped over. Therefore the scientists, refusing to believe the eye-witness testimonies of its origin, would doubtless come to very wrong conclusions about the age and origin of the fish.

 

[LightHorseman]

Therefore the scientists, refusing to believe the eye-witness testimonies of its origin

What eye witness testimonies? how could there be eyewitnesses before Adam? And that's only if Adam wroite Genesis too... in which case it would be called "the book of Adam"

There are NO eye witness testimonies to theistic creation. There are millions of eye witness testimonies to evolutionary mechanisms.

They would try to do so based solely on the physical evidence

Dude... thats what science IS!

 

[shernren]

I have a question for you:

If God made seeds instead of trees, or eggs/cubs instead of full grown animals, or perhaps He made babies instead of adults, who would take care of this creation? What would prevent all His hard work from being completely destroyed, because it could not look after itself.

God didn't create an illusion of old age, He created a world that was functional. If you made a car, you would expect it to work. If you planted a seed, you would expect it to grow (providing you watered it and looked after it of course). So God created a functional world, not one that had the possibility of not surviving.

This explanation basically amounts to: God doesn't know how to make a functional universe that looks young. I don't know about you, but to me that is an argument that really places a lot of limitations on God's creativity, don't you think? I'm not God and yet I can easily think of ways to make a functional universe look young, if not completely, then at least in patches.

For example, I could stuff the Earth full of relatively short-lived isotopes with no known natural geological origin. Relatively short-lived, of course, means isotopes with half-lives of about millions of years. They decay slowly enough to not release any appreciably dangerous radiation, and yet the presence of a single one of them would indicate that the earth couldn't possibly be billions of years old - for then there wouldn't be any left within the earth's crust. Just changing a few significant deposits of Pb-206 into Pb-205 might have cut scientists' estimates of the earth's age by a thousand times. Instead, in the whole solar system there are only five radioisotopes with half-lives less than 4x10^7 years ... and all of those are produced through natural means from stable isotopes. Does the absence of short-lived isotopes serve any functional purpose? No. Does their absence indicate extreme age for the solar system? Yes.

Or God could have jolly well created a universe without cosmic rays. Not only would this reduce mutagenesis (and thus increase the improbability of evolution) and make our lives healthier, more crucially it would make the whole idea of C-14 dating impossible (since C-14 is created by cosmic rays striking atmospheric atoms). Cosmic rays are not only non-functional, they're downright harmful in their own little way. But do they make the Earth look old? Oh yes, at least a lot older than 6,000 years, even if not the full extent to a few billion years.

I could go on and on. Disable magnetic field switching and God would have shorted out the geomagnetic arguments for the Earth's age. Scrub the world of uranium and God would eliminate isochron dating and nuclear warfare. While we're at it, wouldn't God have the power to keep galaxies from accelerating away from us? If only God had had the sense to keep them in place instead of letting them have detectable redshifts, so that pesky Mr. Hubble would never have proposed evidence for the Big Bang which sets our universe's age at a minimum of 13.7 billion years.

The fact is that our universe is littered with lots of artifacts that have almost no functionality and yet possess a strong appearance of age. Is our God really so uncreative that He wouldn't know how to deal with those things?

 

[Calminian]

What eye witness testimonies? how could there be eyewitnesses before Adam? And that's only if Adam wroite Genesis too... in which case it would be called "the book of Adam"

Certainly Adam was a witness to Eve's creation. He must have been the original author from which Moses compiled the creation account so he must have received direct revelation from God about the creation. I thought we were all christians here. Do we not believe God is a valid witness?

There are NO eye witness testimonies to theistic creation. There are millions of eye witness testimonies to evolutionary mechanisms.

Well true God doesn't have eyes, but He is a witness and we agree the Bible is inerrant, don't we? I can see where the atheist might need more evidence, but I was hoping we christians could agree on this without much debate.

Dude... thats what science IS!

Like, that's why science is inadequate, dude. It's like about philosophy, like epistemology ya know?