Scientific INterpretation of Evidence

[Andy D]

Just noticed this temporary closing of the thread...so is the thread open or closed at the moment?

 

[GodSaves]

It is open.

Take Care and God Bless

 

[mark kennedy]

I sometimes have a hard time finding any real difference between the arguments of TE and evolution as it is believed and taught in the secular world. Evolution as it is demonstrated in natural science is a perfectly rational explanation for the emergance of diversity in populations over time. It does not require the Creationist to abandon the principles of redemptive history in order to embrace natural science as a source for learning and growing in knowledge. Had evolution stayed out of my theology I would have no problem with it but to attack Christians for taking the Bible literally is not walking in faith, it's a compromise with the spirit of the age.

Where you have to draw the line is with regards to core convictions about the power of God. I have had a number of exchanges with TE Christians and in some cases I got the distinct impression that they were indeed Christian on a basic level but I have yet to hear the Gospel from them. Not a hint about the ressurection, redemptive history or final judgment. I think it is not only helpfull but critical that Christians learn the general discipline of natural science and relate it to their faith thoughtfully, prayerfully and diligently. I just will not accept the admonition of Christians that I worship a book because I take the wittness of the Scriptures literally.

Bottomline I don't think anyone should have to.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[StuckRags]

I have had a number of exchanges with TE Christians and in some cases I got the distinct impression that they were indeed Christian on a basic level but I have yet to hear the Gospel from them.

This statement confused me. Why would another Christian be preaching the Gospel to a Christian? I've read this whole thread and do not remember the Gospel being preached by one person, and for good reason, I thought..... Isn't the "meat" being discussed, not the "milk?"

 

[mark kennedy]

This statement confused me. Why would another Christian be preaching the Gospel to a Christian? I've read this whole thread and do not remember the Gospel being preached by one person, and for good reason, I thought..... Isn't the "meat" being discussed, not the "milk?"

I'm not talking about 'preaching' the Gospel, just expressing it. Since there is very little difference between the evolutionary thought of TE and evolution at large I sometimes wonder if they take anything in the Bible literally. It wouldn't matter so much were the miracles not so important the the Gospel message.

I have long considered the application of the Gospel to natural law to be the meat of the word. It takes mature and diligent thinking to understand how the ressurection and the power of God expressed in the original creation are not only related, but identical.

 

[theFijian]

I sometimes wonder if they take anything in the Bible literally

1 Cor 15:16,17
For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

I would not be a Christian if I did not believe that the Resurrection was a real event in history. Wonder all you like.

 

[StuckRags]

I'm not talking about 'preaching' the Gospel, just expressing it. Since there is very little difference between the evolutionary thought of TE and evolution at large I sometimes wonder if they take anything in the Bible literally. It wouldn't matter so much were the miracles not so important the the Gospel message.

I have long considered the application of the Gospel to natural law to be the meat of the word. It takes mature and diligent thinking to understand how the ressurection and the power of God expressed in the original creation are not only related, but identical.

Then I would have another theory that involves the difference in the critical thinking skills. I started off as a YEC'er, looked at TE and decided on PC (Progressive Creationism). I think TE's and PC's have a difference set of critical thinking skills which results in sticking to the point of an arguement or debate rather than going off on a tangent. If you are talking about origins among other Christians, the Gospel should nto come into the discussion unless one is accusing the other of not being a Christian (which would be an ad hominim (sp?) anyway). Origins should not be dependent on salvation doctrine. Therefore, one who believes it is not salvation doctrine, will not likely bring salvation doctrine into the discussion (again, unlessed force to do so by an ad hominim attack).

 

[GodSaves]

This statement confused me. Why would another Christian be preaching the Gospel to a Christian? I've read this whole thread and do not remember the Gospel being preached by one person, and for good reason, I thought..... Isn't the "meat" being discussed, not the "milk?"

Just out of curiousity, if you go to church, does your church speak preach about the Gospel, Jesus Christ, the cross, the resurrection?

 

[Vance]

Just out of curiousity, if you go to church, does your church speak preach about the Gospel, Jesus Christ, the cross, the resurrection?

Yes, but my church does not have "Origins Theology Discussion Forum" written in large letters over the top of the door.

Our primary discussion on these forums should be the pros and cons of the various approaches within the Christian community about evolution, Creation and the age of the earth, and directly related issues. To the extent that this involves a discussion of more general theology, and the Gospels in particular, then great, but this is not a forum for the discussion of the salvation message in particular. There are other forums for that.

 

[GodSaves]

Yes, but my church does not have "Origins Theology Discussion Forum" written in large letters over the top of the door.

Our primary discussion on these forums should be the pros and cons of the various approaches within the Christian community about evolution, Creation and the age of the earth, and directly related issues. To the extent that this involves a discussion of more general theology, and the Gospels in particular, then great, but this is not a forum for the discussion of the salvation message in particular. There are other forums for that.

The question was why would a Christian preach the Gospel to a Christian. The question didn't talk about where, but why a Christian would preach Jesus Christ to a Christian.

Your intent is clear, Vance. Let me know if you want to drop the issue of evolution vs creationism and want to preach the Gospel instead.

God Bless

 

[Vance]

Your intent is clear, Vance. Let me know if you want to drop the issue of evolution vs creationism and want to preach the Gospel instead.

First, what intent is so clear to you?

Second, why would I have to drop the issue of this important debate?

Third, you why would you think that I must drop that discussion in order to preach the Gospel? That makes no sense, I have been doing both just fine for a very long time.

 

[GodSaves]

First, what intent is so clear to you?

Second, why would I have to drop the issue of this important debate?

Third, you why would you think that I must drop that discussion in order to preach the Gospel? That makes no sense, I have been doing both just fine for a very long time.

I am aware that it makes no sense to you.

Take Care and God Bless

 

[Vance]

I am aware that it makes no sense to you.

Take Care and God Bless

The point is that I am doing both, which can't be denied.

The real question is why would we have this forum if we should all just abandon the issue? Does that mean that all the Creationists ministries should shut down?

As long as they are preaching their doctrine which is contradicting the teachings of other Christians (and sometimes in a very nasty way), why is it inappropriate to go on teaching the alternate doctrine in response?

 

[GodSaves]

The point is that I am doing both, which can't be denied.

The real question is why would we have this forum if we should all just abandon the issue? Does that mean that all the Creationists ministries should shut down?

As long as they are preaching their doctrine which is contradicting the teachings of other Christians (and sometimes in a very nasty way), why is it inappropriate to go on teaching the alternate doctrine in response?

The real question is why Jesus Christ told us, commanded us to preach the Gospel. It is a question of who you choose to listen to who.

I see you are more worried about a doctrine contradiction the teachings of Christians(man) then about a doctrine that contradicts the Bible.

Why would one turn the other cheek, just because Jesus told us to? Why follow His commandments of loving our neighbor as ourselves? It is much easier to to just say "Note to all YEC: RAMP!" or "YEC is damaging to Christianity." It is much easier to denounce people in public, then in private and in love. It is much easier to be rebellious then to follow God's Word. It is much easier to believe in what people show you then what you cannot see. So why believe what Paul said that faith is in what you cannot see?

Like I said, I am aware that this makes no sense to you. And I aware that you don't want it to make sense to you.

Im sorry Vance, but I answer to a higher authority, and I will be faithful to what I have learned from the Holy Spirit. I do not answer to man therefore I need not be concerned with what man wants to try and prove. I know what God has said, and don't completely understand how, but I know what He has said and I believe Him.

And Vance, remember no where have I said you don't believe Him. I know your tactics of trying to accuse me of what I have not said.

You have your mission to refute and denounce me and what I believe. Please continue if that is what you feel you must do. Please feel free to use me as a public example, ridicule me, denounce me, whatever you feel necessary for your ramp.

Again, if you want to spend the majority of your time preaching the Gospel, let me know. I will be the first YEC to stand next to you.

Take Care and God Bless

 

[Vance]

I am replying to this latest post in the main forum so that it would not be called debating and get deleted.

 

[mark kennedy]

Then I would have another theory that involves the difference in the critical thinking skills. I started off as a YEC'er, looked at TE and decided on PC (Progressive Creationism). I think TE's and PC's have a difference set of critical thinking skills which results in sticking to the point of an arguement or debate rather than going off on a tangent. If you are talking about origins among other Christians, the Gospel should nto come into the discussion unless one is accusing the other of not being a Christian (which would be an ad hominim (sp?) anyway). Origins should not be dependent on salvation doctrine. Therefore, one who believes it is not salvation doctrine, will not likely bring salvation doctrine into the discussion (again, unlessed force to do so by an ad hominim attack).

The Gospel is far more then a message and conversion that saves you from perdition. Redemptive history either happened in time or space or we have a collection of bedtime stories. I have no idea why people think I must be compelled to believe the earth and the universe is billions of years old. Occasionally someone will be good enough to try to educate me on how absolute dating works, which is nice of them, but cryptic dialougs about parent, daugther isotopes, half lives sounds like a lot of supposition to me.

I don't know how you can seperate you're science from you're salvation. Now if you can keep the two seperated then great but when atheists and TE apologists descend on Biblical literalism with the same skepticism and scorn I figure they have more in common with one another then with me. I take much of the Bible to be literal not because I think my salvation (or anyone elses for that matter) is at stake. You can believe God had the angels bring us here on spaceships and it wouldn't cause me to question you're salvation if you had the savor or Christ in you're speach. On the other hand calling other Christians blasphemers and idolaters because they take the Word of God as literally true and historically reliable is not Christian, it's divisive and argumentative.

I can understand why TE readily accepts an old earth and evolutionary thought as explanations for our origins. Actually I agree with a lot of the evolutionary concepts but draw the line when I'm told that believing in God supernaturally creating the world in week is a fairy tale.

 

[Micaiah]

Then I would have another theory that involves the difference in the critical thinking skills. I started off as a YEC'er, looked at TE and decided on PC (Progressive Creationism). I think TE's and PC's have a difference set of critical thinking skills which results in sticking to the point of an arguement or debate rather than going off on a tangent. If you are talking about origins among other Christians, the Gospel should nto come into the discussion unless one is accusing the other of not being a Christian (which would be an ad hominim (sp?) anyway). Origins should not be dependent on salvation doctrine. Therefore, one who believes it is not salvation doctrine, will not likely bring salvation doctrine into the discussion (again, unlessed force to do so by an ad hominim attack).

Can you explain your views as a progressive creationist? What are the basic differences between your views and TE's and YEC's. What Scripture references support your views?

 

[StuckRags]

Can you explain your views as a progressive creationist? What are the basic differences between your views and TE's and YEC's. What Scripture references support your views?

Here is a link on it.
http://www.answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM

If I had to describe it in one or two sentences, I would say it interprets "age" for "day" and then shows how God progressively had his hand in the creation of the universe and indeed, performed miraculous acts to bring about major features of His creation (e.g. Cambrian event, Adam and Eve), etc.

It also points out certain errors of YEC interpretations, for example, whereas YEC's would say God spoke EVERYTHING into existence, God did not SPEAK plants into existance. He had the earth bring forth the plants.

 

[TwinCrier]

And how did the Earth bring forth plants? Did the Earth decide this on it;s own? No, the word is clear: Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. As far as i know, the word said means the words were spoken.

 

[Micaiah]

Well spoken TwinCrier. Excuse the pun.