Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[mark kennedy]

OK, I get it. I am used to the convention of using small "c" creationism for the idea that God created the universe, and big "C" Creationism for the YEC version.

Your missing something though. God created life.

 

[Speedwell]

Your missing something though. God created life.

Are living creatures not a part of the universe?

Why bring it up? Unless you think I believe in a God who started the universe and then sat back to twiddle his thumbs while the universe developed on its own.

Here's a question for you: Do you think that if science could definitively show that life arose through natural causes that God's direct authorship of life would be precluded?

 

[Archivist]

The Nicene Creed dedicates the first three stanzas to creation. It never occured to anyone that creation is fictional poetry. There has been talk from time to time about whether or not literal days are necessary.

Actually the second and third stanzas deal with creation. The first stanza is a simply "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty." And given that none of us we around when it wasw drafted, we don't now whether it had occurred to anyone at that time that it was simply an allegory. Of course at one time "male and female, He created them" was read by some as meaning that Adam and Eve each had both male and female genitalia.

By the way, belief that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ has been pretty common down thru church history.

Yes, I know that. However some in this thread are saying otherwise.

 

[mark kennedy]

Are living creatures not a part of the universe?

Why bring it up? Unless you think I believe in a God who started the universe and then sat back to twiddle his thumbs while the universe developed on its own.

Here's a question for you: Do you think that if science could definitively show that life arose through natural causes that God's direct authorship of life would be precluded?

You missing the content of the opening text, Genesis chapter one is explicit and has no figurative language. You never going to get this until you start to realize creation is confirmed by the New Testament witness.

But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Mark 10:6-9)
​

Jesus directly quotes the Genesis passage indicating Adam was created. I think it's safe to say that the Son of God knows whether or not Adam was created and certainly his exposition of the text is anything but figurative. Adam is spoken of repeatedly in the New Testament and always spoken of as the first parent of humanity:

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38)

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Rom. 5:14)

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1Cor. 15:22)

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (1Cor. 15:45)

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (1Tim. 2:13)

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1Tim. 2:14)

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, (1Tim. 1:14)
​

This isn't some isolated text taken out of context, it's not some private interpretation of an obscure passage. The collective testimony of Scripture is uniform and unambiguous. Caution is advisable when dealing with the testimony of Scripture and certainly when you are attempting to teach it:

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2Pet. 3:16)
​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually the second and third stanzas deal with creation. The first stanza is a simply "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty." And given that none of us we around when it wasw drafted, we don't now whether it had occurred to anyone at that time that it was simply an allegory. Of course at one time "male and female, He created them" was read by some as meaning that Adam and Eve each had both male and female genitalia.

Yes, I know that. However some in this thread are saying otherwise.

We don't know if they take creation figuratively or maybe God modified...something or someone...really. The virgin birth, resurrection and final judgment, are we going to speculate if those should be taken figuratively. There is no question that creation was taken literally, to suggest otherwise is absurd.

 

[Speedwell]

You missing the content of the opening text, Genesis chapter one is explicit and has no figurative language. You never going to get this until you start to realize creation is confirmed by the New Testament witness.

But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Mark 10:6-9)
​

Jesus directly quotes the Genesis passage indicating Adam was created. I think it's safe to say that the Son of God knows whether or not Adam was created and certainly his exposition of the text is anything but figurative. Adam is spoken of repeatedly in the New Testament and always spoken of as the first parent of humanity:

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38)

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Rom. 5:14)

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1Cor. 15:22)

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (1Cor. 15:45)

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (1Tim. 2:13)

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1Tim. 2:14)

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, (1Tim. 1:14)
​

This isn't some isolated text taken out of context, it's not some private interpretation of an obscure passage. The collective testimony of Scripture is uniform and unambiguous. Caution is advisable when dealing with the testimony of Scripture and certainly when you are attempting to teach it:

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2Pet. 3:16)
​

Grace and peace,
Mark

I'm not missing anything. I do not believe that the use of Genesis by Jesus and the NT authors endorses the proposition that the text of Genesis can only be the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration.

 

[Archivist]

You missing the content of the opening text, Genesis chapter one is explicit and has no figurative language. You never going to get this until you start to realize creation is confirmed by the New Testament witness.

But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Mark 10:6-9)
​

Jesus directly quotes the Genesis passage indicating Adam was created. I think it's safe to say that the Son of God knows whether or not Adam was created and certainly his exposition of the text is anything but figurative. Adam is spoken of repeatedly in the New Testament and always spoken of as the first parent of humanity:

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38)

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Rom. 5:14)

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1Cor. 15:22)

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (1Cor. 15:45)

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (1Tim. 2:13)

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1Tim. 2:14)

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, (1Tim. 1:14)
​

This isn't some isolated text taken out of context, it's not some private interpretation of an obscure passage. The collective testimony of Scripture is uniform and unambiguous. Caution is advisable when dealing with the testimony of Scripture and certainly when you are attempting to teach it:

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2Pet. 3:16)
​

Grace and peace,
Mark

But I have seen judges and others reference Uncle Sam as if he is a real person. In a 1936 opinion, the great Judge Musmanno wrote "Has anyone clapped eyes on Uncle Sam? But who dares to say that he is not a factuality? Uncle Sam, who wears in his hat the stars of the heavens which canopy our brave land, and who adorns his clothing with the red of the sacrifice of our martyrs, the white of the purity of our nation's ideals, and the blue of the devotion of its every citizen. Deny Uncle Sam and you deny the existence of the greatest nation of all history--the United States of America." Jesus and the others may well have been referencing the story of Adam and Eve as an allegory and nothing more.

​

 

[Archivist]

We don't know if they take creation figuratively or maybe God modified...something or someone...really. The virgin birth, resurrection and final judgment, are we going to speculate if those should be taken figuratively. There is no question that creation was taken literally, to suggest otherwise is absurd.

Well, I'm suggesting otherwise so I guess that I, like the majority of Christians, am being absurd.

 

[Hieronymus]

My question: Does it really matter?

Is a chair with unreliable legs safe to sit on?
Can you trust it?


Why would a theist, a Christian in particular, or for that matter any believer in God of the Old Testament, subscribe to naturalistic models, (i.e. models without God's influence) that attempt to explain our origins?

The answer is that Genesis denying (and not just Genesis 1, 2 and 3) Christians believe that naturalistic models represent proven science.
The chair has new trustworthy legs in their minds.
But the seat doesn't endorse the new legs at all.
If the new legs are best, the seat is not trustworthy either, meaning Jesus lied a lot, because He confirms the old legs.

So, are the new legs of the chair any good?
Or are they just legs of a different chair?
Folks, we shouldn't be so stupid as to build theistic beliefs on atheistic foundations.
People fail, even REFUSE to acknowledge that naturalism is just as much a belief as super-naturalism, in this case creationism and actually the bulk of Genesis.

There are Christians who say: "There is no evidence for the Flood whatsoever."
Are they ignorant? Yes, because there is plenty of evidence for the Flood.
How about the rock layers with millions of rapidly fossilized organisms in them?
But they look through naturalistic glasses so they don't see it.
They have been taken by the models of billions of years.
Peer pressure?
Probably.

It breaks my heart to see brethren ignore, deny and ridicule different interpretations of the data we have gathered, and seemingly blindly embrace the Godless interpretations.
Even when fellow Christians encourage them to be more critical.
As if the Godless interpretations are super strong! Well, they're not !!

Sorry, didn't mean to do a rant...

So is it a salvation issue?
Yes, probably.
But God will be the Judge of that.
But i don't think He is too fond of people who think his written Word is to be taken lightly.
Especially when the reasons for taking it lightly are so weak.
I don't think He is too fond of people who scoff their fellow believers who seek the truth beyond Godless models and beliefs.

 

[Speedwell]

Why would a theist, a Christian in particular, or for that matter any believer in God of the Old Testament, subscribe to naturalistic models, (i.e. models without God's influence) that attempt to explain our origins?

Because we know better than to suppose that naturalistic models exclude God's influence.

Here is a question for you that one of your Creationist colleagues just dodged: Do you think that if science could definitively show that life arose through natural causes that God's direct authorship of life would be ruled out?

 

[Archivist]

Is a chair with unreliable legs safe to sit on?
Can you trust it?


Why would a theist, a Christian in particular, or for that matter any believer in God of the Old Testament, subscribe to naturalistic models, (i.e. models without God's influence) that attempt to explain our origins?

The answer is that Genesis denying (and not just Genesis 1, 2 and 3) Christians believe that naturalistic models represent proven science.
The chair has new trustworthy legs in their minds.
But the seat doesn't endorse the new legs at all.
If the new legs are best, the seat is not trustworthy either, meaning Jesus lied a lot, because He confirms the old legs.

So, are the new legs of the chair any good?
Or are they just legs of a different chair?
Folks, we shouldn't be so stupid as to build theistic beliefs on atheistic foundations.
People fail, even REFUSE to acknowledge that naturalism is just as much a belief as super-naturalism, in this case creationism and actually the bulk of Genesis.

There are Christians who say: "There is no evidence for the Flood whatsoever."
Are they ignorant? Yes, because there is plenty of evidence for the Flood.
How about the rock layers with millions of rapidly fossilized organisms in them?
But they look through naturalistic glasses so they don't see it.
They have been taken by the models of billions of years.
Peer pressure?
Probably.

It breaks my heart to see brethren ignore, deny and ridicule different interpretations of the data we have gathered, and seemingly blindly embrace the Godless interpretations.
Even when fellow Christians encourage them to be more critical.
As if the Godless interpretations are super strong! Well, they're not !!

Sorry, didn't mean to do a rant...

So is it a salvation issue?
Yes, probably.
But God will be the Judge of that.
But i don't think He is too fond of people who think his written Word is to be taken lightly.
Especially when the reasons for taking it lightly are so weak.
I don't think He is too fond of people who scoff their fellow believers who seek the truth beyond Godless models and beliefs.

The problem with what you are saying is that Genesis is not a book of history. Genesis tells me that God created everything. Science tells me how He did it.

So, exactly how would it be a salvation issue? Why do we have people in this thread who seem to think that Genesis must be taken literally, which denying the plain meaning of the words of our Savior, "this is my body" and "this is the New Testament in my blood." If it is required for salvation, why does a literal interpretation of Genesis not appear in the creeds?

And, no, there is no evidence of a worldwide flood.

 

[Hieronymus]

Because we know better than to suppose that naturalistic models exclude God's influence.

That's just senseless denial, sorry.
Naturalistic models have no God in them and you know it.
I'm not supposing anything, it's just the meaning of "natural" and "naturalistic".
Naturalism, and you know this, is a belief system that only acknowledges the natural.

 

[Hieronymus]

The problem with what you are saying is that Genesis is not a book of history.

Say the naturalists, say their models.
You prove my point.

 

[Archivist]

Say the naturalists, say their models.
You prove my point.

Actually so say the majority of Christians.

 

[Hieronymus]

Actually so say the majority of Christians.

Gee, i wonder why...

(i doubt it's the majority though)

 

[Archivist]

Gee, i wonder why...

(i doubt it's the majority though)

A majority of Christians are Roman Catholic, and the Catholic Church supports theistic evolution. I am not Roman Catholic, I'm Lutheran, but I certainly ascribe to theistic evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

That's just senseless denial, sorry.
Naturalistic models have no God in them and you know it.
I'm not supposing anything, it's just the meaning of "natural" and "naturalistic".
Naturalism, and you know this, is a belief system that only acknowledges the natural.

Humbug! Philosophers and theologians have know better since Aristotle. You can believe what you like, but don't take it for granted that we share your ignorance of metaphysics. You cannot persuade us that accepting the methodological naturalism of science is tantamount to agreeing to the metaphysical naturalism of atheism. You cannot drive us from our faith in Christ with such shallow arguments.

 

[Hieronymus]

A majority of Christians are Roman Catholic, and the Catholic Church supports theistic evolution. I am not Roman Catholic, I'm Lutheran, but I certainly ascribe to theistic evolution.

O, wait, i misunderstood you there.
You meant the majority of 'Christians' says the same as the Godless say in regards to Genesis.
Yes, so it seems.
And for all the wrong reasons...

But wait, theistic evolution is not ToE.
So i guess you try to mix things then.
I suppose many do that.
I'm not sure what to think of theistic evolution, i guess it's the range between ToE (which is atheistic / naturalistic) and creation.
There is however no compelling evidence for evolution at all, except perhaps for some micro-evolution.

 

[Hieronymus]

Humbug!

You apparently don't know what naturalism is.

 

[Archivist]

O, wait, i misunderstood you there.
You meant the majority of 'Christians' says the same as the Godless say in regards to Genesis.
Yes, so it seems.
And for all the wrong reasons...

No. It would help if you actually took the time to read what I and others have written inbthis thread. Genesis tells us that God created everything. Science tells we Christians who ascribe to theistic evolution how He did it. That is not "the same as the Godless say." I do't believe that "the Godless" say that God created everything.