Is there evidence for both old earth AND world-wide Flood?

[hesalive]

Not divisive, but how about inclusive? IOW, instead of assuming that there is only one way to get to heaven, how about if God realized that people differ and that what works for one person won't work for another. Therefore God deliberately left many places vague so that each person could find the path that worked best for him/her? Since all the paths lead to the same end -- God -- God didn't care which path we took, as long as we took one.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So that people who were most comfortable viewing him as the son of God, the adopted son of God, a prophet, or just a wise teacher could all be comfortable following his words and thus coming to God.

Would you propose that someone thinking Jesus was just a wise teacher could be saved?

 

[Bushido216]

IIRC, Jesus admonished his followers for trying to stop a man from helping people in the village because he wasn't a follower of Jesus.

Jesus then told his followers to let him keep going, because any man who did something that Jesus taught, did it in Jesus's name, no matter what.

I hope this sheds some light on the discussion. All I have to do now is find the verse.

 

[Curt]

Jesus said that those who are for me or not against me. I can go to a football game and be for, and or against doesn't mean I am part of the team.

That has nothing to do with will they be saved to eternal life. Every on who goes to heaven will get there like He told us it would be.

The topic:

Definitely for the flood, none for old earth other than man manufactured to promote a false doctrine just like with all of mens false doctrines.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Way to go Curt.

You have lived quite a while but know little.

PS

You must have lied to enlist in WWII since you were only 17 when the war ended.

 

[hesalive]

You know, when I first learned of the Creation Science movement a couple of years ago I was very excited about the implications toward Christian appologetics. It seemed a very valuable tool in sharing the good news with people who just needed some evidence. I had no idea that there would be so much controversy within Christian circles as all this. As I see it, a forum such as this could potentially hold value to me in testing the opinions that I hold by offering them up to critisizm within a Christian circle. I have no shortage of critics on the secular side. But so far I have found little of that. Only people who apparently have nothing but time on their hands dug in on opposing trenches lobbing comments at eachother. I have found it difficult to not comment on some of the things I have read here, but where will that get me, or more importantly, where will that get the Great Commission.

I am very disheartened by comments that dethrone our creator and make Him into just an "adopted son of God, a prophet, or just a wise teacher". So far Theistic Evolution proponents have displayed themselves to be very problematic and offer no compelling logic that would glorify our God and compel non-believers to consider Gods calling.

How many people do you know that have been saved this month? What part did you play? That is what is supremely important.

I am sure someone will lob a comment back and in doing so will miss the point.

"Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven"

 

[artybloke]

So far Theistic Evolution proponents have displayed themselves to be very problematic and offer no compelling logic that would glorify our God and compel non-believers to consider Gods calling.

....
"Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven"

You know, what makes me a theistic evolutionist, apart from the scientific evidence is that it seems to me that the creationist God is too small. The God of creationism seems to me to be one that can only work miracles, rather than be the great Architect of the whole creation, from the beginning to the present, who set up the laws of creation, who upholds the whole universe from moment to moment, through purely natural means, without the need for recourse to miraculous zap-pow moments.

The God of Creationism is not the Creator of the Universe: he is in fact a God of the Gaps. Creationists have already conceded to Atheism the most important part of creation: the natural world. Atheists say that things occur in the natural world without the need for a diety; creationists agree with this but they say that God "must" sometimes interfere with miraculous events to keep things going. But whenever someone finds a natural mechanism to explain what used to be "miraculous", God's area of activity gets smaller and smaller. For Theistic Evolutionists, God is present in the whole natural order of things, from the Big Bang to now.

I suspect there's a dualism at the heart of fundamentalism. The natural world is somehow "evil" so God can't touch it; but the spiritual is "good." Yet at the heart of Christianity is the incarnation: God becoming Man. Not God looking like man, but really being divine all along: but God BECOMING Man, in the fleah, down to the atoms and sub-atomic particles of our being. And because God becomes Man we can become "like God."

Theistic evolution doesn't have a distant God merely working miracles from above; it has a God who is involved in the whole universe: omnipresent as well as omnipotent; and incarnational God. We can argue about how exactly that works; but that is at the centre of my faith.

....

Another reason why I'm a theistic evolutionist is that it means I don't have to lie or to close my eyes to the truth in order to uphold the Gospel of Christ. I couldn't love Christ enough if I didn't first of all love truth. I do not believe that the Gospel can be preached if it is supported by lies and falsehoods, and by the willfull blindness of those who support creationism. I've seen some dreadful falsehoods spread in the name of creationism: use of misquotation and misattribution, wrong descriptions and uses of theories, frauds, and all kinds of attempts to ignore plain facts. Some of it on this forum.

If all the evidence of science is telling me to abandon what is in any case only one way of reading and interpreting the Bible, and I choose to put my interpretation over the evidence of God's revelation of himself in nature, then I am commiting an idolatrous act by putting my interpretation of the Bible over the truth.

 

[lucaspa]

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

How about "in my father's house are many rooms. If it were not so I would have told you."?

The question, hesalive, is whether John 14:6 is simply an organizational chart. That is, if you send a memo to the CEO, it comes to the President whether you thought it did or not. So, this describes the situation, but still doesn't mean other paths to God are wrong; just that they will all go thru Jesus whether the person thinks they do or not.

Also, weren't we talking about paths within Christianity? That being the case, then John 14:6 applies to all of them, whether we are talking Adoptionism or Trinity.

Would you propose that someone thinking Jesus was just a wise teacher could be saved?

Wouldn't you? If that person heeded the teacher and "loved the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and loved your neighbor as yourself", wouldn't that person be saved?

 

[lucaspa]

You know, when I first learned of the Creation Science movement a couple of years ago I was very excited about the implications toward Christian appologetics. It seemed a very valuable tool in sharing the good news with people who just needed some evidence. I had no idea that there would be so much controversy within Christian circles as all this. As I see it, a forum such as this could potentially hold value to me in testing the opinions that I hold by offering them up to critisizm within a Christian circle.

Isn't that what we are doing? Criticizing Creation Science and your opinions from within a Christian circle? Or by "criticizing" do you really mean "agreeing with"?

Creationism and Creation Science is not a valuable tool for apologetics. Instead, it is the best tool atheism has ever had. Why? Because it does what can't be done: it puts the essence of Christianity into science. Science works by falsifying ideas -- showing them to be wrong. By tying unfalsifiable ideas about the existence of God, God created, salvation, etc. to very testable scientific theories about how God created, you set God up to be falsified.

Look thru the atheist websites and discussion boards. They love Biblical literalists and creationists. Why? Because that is the only version of Christianity atheists can show to be wrong! Creation Science plays right into the hands of atheists. Atheists try to make all Christians be creationists.

but where will that get me, or more importantly, where will that get the Great Commission.

It will get you to a position where Christianity can be logically and intellectually defended from attack by atheism.

I am very disheartened by comments that dethrone our creator and make Him into just an "adopted son of God, a prophet, or just a wise teacher".

1. This is a misrepresentation of what I said. I said that leaving many doctrinal positions vague meant that it left open many paths for people to find God. I did not say that Jesus was an adopted son, a prophet, or "just a wise teacher." You must read what people are saying and don't put words into their mouths. What I said was that, even if people held these views (not saying they were correct) the flexibility and vagueness of scripture means that these people can still find God. And isn't that what you are interested in -- people finding God? Or are you interested in ramming down your version of God down people's throats?

2. Remember, the adopted son of God idea was a very popular one among early Christians. It remained popular up thru the time of Arius and the Council of Nicea decided in favor of Trinity. I'm not willing to think that all those Christians were cut off from God because the verses are vague enough to allow that idea.

So far Theistic Evolution proponents have displayed themselves to be very problematic and offer no compelling logic that would glorify our God and compel non-believers to consider Gods calling.

AH! Your complaint is that we are not proseletyzers! Sorry, but there is nothing in science to compel non-believers to convert. Trying to portray science as having such a compulsion would be dishonest and false witness. I can't think that we could entice non-believers to consider God's calling thru false witness, can you? After all, what happens when they discover the false witness?

Is this what you want to do? Use false witness of Creation Science for conversion? Let's see. You want to break the 9th Commandment in order to save people's souls. I can't see you saving anyone that way but I can see you losing your own soul in the process.

How many people do you know that have been saved this month? What part did you play? That is what is supremely important.

Is it? Can you save people by false witness?

 

[lucaspa]

The topic:

Definitely for the flood, none for old earth other than man manufactured to promote a false doctrine just like with all of mens false doctrines.

Curt, the Flood as a word-wide event was falsified by 1831, before Darwin had even thought of evolution by natural selection.

And it was falsified by Christians. Every one of them. Many of them, such as Rev. Sedgwick and Rev. Buckland, were ministers. Even tho they falsified the Flood, all of them were still special creationists. That is, they believed that God had specially made each species. Even Lyell.

So, just what "false doctrine" do you think they were promoting?

And no, the evidence is not manufactured. After all, metamorphic rocks are not manufactured, are they? But there is no way they can be made in less than tens of millions of years.

 

[lucaspa]

The God of Creationism is not the Creator of the Universe: he is in fact a God of the Gaps. Creationists have already conceded to Atheism the most important part of creation: the natural world. Atheists say that things occur in the natural world without the need for a diety; creationists agree with this

Which means that Creationism is atheism in sheep's clothing.

I suspect there's a dualism at the heart of fundamentalism. The natural world is somehow "evil" so God can't touch it; but the spiritual is "good."

Another problem of Creationism. This is the Manichean heresy. Not only is Creationism atheism at heart, but when it tries to be theism, it is heresy.

Theistic evolution doesn't have a distant God merely working miracles from above; it has a God who is involved in the whole universe: omnipresent as well as omnipotent; and incarnational God. We can argue about how exactly that works; but that is at the centre of my faith.

"The scientific evidence in favour of evolution, as a theory is infinitely more Christian than the theory of 'special creation'. For it implies the immanence of God in nature, and the omnipresence of His creative power. Those who oppose the doctrine of evolution in defence of a 'continued intervention' of God, seem to have failed to notice that a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence." AL Moore, Science and Faith, 1889, pg 184.

If ... I choose to put my interpretation over the evidence of God's revelation of himself in nature, then I am commiting an idolatrous act by putting my interpretation of the Bible over the truth.

Yep!