Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[rjs330]

Factors being "denomination" and / or "church" in this case.

Ok thanks. You are very correct that church or denomination can play a part in a person's belief. Especially if we just sit in church and don't do any study on our own. We see it all the time. It's a shame really. I have been studying the scriptures for nigh on 40 years now and I have found that I agree with my church on most things and disagree on some things. I don't really belong to a particular church or denomination. I grew up in one, but have since moved on. I don't think any one particular denomination has all,the answers and is the right church. The church is made up of all of us believers. Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Church of God etc. We are all the church. I really try to just be a good disciple of Christ and do good in the church I am attending.

I will challenge people who are teaching contrary to the scriptures and there are times when they saw I was right. And there have been times when I was wrong because I was leaning on my own preconceived notions and not really grasping what the scriptures were saying.

It's very difficult to change ones point of view and recognize that we are wrong. We get so stuck sometimes. I know, I have been there. My church taught pre-trib rapture and I was stuck there. It wasn't until I really studied it hard after being challenged by my professors that I changed my views. It wasn't easy. But I just let the scriptures do the talking and I couldn't walk away thinking the same.

 

[Speedwell]

Why would I ask,for an apology if I was in a cult? And why shouldn't I feel insulted if I'm not in a cult but being accused or suspected of being in one?

My "take back the cult comment" statement was supposed to be an attempt at humor. Hence,the smiley face. I guess I need to work on my humor a bit more.

So no I'm not in a cult and I'm not a pre-trib guy.

Let me help you with an apology. It should to go,like this. "I'm sorry I shouldn't have done that."
It's not that hard.

You know I was going to tell you that I was looking forward to meeting you in heaven where we'll know who was correct. We'd give each other high fives and laugh about our conversation. The dude who was mistaken would admit his error and the other dude would just shake it off as no,big deal. After all it wouldn't matter any more.

Your starting to get jerkish here. And you still can't defend your point biblically. I beginning to wonder if that's why you are headed down the accusatory route. Your getting frustrated at the fact you can't defend your stance biblically and so you resort to attacks like questioning of I'm in a cult or something.

Anyway, when you are ready to discuss this more, in a nicer manner, then I am ready too.

I don't think you are. For example, you know what church I belong to, but you decline to state yours. You know the religious affiliation of my college, but you decline to state yours. You accuse me of being unable to defend my point "biblically" but you know full well that because of my religious affiliation, I don't defend my points that way, and so on.

 

[RickG]

Ok thanks. You are very correct that church or denomination can play a part in a person's belief. Especially if we just sit in church and don't do any study on our own. We see it all the time. It's a shame really. I have been studying the scriptures for nigh on 40 years now and I have found that I agree with my church on most things and disagree on some things. I don't really belong to a particular church or denomination. I grew up in one, but have since moved on. I don't think any one particular denomination has all,the answers and is the right church. The church is made up of all of us believers. Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Church of God etc. We are all the church. I really try to just be a good disciple of Christ and do good in the church I am attending.

I think that is an excellent outlook. I think too often the denominations and even groups within denominations tend to loose the main focus of Jesus' teachings.

 

[rjs330]

I don't think you are. For example, you know what church I belong to, but you decline to state yours. You know the religious affiliation of my college, but you decline to state yours. You accuse me of being unable to defend my point "biblically" but you know full well that because of my religious affiliation, I don't defend my points that way, and so on.

To be honest I didn't even pay attention to your church affiliation. I grew up,in the Assemblies is God of that helps. I don't believe they are the right church or the best church. I disagree with some of their doctrine as I'm sure you disagree with some of your churches.

I've attended a couple of different non-denominational churches and a Church of God church since leaving home at 18.

The church I've attended the last 12 years is one that is very laid back. We play contemporary Christian music for worship, wear blue jeans and shorts to,church. We have coffee and donut time and the pastor preaches in sandles at times. He uses PowerPoint and has a lot of humor. We have communion and baptisms. Nobody swings from the rafters or rolls around on the floor or anything odd like that. We are just all believers who are trying to live for Jesus the best we can in this fallen world. Broken people who have been saved by Grace, imperfect, but striving to live the Godly life in this fallen world.

 

[Speedwell]

To be honest I didn't even pay attention to your church affiliation. I grew up,in the Assemblies is God of that helps. I don't believe they are the right church or the best church. I disagree with some of their doctrine as I'm sure you disagree with some of your churches.

I've attended a couple of different non-denominational churches and a Church of God church since leaving home at 18.

The church I've attended the last 12 years is one that is very laid back. We play contemporary Christian music for worship, wear blue jeans and shorts to,church. We have coffee and donut time and the pastor preaches in sandles at times. He uses PowerPoint and has a lot of humor. We have communion and baptisms. Nobody swings from the rafters or rolls around on the floor or anything odd like that. We are just all believers who are trying to live for Jesus the best we can in this fallen world. Broken people who have been saved by Grace, imperfect, but striving to live the Godly life in this fallen world.

I get it. I used to be an Episcopalian, but now belong to the Anglican Province of Christ the King, which split with the Episcopal Church some years ago over the ordination of women--not an issue which I have much of an opinion about one way or another, but they also retained the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and other "high church" liturgical practices which I find essential to my religious devotions. I am not big on doctrine. The center of my faith is the immediate experience of Christ I find in the Sacraments.

 

[Wings of Eagles]

Don't forget that Revelation mentions the new creation so if you have trouble believing light before the sun in Genesis then you have to deal with the same problem with light without the sun in Revelation.

Great comment, Smidee.
And it might be well to point out that "light", in a general sense, doesn't even have to be visible to the human eye, ....the electromagnetic spectrum being far broader by MANY orders of magnitude than simply visible light...much of which doesn't even required atomic transitions, but can be produced simply by acceleration of charge.
Bet you can tell I have a physics background.... ) Not that you need that to understand God's Word, but it is interesting.
Wings

 

[Wings of Eagles]

And as we see in genesis - the creation account is the foundation and basis for understanding the fall of man in Genesis 3.

.

Another good comment, and you are correct, Bob, in saying it is the starting point....and it is essential for the CORRECT understanding of how sin and death came into the world...and in terms of how God solved man's sin and death problem by sending His Son to conquer sin and death.

To answer Archivist's question directly....about if it is essential for salvation..... Not directly since "whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved....but it must be done with sincerity and repentance for sin. However, lack of knowledge of Creation and the fall could prevent a person from salvation simply by his neglect of his sinful condition. Thus the WHOLE truth is necessary.

How so? First, you must realize (and that which most Theistic evolutionists don't understand or choose to ignore) is THE most fundamental doctrine in the whole Bible and in Christianity originates in the fall of man....AND that is no minor thing... Here's the reason...The consequences of sin was that DEATH came into the world...

SIN was so tragic that it affected the entire creation, not just man....and the consequence was DEATH. There was no death before sin....not in animals or in man.... Paul explained this explicitly in Romans 5:12 by revealing that...
" Wherefore BY ONE MAN SIN ENTERED THE WORLD, and DEATH (came) BY SIN, and so DEATH PASSED UPON ALL MEN...".....Later in that Chapter he speaks of how by one man (Jesus) sin was conquered ....God
sent his Son to deal with and conquer both sin (on the cross) and Death (at the resurrection) ...
Evilution on the other hand MINIMIZES sin and its consequences by saying that death was ALWAYS here and part of the natural process for billions of years (and sin had nothing to do with it)....and thus there is no need for a Savior.
Can you see now , Archivist, how belief in theistic EVILution and the Scriptures are mutually exclusive??

If you claim to be a Christian, Archivist, WHY would you call the most fundamental biblical doctrine a lie by claiming evolution happened?? Christ paid a horrific price precisely BECAUSE evolution never happened.....If, you, Archivist, say that it did happen, then you are telling the world that because sin didn't cause death, then there is no need for a Savior and no need for a resurrection to conquer death...Is that REALLY what you want to broadcast to the world...??
Wings

 

[Speedwell]

Another good comment, and you are correct, Bob, in saying it is the starting point....and it is essential for the CORRECT understanding of how sin and death came into the world...and in terms of how God solved man's sin and death problem by sending His Son to conquer sin and death.

To answer Archivist's question directly....about if it is essential for salvation..... Not directly since "whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved....but it must be done with sincerity and repentance for sin. However, lack of knowledge of Creation and the fall could prevent a person from salvation simply by his neglect of his sinful condition. Thus the WHOLE truth is necessary.

How so? First, you must realize (and that which most Theistic evolutionists don't understand or choose to ignore) is THE most fundamental doctrine in the whole Bible and in Christianity originates in the fall of man....AND that is no minor thing... Here's the reason...The consequences of sin was that DEATH came into the world...

SIN was so tragic that it affected the entire creation, not just man....and the consequence was DEATH. There was no death before sin....not in animals or in man.... Paul explained this explicitly in Romans 5:12 by revealing that...
" Wherefore BY ONE MAN SIN ENTERED THE WORLD, and DEATH (came) BY SIN, and so DEATH PASSED UPON ALL MEN...".....Later in that Chapter he speaks of how by one man (Jesus) sin was conquered ....God
sent his Son to deal with and conquer both sin (on the cross) and Death (at the resurrection) ...
Evilution on the other hand MINIMIZES sin and its consequences by saying that death was ALWAYS here and part of the natural process for billions of years (and sin had nothing to do with it)....and thus there is no need for a Savior.
Can you see now , Archivist, how belief in theistic EVILution and the Scriptures are mutually exclusive??

If you claim to be a Christian, Archivist, WHY would you call the most fundamental biblical doctrine a lie by claiming evolution happened?? Christ paid a horrific price simply BECAUSE evolution never happened.....If, you, Archivist, say that it did, then you are telling the world that because sin didn't cause death, then there is no need for a Savior and no need for a resurrection to conquer death...Is that REALLY what you want to broadcast to the world...??
Wings

The difficulty with that line of argument is that it is fallacious--the formal logical fallacy of denying the antecedent.

 

[Wings of Eagles]

The difficulty with that line of argument is that it is fallacious--the formal logical fallacy of denying the antecedent.

Hahah LOl...the difficulty with your comment, speedwell, is that you don't even understand what I have said or what the Scripture teaches.......Let Archivist answer the question please...it was directed toward HIM, not you.

 

[Archivist]

Another good comment, and you are correct, Bob, in saying it is the starting point....and it is essential for the CORRECT understanding of how sin and death came into the world...and in terms of how God solved man's sin and death problem by sending His Son to conquer sin and death.

To answer Archivist's question directly....about if it is essential for salvation..... Not directly since "whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved....but it must be done with sincerity and repentance for sin. However, lack of knowledge of Creation and the fall could prevent a person from salvation simply by his neglect of his sinful condition. Thus the WHOLE truth is necessary.

How so? First, you must realize (and that which most Theistic evolutionists don't understand or choose to ignore) is THE most fundamental doctrine in the whole Bible and in Christianity originates in the fall of man....AND that is no minor thing... Here's the reason...The consequences of sin was that DEATH came into the world...

SIN was so tragic that it affected the entire creation, not just man....and the consequence was DEATH. There was no death before sin....not in animals or in man.... Paul explained this explicitly in Romans 5:12 by revealing that...
" Wherefore BY ONE MAN SIN ENTERED THE WORLD, and DEATH (came) BY SIN, and so DEATH PASSED UPON ALL MEN...".....Later in that Chapter he speaks of how by one man (Jesus) sin was conquered ....God
sent his Son to deal with and conquer both sin (on the cross) and Death (at the resurrection) ...
Evilution on the other hand MINIMIZES sin and its consequences by saying that death was ALWAYS here and part of the natural process for billions of years (and sin had nothing to do with it)....and thus there is no need for a Savior.
Can you see now , Archivist, how belief in theistic EVILution and the Scriptures are mutually exclusive??

If you claim to be a Christian, Archivist, WHY would you call the most fundamental biblical doctrine a lie by claiming evolution happened?? Christ paid a horrific price precisely BECAUSE evolution never happened.....If, you, Archivist, say that it did happen, then you are telling the world that because sin didn't cause death, then there is no need for a Savior and no need for a resurrection to conquer death...Is that REALLY what you want to broadcast to the world...??
Wings

I just love when people make false accusations. Specifically where in this thread did I call "the most fundamental Biblical doctrine a lie." Please show me exactly where I said that.

Obviously physical death existed long before man came into being. It was spiritual death that entered the world as a result of sin. So yes, mankind was in need of our Lord and Savior because we are saved from spiritual death only by being cleansed by the Blood of the Lamb. And no, sin did not enter the world because a talking snake convinced a woman to eat a piece of fruit. You are, of course, welcome to believe that if you like. You are entitled to your interpretation of Scripture, just as others, myself included, are entitled to our interpretation.

And to keep the thread on point, you have admitted that it is not a salvation issue.

 

[Archivist]

Hahah LOl...the difficulty with your comment, speedwell, is that you don't even understand what I have said or what the Scripture teaches.......Let Archivist answer the question please...it was directed toward HIM, not you.

This is an open forum, Wings of Eagles. Speedwell is welcome to answer any questions that he wants to answer.

 

[ScottA]

It's not a salvation issue. Some say it is, but even those people usually say that it is only a salvation issue due to where it leads (see below), and agree that it isn't a salvation issue in and of itself.



There are two questions there. For a debate to happen, the issue has to be cared about by both sides of the discussion (otherwise, one side says "meh.", and the discussion is over.). So you are actually asking two questions: 1. Why do evolution supporters care? and 2. Why do creationists care?

After being in these discussion for over 20 years, and seeing all the arguments (from both sides) many times over from many different people, posting literally thousands of messages about this topic (and reading dozens of thousands of posts on it), the answers to both questions above seem pretty clear to me. So here are my answers.

First, the easier one - question #1. Why do evolution supporters (like myself) care to discuss this?

Because evolution is not only supported beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence, but is critical to many of the technologies that run our modern world. By denying evolution, one prevents oneself from being able to contribute in many areas, and hence to have a good job. Thus teaching evolution denial to kids often robs them of a secure future, and thus hurts our society and everyone in it. Evolution denial also hurts Christianity, making the Gospel look like willfully ignorant mumblings, as St. Augustine pointed out centuries ago. I'll leave it at that, because I suspect you are more interested in question #2.

Question #2. Why do creationists care to discuss evolution?

Because they don't see Genesis as "looking like" or "intended as" a metaphor. Thus, as the word of God intended literally, accepting evolution would mean intentionally and knowingly rejecting God's word. If that's done, that's blasphemous - regardless of evidence. Or, even if it's unclear whether or not it is intended literally, rejecting a literal reading of any scripture that is not clearly non-literal call into question all other scripture, allowing it to be read non-literally. So what's next? Christ's miracles were non-literal, so they didn't actually happen (though in John's Gospel they are routinely used as proof of Christ's divinity - so then Christ is no longer divine?)? Then we stop seeing the resurrection as literally true? Is there anything left of the Christian faith if one can take any and everything as non-literal? Thus, accepting evolution means rejecting Genesis, which leads to a rejection of the whole Bible (and hence losing one's salvation), which can make evolution a salvation issue.

Creationists, if that's not your main concern, or if I misstated it, please correct me.

So there's your answer.

Regarding question #2 (you main question), let me add my own thoughts.

I think the concerns raised above can be (indeed, must be) ignored by any Christian today. Why? Because that train has left the station long ago. Christians today already take large portions of scripture non-literally - portions that have a stronger claim to a literal reading than Genesis. Christians today can already read larger portions non-literally without any problem with calling fundamental doctrines into question.

Which sections? Many. Some examples:
Literally dozens of sections of scripture make it undeniably clear that a literal reading of the Bibles gives a flat earth under a hard sky dome. There is a much stronger case for biblical globe-denial than there is for evolution denial. You can see some of them in post #32 here: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ustify-not-being-flat-earthers.7926035/page-2


Jesus' return by the 3rd century. There is a much stronger case for Jesus' return before 200 AD than there is for evolution denial. Large sections of scripture, and many of Jesus' own words, are taken non-literally by nearly all Christians today on this topic.

Acceptance of slavery. There is a much stronger case for biblical support of slavery than there is for evolution denial. Large sections of scripture - including the 10 commandments, are taken non-literally (or just outright ignored) by nearly all Christians today on this topic.

A lower status (as property) of women. There is a much stronger case for biblical sexism than there is for evolution denial. Large sections of scripture - including the 10 commandments, are taken non-literally (or just outright ignored) by nearly all Christians today on this topic.

and so on. In the near future, as we move past many other outdated beliefs, new sections will join this growing list of topics where we Christians move past a literal reading of our scripture. Some of these are already pretty clear. Within a few decades the condemnation of homosexuality will likely be seen in the same way as slavery and sexism. The same goes for spanking children. Adding evolution to the list above will be easy and inevitable - especially since one can make a good case for a non-literal reading (much more so than any of these other topics).

In Christ-

Papias

Your two questions simply define the context of the issue...i.e.:

1. Is there a context where evolution proves out? Yes...however, it is limited to the [fallen] world. So, no, I don't care for this one all that much, nor do I prescribe to it, or recommend it.
2. Is there a context where evolution does not exist? Yes...God (and His reality) is unchanging - I prefer this one.

Bottom line, it is God who is true...and if that makes every belief and opinion in this fallen world...not true - I'm okay with that.

 

[Archivist]

Your two questions simply define the context of the issue...i.e.:

1. Is there a context where evolution proves out? Yes...however, it is limited to the [fallen] world. So, no, I don't care for this one all that much, nor do I prescribe to it, or recommend it.
2. Is there a context where evolution does not exist? Yes...God (and His reality) is unchanging - I prefer this one.

Bottom line, it is God who is true...and if that makes every belief and opinion in this fallen world...not true - I'm okay with that.

Actually the issue in this thread is whether it is a salvation issue.

 

[rjs330]

I just love when people make false accusations. Specifically where in this thread did I call "the most fundamental Biblical doctrine a lie." Please show me exactly where I said that.

Obviously physical death existed long before man came into being. It was spiritual death that entered the world as a result of sin. So yes, mankind was in need of our Lord and Savior because we are saved from spiritual death only by being cleansed by the Blood of the Lamb. And no, sin did not enter the world because a talking snake convinced a woman to eat a piece of fruit. You are, of course, welcome to believe that if you like. You are entitled to your interpretation of Scripture, just as others, myself included, are entitled to our interpretation.

And to keep the thread on point, you have admitted that it is not a salvation issue.

Physical death did not exist before the fall. Where in scripture can you support this?

 

[Archivist]

Physical death did not exist before the fall. Where in scripture can you support this?

No, spiritual death did not exist before the fall. Physical death did.

BTW the topic if the thread is whether belief in a literal Genesis creation us a salvation issue. Stay on topic.

 

[rjs330]

No, spiritual death did not exist before the fall. Physical death did.

BTW the topic if the thread is whether belief in a literal Genesis creation us a salvation issue. Stay on topic.

Well to be fair you did being up,the point.

 

[Archivist]

Well to be fair you did being up,the point.

No, i replied to a question. And if you read my reply you know that I attempted to get the thread back on track.

 

[rjs330]

No, i replied to a question. And if you read my reply you know that I attempted to get the thread back on track.

Yes you did. I guess I just figured once a point is made its free game to address even when answering a question.

 

[Archivist]

Yes you did. I guess I just figured once a point is made its free game to address even when answering a question.

Good point. I've just been trying to keep the thread on topic.

So, is it a salvation issue?

 

[Wings of Eagles]

Obviously physical death existed long before man came into being.

LOL...Really Archivist? Where in Scripture does it say that? Obviously, that is a PRESUMPTION on your part based STRICTLY on your erroneous belief in evolution philosophy ...It is found NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE. In FACT Scripture says JUST THE OPPOSITE.
"For by ONE man sin entered the world, and DEATH (came) by sin, and so death passed upon all men." -(Romans 5:12)
This is talking about PHYSICAL death.
The whole point of the Resurrection of the dead is to reverse the consequences of sin, namely, to reverse physical death BY A PHYSICAL resurrection of our bodies...just like Christ was risen from the PHYSICAL death.
Apostle Paul was discussing this PHYSICAL death & resurrection of Christ and how it meant we also will be PHYSICALLY raised from the dead, when he said: " But now Christ IS raised from the dead and has become the first fruits of them that slept (physically died). For since by (one) man came DEATH, so by (one) man came the resurrection of the dead." (1Corin. 15:20-21) The death he's talking about is what came from the LITERAL account of Adam in Genesis. He is comparing the physical resurrection to the physical consequences of Adam's sin, namely physical death.

Notice he uses the SAME language about physical death and resurrection as he did before (in Romans) about one man's sin (Adam) bringing death into the world.
NOTICE that OBVIOUSLY in BOTH cases.... "DEATH" and "Resurrection of the dead"...Paul is talking of PHYSICAL DEATH and PHYSICAL RESURRECTION".. Therefore YOUR statement above about physical death before Adam contradicts the revelation of Apostle Paul. Who do you think we should believe?? YOUR belief in evolution or Paul's revelation from God that physical death came from sin??

According to Paul here in I Corin. 15, to teach otherwise is FALSE doctrine.
"Now if Christ is preached that he rose from the DEAD (physical dead) how say some of you that there is no resurrection of the (physical) dead?...and if Christ is not risen then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain...Yea, and we are found FALSE WITNESSES of God....And if Christ be not raised , then YOU ARE YET (still) IN YOUR SINS." (1Corin 15:12-17)

So Yes, it is important to know this truth for salvation...especially to make sure you are no longer in your sins...
Believing YOUR statement that "Obviously, physical death was here long before man "came into being" leads men FURTHER AWAY from salvation in Christ because it removes the Biblical consequences of sin, namely physical death, and makes the necessity of the Resurrection of the dead completely unrelated to the consequences of sin.

If you Learn the Scriptures correctly Archivist, you will quit making up unbiblical doctrine just to accommodate your erroneous belief in evolution philosophy.
READ THE ENTIRE CHAPTER of 1Corin 15...Then you will see what nonsense it is to say, "Gee, he's only talking about "spiritual" death."

Its becoming obvious that you posted this question simply to try to justify your erroneous and unbiblical evolution beliefs.

Thanks for the laughs...


P.S."From the Beginning of Creation God made them male and female...." - Jesus