Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[Armoured]

Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

No.

 

[Archivist]

I am still waiting for anyone to offer any actual evidence that belief in the Genesis salvation stories is a salvation issue. I've seen lots of opinion, but no no evidence. I take that as meaning that it is not a salvation issue.

 

[SkyWriting]

I looked up the CARM link.
Well, I guess we differ considerably in what is and isn't essential.

I agree completely. The idea is that important stuff is well supported.
I really don't care what you believe. I just ask that if it's "Christian"
then it's well supported by multiple stories or authors so we know
it's important and has value to the faith.

Some people want to charm snakes as part of their Christian faith.
I say that is poorly supported, yet it is better supported than YEC.
I'd like to throw my staff down and have it eat other snakes.
At least that story is clear.

 

[Radrook]

I agree completely. The idea is that important stuff is well supported.
I really don't care what you believe. I just ask that if it's "Christian"
then it's well supported by multiple stories or authors so we know
it's important and has value to the faith.

Some people want to charm snakes as part of their Christian faith.
I say that is poorly supported, yet it is better supported than YEC.
I'd like to throw my staff down and have it eat other snakes.
At least that story is clear.

Well, caring about what others believe is essential to being a Christian.
An uncaring attitude is totally incompatible with the love for our fellow man or neighbor which Jesus told us to have.
Such a love requires that we care if he is being misled because being misled means he is being duped by Satan and we as Christians have a direct mandate from Jesus in Matt chapter 28 to go and teach others. So your declaration of not caring comes across as a bit weird due to its incompatibility with Christian doctrine.

 

[Radrook]

No.

That reminds me of a sister who rarely attended the JWs meetings but when she did attend she would respond to deep theological issue questions asked by the Watchtower Study conductor with a very firm and resounding: "No!" or an equally fervently resounding: ""Yes!"" It never failed to get a flurry of stifled chuckles from those present.

 

[Armoured]

That reminds me of a sister who rarely attended the JWs meetings but when she did attend she would respond to deep theological issue questions asked by the Watchtower Study conductor with a very firm and resounding: "No!" or an equally fervently resounding: ""Yes!"" It never failed to get a flurry of stifled chuckles from those present.

This, however, isn't deep theology. It's 19th century made up nonsense.

 

[dad]

Was he referring to His own words?.....and in which language? English?

He was talking about the law and prophets that the Pharisees had, yet they held up their own traditions above it. Now the religious folks then had the ancient Scriptures, and perhaps language was not the issue it might be today.

"
Verses 34, 35, 36
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the Scriptures cannot be broken), say ye of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest: because I said, I am the Son of God?

This is the passage to which Jesus referred:





God standeth in the congregation of God; He judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, And respect the persons of the wicked? ... I said, Ye are gods, And all of you sons of the Most High (Psalms 82:1,2,6).
The unjust judges of Israel were the subject of these verses, God calling them "gods" in order to stimulate and encourage them to render just judgments. Of course, those men were "sons of the Most High" in the sense ordinary; but the use of such words in the Holy Scriptures were proof absolute that it was not blasphemy for a man to call himself "son of God" in that same sense. Jesus did not imply by this appeal that he claimed to be "Son of God" in the ordinary sense; for both he and his enemies knew that it was in the unique sense of being "the only begotten Son of God" that Jesus used the title. Nevertheless, it was sinful and illegal for those Pharisees to make what Jesus meant the basis for a charge of blasphemy. He had not pinpointed the unique phase of his claim (at that point); and he cited the Psalm which he quoted as a complete and adequate defense of what he had actually said. In the divine plan, Jesus would eventually testify under oath to the uniqueness of his Sonship, but that would come before the historic court of the chosen people, and not in the presence of a vicious mob like that which confronted him.

It is wrong to understand Jesus' appeal to Psalm 82 as a reduction of his claim of absolute equality with God; it was only an extremely effective refutation of their charge of blasphemy by an argument from their own premises which they were compelled to accept, and did accept. It stunned them, aborted their efforts to stone him, and again proved the Pharisees incapable of standing against Jesus in public debate.

Your law ... to the word of God ... the Scripture ...
These triple designations refer to the entire Old Testament. The use of "your law" in reference to a Psalm makes it certain that "the law" did not mean merely the Pentateuch, but applied to the entire Old Testament. There is no stronger testimony in the Bible to the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures than this remarkable passage.

The Scripture cannot be broken ...
This was only a a parenthesis in the words of Jesus but, in the long view, a parenthesis embracing creation, all time, and eternity.



THE SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN

1. What does this mean? A. It means that the Bible is inspired. B. It identifies the Old Testament as Scripture in the fullest sense. C. It means that Jesus believed the Bible. D. It means that the Bible is an infallible book, the one judge and jury before which all men and their deeds shall at last be tried. E. It means that the sacred Scriptures are as immutable as God's other laws, such as those of gravity, etc.
2. '

 

[rjs330]

I am still waiting for anyone to offer any actual evidence that belief in the Genesis salvation stories is a salvation issue. I've seen lots of opinion, but no no evidence. I take that as meaning that it is not a salvation issue.

I guess you have your answer then. It's not. The belief in Genesis truth is not a salvation issue. What is at issue as you have seen is belief in the scripture and it's veracity. Is it true or not. Its actually a matter of pride. Why? Because we believe we can say that the bible isn't really saying what is true. We are. We are saying we do not believe what the bible says and we get to,decide what's true and what isn't. Its not a good place to be. BUT it doesn't make us bad people or unsaved or anything like that.

 

[Speedwell]

I guess you have your answer then. It's not. The belief in Genesis truth is not a salvation issue. What is at issue as you have seen is belief in the scripture and it's veracity. Is it true or not. Its actually a matter of pride. Why? Because we believe we can say that the bible isn't really saying what is true. We are. We are saying we do not believe what the bible says and we get to,decide what's true and what isn't. Its not a good place to be. BUT it doesn't make us bad people or unsaved or anything like that.

There is a third view, which I think is actually more common amongst non-YEC Christians. Namely, that the Bible is divine revelation and all true, but not necessarily 100% factual history. There are more important kinds of truth and other ways of conveying it than factual history.

 

[Radrook]

This, however, isn't deep theology. It's 19th century made up nonsense.

Is that the official Catholic view or is it your own while claiming to be Catholic?

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, caring about what others believe is essential to being a Christian.
An uncaring attitude is totally incompatible with the love for our fellow man or neighbor which Jesus told us to have.
Such a love requires that we care if he is being misled because being misled means he is being duped by Satan and we as Christians have a direct mandate from Jesus in Matt chapter 28 to go and teach others. So your declaration of not caring comes across as a bit weird due to its incompatibility with Christian doctrine.

It all depends on if you read the next sentence.
There are many evangelical types. I was not
saved due to evangelism, therefore I do not
engage in the practice as others do.

 

[Radrook]

It all depends on if you read the next sentence.
There are many evangelical types. I was not
saved due to evangelism, therefore I do not
engage in the practice as others do.

That premise is seriously flawed.

 

[dad]

There is a third view, which I think is actually more common amongst non-YEC Christians. Namely, that the Bible is divine revelation and all true, but not necessarily 100% factual history. ..

In other words, the bible is a crock, and has history wrong? We should ask you what really happened?

 

[Speedwell]

In other words, the bible is a crock, and has history wrong? We should ask you what really happened?

No, the Bible is not a crock, it is just not always trying to tell us history. But I can understand why you must reject that view.

 

[dad]

No, the Bible is not a crock, it is just not always trying to tell us history. But I can understand why you must reject that view.

Jesus treated it as true. Who are you to toss out some history you may not want to believe is true in the bible?

 

[Speedwell]

Jesus treated it as true. Who are you to toss out some history you may not want to believe is true in the bible?

It is true. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate literal history to be true.

 

[Radrook]

I am still waiting for anyone to offer any actual evidence that belief in the Genesis salvation stories is a salvation issue. I've seen lots of opinion, but no no evidence. I take that as meaning that it is not a salvation issue.

Your definition of actual evidence might not permit the allowance of any evidence at all because it will be disqualified based on your personal criteria of what constitutes actual evidence.

 

[dad]

It is true. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate literal history to be true.

That is a license to disbelieve what one wants. Name some history in the bible that is proven false?

 

[Archivist]

Your definition of actual evidence might not permit the allowance of any evidence at all because it will be disqualified based on your personal criteria of what constitutes actual evidence.

Then to be more exact, anything in scripture that specifically shows that belief in the Genesis creation stories is a salvation issue. All I'm seeing thuis far is opinion. And, of course, reading the Genesis creation stories as allegory isn't necessarily disbelieving those stories, it is simply viewing them as something other than actual history.

 

[Radrook]

Then to be more exact, anything in scripture that specifically shows that belief in the Genesis creation stories is a salvation issue. All I'm seeing thuis far is opinion.

You seem to be disqualifying inference based on data as a method of thought.