Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[4x4toy]

Of course not. Do you really suppose that there are Christians here posting in a Christian forum who do?

So called ? Probably ..

 

[Speedwell]

So called ? Probably ..

Oh, I get it--you were just being snide.

 

[Geralt]

i have already written it: unbelief. not in what is written plainly in scripture, but what God has said written plainly in scripture. unbelief in God, unbelief in Christ the Son of God who is the Word, the creator of all

you have a need to understand, and yet you do not divert that need towards faith. you believe in evolution that plainly contradicts how God created or the manner of how God created. and so you will never come to say the line personally:

of faith in God in creation
Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

of christ the creator
Heb 1:8-10 But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions." And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
​

But I clearly said in my earlier comment that I was referencing Christians--those of us who have accepted Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior--who believe in theistic evolution. Exactly how would that preclude salvation?

 

[Archivist]

i have already written it: unbelief. not in what is written plainly in scripture, but what God has said written plainly in scripture. unbelief in God, unbelief in Christ the Son of God who is the Word, the creator of all

you have a need to understand, and yet you do not divert that need towards faith. you believe in evolution that plainly contradicts how God created or the manner of how God created. and so you will never come to say the line personally:

of faith in God in creation
Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

of christ the creator
Heb 1:8-10 But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions." And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
​

But we are not talking not believing in Christ, we are talking about not believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Where in scripture does it say that such a belief is required?

And if God used the Big Bang and evolution to create the heavens and all that is upon the Earth--if He guided the process--how is that not "the work of [His] hands"?

 

[Speedwell]

i have already written it: unbelief. not in what is written plainly in scripture, but what God has said written plainly in scripture. unbelief in God, unbelief in Christ the Son of God who is the Word, the creator of all​

"What is written plainly in scripture..." reflects the YEC doctrine of Perspicuity, a doctrine not widely shared by other Christians.

of faith in God in creation

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

A passage entirely compatible with theistic evolution.

of christ the creator

Heb 1:8-10 But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions." And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;

Another passage entirely compatible with theistic evolution. What was your point in posting them?​

 

[rjs330]

So it is acceptable to believe that a bat is not a bird, despite the fact that Scripture says it is, but not acceptable to believe that the Genesis account is an allegory?

I've already explained that. The bible does,not,say a bat is a bird. That's an English translation of a Hebrew word that covers All kinds of flying things. The particular bible reference is NOT saying a bat is a bird. A better translation would,be flying things,or things,with covers. Then there would be no,confusion on the subject,and atheists could stop trying to use that verse to prove that the bible can't be trusted. But translators do their best. Sometimes,to translate things more accurately it make passages very difficult to read. Unfortunately it also creates situations where atheists can try and confuse people and make it sound like the bible is in error when it's not.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

What's the difference whether God made us out of dust or (uniquely) out of some precursor primate? How would that affect our salvation?





Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

[/QUOTE]
Because the bible doesn't even hint at it. It is plain as to how God created man. It does not say that God formed,man out of other creatures. It does not say that God breathed life into anything but man. We of all creatures have an eternal soul with the ability to have faith in him. There is not one single,scripture that even hints at anything else.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Archivist]

I've already explained that. The bible does,not,say a bat is a bird. That's an English translation of a Hebrew word that covers All kinds of flying things. The particular bible reference is NOT saying a bat is a bird. A better translation would,be flying things,or things,with covers. Then there would be no,confusion on the subject,and atheists could stop trying to use that verse to prove that the bible can't be trusted. But translators do their best. Sometimes,to translate things more accurately it make passages very difficult to read. Unfortunately it also creates situations where atheists can try and confuse people and make it sound like the bible is in error when it's not.

First, yes it does say that bats are birds.

Second, I am not an atheist and I am not trying to "prove that the bible can't be trusted."

Again, where in scripture does it say that a literal interpretation of Genesis is required?

 

[Speedwell]

Because the bible doesn't even hint at it.

And you won't even consider it as a speculation? What difference would it make?

It is plain as to how God created man.

How do you know that? Do you read ancient Hebrew fluently? Are you familiar with ancient Hebrew literary genres? Contemporary extra-biblical literature?

We of all creatures have an eternal soul with the ability to have faith in him. There is not one single,scripture that even hints at anything else.

I agree. What's your point?

 

[rjs330]

"What is written plainly in scripture..." reflects the YEC doctrine of Perspicuity, a doctrine not widely shared by other Christians.




A passage entirely compatible with theistic evolution.


Another passage entirely compatible with theistic evolution. What was your point in posting them?​

Actually the Hebrews passage is,not compatible with theistic evolution at all.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Speedwell]

Actually the Hebrews passage is,not compatible with theistic evolution at all.

How so? You are not a theistic evolutionist and don't appear to know much about it. I am, and I find nothing in that passage incompatible with my views.

 

[rjs330]

But we are not talking not believing in Christ, we are talking about not believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Where in scripture does it say that such a belief is required?

And if God used the Big Bang and evolution to create the heavens and all that is upon the Earth--if He guided the process--how is that not "the work of [His] hands"?

Simple, because t he bible doesn't even hint at a big bang or evolution as a method of creation. In fact Hebrews defies that. God did not create anything out of anything that is visible. And Exodus proclaims that God created in six days.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Archivist]

Simple, because t he bible doesn't even hint at a big bang or evolution as a method of creation. In fact Hebrews defies that. God did not create anything out of anything that is visible. And Exodus proclaims that God created in six days.

So exactly what makes it a salvation issue?

 

[rjs330]

So exactly what makes it a salvation issue?

It doesn't. You may have me confused with someone else. No where in scripture does it say you have to believe in literal Genesis to be saved. "Believe in the Lord,Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

"Whosover believes in Him shall not parish but have everlasting life."

Nothing else added to accept Christ and be saved.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Geralt]

that's the problem isn't it ? you see it simply as literary passage and go on from there adding theories.

i see it as God revealing himself as creating worlds and living creatures out of nothing by the sheer power of his command, not out of simple building blocks and then stand aside and let it evolve in time.

regardless of how theistic evolution sees itself as compatible to scripture, it does NOT bow down to its sole authority for the simple reason that God hath said. therefore, unbelief.​

But we are not talking not believing in Christ, we are talking about not believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Where in scripture does it say that such a belief is required?

And if God used the Big Bang and evolution to create the heavens and all that is upon the Earth--if He guided the process--how is that not "the work of [His] hands"?

 

[Archivist]

It doesn't. You may have me confused with someone else. No where in scripture does it say you have to believe in literal Genesis to be saved. "Believe in the Lord,Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

"Whosover believes in Him shall not parish but have everlasting life."

Nothing else added to accept Christ and be saved.

No I don't have you mixed up with anyone else. I asked because that is the topic of the thread.

 

[Archivist]

that's the problem isn't it ? you see it simply as literary passage and go on from there adding theories.

i see it as God revealing himself as creating worlds and living creatures out of nothing by the sheer power of his command, not out of simple building blocks and then stand aside and let it evolve in time.

regardless of how theistic evolution sees itself as compatible to scripture, it does NOT bow down to its sole authority for the simple reason that God hath said. therefore, unbelief.​

So, is it a salvation issue?

 

[dad]

But we are not talking not believing in Christ, we are talking about not believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Where in scripture does it say that such a belief is required?

And if God used the Big Bang and evolution to create the heavens and all that is upon the Earth--if He guided the process--how is that not "the work of [His] hands"?

That would make His word a lie.

 

[Archivist]

That would make His word a lie.

So a Christian who does not believe in a literal reading on Genesis will not be saved?

 

[mark kennedy]

People spend a great deal of time debating the creation of the Earth and the creatures upon it. Some say the Genesis account is literal--God did it in six 24 hour days, Adam was the first man, Eve was the first woman. Others say that God used evolution to create man. Many fall somewhere between these two positions. Sometimes discussion here gets fairly heated.

My question: Does it really matter? Is this an issue that will determine one's salvation? If not, why do we spend so much time debating it? Why do some people seem determined to convert others to their view?

First of all I've never seen a theistic evolutionist concede a point much less convert, with creationists it's rare but it does happen. But your question regards salvation and it comes down to why you reject the creation doctrine. If it's because an epic panorama of. a miraculous divine fiat the is a problem. To deny creation as an actual sequence of events leads one to wonder at the influence on other miracles from Genesis to the Incarnation. What about the New birth, is that a mirable or a metaphor. What about the resurrection at the return of Christ.

Sure you can doubt the creation account and still have saving Faith. The problem is that secular scholars and scientists reject creation because of the miraculous ha the of creation. We embrace a faith in a God of miracles, to think of that in exclusively naturalistic terms is to have a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. There is also the divisive and argumentative nature of Darwinism to wonder if we can embrace Darwinism and saving faith. Do you get bitter and sweet water from the same well?