Should we not be seeking unity?

[Vance]

But SBG, the reality of the situation has never proven what you are saying. While we have had many, many testimonies that the dogmatic teaching of YEC'ism caused them a crisis of faith, and that the TE approach solidified and strengthened their faith, both in doctrine and in Scripture itself, never once has anyone on these forums indicated that the TE teaching caused them to doubt Scripture or doubt their Christian faith. So, if the proof is the "good fruit", which seems to be the better teaching?

And, please consider what TE's are saying. We are NOT saying that anyone can believe whatever they wish, and we are not saying that any old reading of Genesis is equally correct. There is only one set of truths being presented in Genesis, and we all should believe those truths in the same way. But what TE's say is that Genesis is not a science book, it is not a strict history book, and so it simply does not speak to the types of things that Creationists think it speaks to. The truths of Genesis that effect proper doctrine, we all agree on! Oddly (or not so oddly since we are talking about God the great communicator here), we ALL come to the same conclusions about everything that is important for Christian doctrine in Genesis. No matter HOW we read it from a historical or scientific standpoint, we all read it the same theologically! Isn't that what matters?

And, no, we should not let science control ANY Christian doctrine. And TE's don't do this, since their doctrine derived from Genesis has nothing to do with the historical/scientific aspects. In fact, it is YEC's who tie their reading of the creation accounts to the scientific aspects of HOW and WHEN, thus opening up their interpretation to CHALLENGES from science. For the TE, nothing in science can challenge what Genesis says, since Genesis is ABOVE sceintific principals, since as Billy Graham says "it is not a science book"!

Again, no one has ever said that they have lost their Christian faith, or even had it shaken, by TE beliefs. To the contrary, many have indicated how it strengthened their faith, and some even say it saved it. It is not a danger in the least. You are simply creating a false dilemma.

 

[Remus]

Again, no one has ever said that they have lost their Christian faith, or even had it shaken, by TE beliefs. To the contrary, many have indicated how it strengthened their faith, and some even say it saved it. It is not a danger in the least. You are simply creating a false dilemma.

How many have lost their faith because of evolution teaching? You hide behind your "TE" label and say that all you are doing is arguing against dogma and then go off and rip the Bible apart. Such a safe position to be in.

 

[Vance]

How many have lost their faith because of evolution teaching? You hide behind your "TE" label and say that all you are doing is arguing against dogma and then go off and rip the Bible apart. Such a safe position to be in.

It is very likely that many have lost their faith over the teaching of evolution. And why is that? Because they have ALSO believed that evolution was contrary to Scripture. Who taught them this? Only one of two sources, the atheists themselves or YEC's. By undoing this dichotomy, we take the fangs out of the atheistic teaching.

The real enemy here is the atheistic idea that God did not create the universe, and thus we can toss out Scripture and all Christian belief. It is pure naturalism, the idea that it all happens wihtout a God existing, that is the danger, not the process of evolutionary development.

 

[Remus]

Who taught them this? Only one of two sources, the atheists themselves or YEC's. By undoing this dichotomy, we take the fangs out of the atheistic teaching.

You still leave out those that figured this out for themsleves. I was clear enough on that in the other thread. So, either these people don't matter, or you are just being dishonest.

The real enemy here is the atheistic idea that God did not create the universe, and thus we can toss out Scripture and all Christian belief. It is pure naturalism, the idea that it all happens wihtout a God existing, that is the danger, not the process of evolutionary development.

The real enemy are the ones that attack people's faith. Of course this would include you.

 

[Vance]

Yes, some can come to a literal reading on their own, but unless someone tells them this is the ONLY way it can be read, they will almost always be open to other possibilities. People are usually fairly good that way. I am talking about the stubborn dogmatic belief that Augustine warns against. That is usually the result of religious teaching.

Yes, the real enemy are those who attack peoples faith. And that faith is attacked by atheistic presentations. But who is going to be stronger against such atheistic teachings? So far, the evidence seems to be indicating that the one who is not convinced that a strict YEC position is correct.

Again, I have never once seen anyone indicate that a presentation of the TE alternative has damaged their faith. It is a phantom menace you are seeing.

What I DO see is people who get edgy when their comfortable personal interpretation of Scripture is challenged.

 

[Remus]

It's just like talking to a brick wall.

 

[mhess13]

... So, if the proof is the "good fruit", which seems to be the better teaching?

... The truths of Genesis that effect proper doctrine, we all agree on! Oddly (or not so oddly since we are talking about God the great communicator here), we ALL come to the same conclusions about everything that is important for Christian doctrine in Genesis. No matter HOW we read it from a historical or scientific standpoint, we all read it the same theologically! Isn't that what matters?

I see a lot of "good fruits" from what Mormon missionaries teach. Does this mean that their teachings are correct?

We do not all agree on the theological truths in Genesis. TEs believe in death before sin. (and don't try and say that YECs ONLY believe death is physical, we believe in both physical and spiritual death occured at the Fall) This is a serious issue. The Bible calls death an enemy. Paul said death was the last enemy that Christ put under his feet--- 1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Note these verses speaking of death (physical death because the chapter is dealing with the BODILY resurrection)

1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming

1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
1Co 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law

TEs put death before sin, which we can see violates many scriptures in the New Testamnet

 

[SBG]

hm, I have yet to feel edgy about you attacking my faith. Odd.

I have yet to see anything from you Vance that is a challenge, but challenge away.

 

[mhess13]

hm, I have yet to feel edgy about you attacking my faith. Odd.

I have yet to see anything from you Vance that is a challenge, but challenge away.

I've certainly never seen him throw Scripture at ya! A lot of quotes from such and such and so and so, but I see little scripture to challenge you with!

 

[Vance]

Ah, but what is the theological truth about that issue that is essential for salvation? Only that Man is in a fallen state, a state of sin, a state of separation from God, and is in need of redemption. This is what is essential for salvation.

The ideas of what type of death Paul is referring to, the nature of physical death and spirtual death, etc, are all very interesting, and even important, but not essential for salvation.

The proof of this is very, very simple: people who believe there was death before the Fall are still seeking redemption with as much conviction as one who thinks there was no death before the Fall! The same effect from either belief on the "death before the fall" issue. And, you know what? They are receiving that redemption the same way, and to the same degree! There is no difference for salvation.

 

[Vance]

hm, I have yet to feel edgy about you attacking my faith. Odd.

I have yet to see anything from you Vance that is a challenge, but challenge away.

That is because I don't attack your faith. And I am only talking about those who seem to get upset when someone fails to agree with how they read Scripture. If that is not you, then great!

 

[SBG]

But I do agree you are attacking my faith. I just don't put that much stock into what you say. You have shown no interest in sound doctrine and have proven you are interested in misrepresenting the Church Fathers and Apostles.

But again, you have yet to present anything to successfully challenge my view, but if you feel you must, go right ahead.

 

[Vance]

Tell me what you think the purpose of this forum is.

 

[SBG]

According to Vance it is to undermine Christian teaching and more importantly the Bible. So present your cases where you conclude the Bible is in error if one understands it to be literal history concerning origins. You know like the one where God is liar of the earth is young so the earth must be old.

 

[Vance]

According to Vance it is to undermine Christian teaching and more importantly the Bible. So present your cases where you conclude the Bible is in error if one understands it to be literal history concerning origins. You know like the one where God is liar of the earth is young so the earth must be old.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[mhess13]

This forum SHOULD be a place for believers to debate the origins issue. However, Vance likes to take it a step further and attack YECs in the open forum as well

 

[SBG]

You didn't answer the question.

My apologies. This forum is to talk the origins according to the what the Bible says. I would think this would be the objective of any Bible believing Christian. Notice how often Churches today have to add in 'Bible believing' into their Church name and description? Wonder why....

 

[Vance]

Great, then all I or any other TE on this board has done is discuss the various pros and cons of the issues, scientific and theological. This happens all the time. As for attacking, do you think that providing arguments why someone believes your interpretation of Scripture or your view of the way God created is incorrect is "attacking your faith"? Do you see it as a personal attack?

Do you not agree that scientific evidences are part of this discussion?

I have not asked anyone to change their beliefs. I have shown why I thnk those beliefs are wrong, from a Biblical, theological and scientific basis. And you have done the same. You argue that my reading of Scripture is wrong, that my scientific arguments are wrong. You even argue that my motives are wrong. Do I treat is as a personal attack on me or my faith? Only the latter, never the former.

 

[SBG]

Great, then all I or any other TE on this board has done is discuss the various pros and cons of the issues, scientific and theological. This happens all the time. As for attacking, do you think that providing arguments why someone believes your interpretation of Scripture or your view of the way God created is incorrect is "attacking your faith"? Do you see it as a personal attack?

I have no problem with you presenting arguments for your position. But your comments that if the earth is young God is liar, hence the earth is old, are uncalled for. As a Christian, I detest comments such as these; attributing God to being a liar IF something is true. God is never a liar in any circumstance because God cannot sin. This SHOULD be a non issue and SHOULDN'T even be being discussed as an IF type of phrase.

You attack my faith by stating the Bible contains contradictions if Genesis is read literally as a historical account. You attack my faith by stating the Apostles were wrong on this issue of theology. You attack my faith by saying Jesus Christ didn't understand science. You attack my faith by saying Jesus Christ is in error if we read the mustard seed literally. You attack my faith when you say Jesus Christ evolved from an ape.

Do you not agree that scientific evidences are part of this discussion?

Last I checked this was a theology forum, not a science one. But your scientific evidence doesn't sway me in the slightest. For I will not base my understanding of the Bible off of interpretations of evidence that call for an old earth. A view that was held by the Greeks and was refuted by Church Fathers and the Apostles.

I have not asked anyone to change their beliefs. I have shown why I thnk those beliefs are wrong, from a Biblical, theological and scientific basis. And you have done the same. You argue that my reading of Scripture is wrong, that my scientific arguments are wrong. You even argue that my motives are wrong. Do I treat is as a personal attack on me or my faith? Only the latter, never the former.

You have asked me to simply say we can both interpret differently, even in opposition, and yet both still be correct. This is a change in belief for me, for it is to compromise the Bible with the wisdom of the world.

I argue that you are wrong theologically. I have not spent anytime arguing about the science, other than stating that all te's leave out the fact that scientists interpret evidence and evidence alone does not speak.

I have presented Church Fathers writings to show you how the early Church believed and were taught by the Apostles. You said you don't believe this.

Your motives are wrong because you request compromise between God's word and the wisdom of the world. You then further your attempt with misrepresentations of Church Fathers. You are looking for yec's to say we can all interpret differently and all still be right. You even have said that the Jesus Seminar teachings are not a big problem as yec teaching of a young earth created in six days. Yet, you call the origin issue a non issue, and Jesus Christ rising from dead is an issue for salvation as Paul has stated. And you don't think that is as big of a deal as yec teaching. I say your motives are completely wrong.

Further more, your obsession of boasting about yourself and all that you have done, show your pride in this area. You continually like to point how you are at college campuses, a Gideon, your rep points, your pms, etc. I am not call these things bad, but you use them to boast about yourself, so that you can place yourself in an area of doing good. By this, you show how prideful you really are. In this pride, you will not hear anything we have to say, because you are stuck on yourself. It is all about you Vance, and you love every minute of this pride.

So yes, your motivation is very much lacking credibility. As I have said, I have no problem with evolution. I have a problem with people misrepresenting God's word and the early Church. You will not even hear this, for you believe you are a great man doing wonderful things, while you dispute the Bible. You cannot serve two masters, pick one and then stop pretending.

 

[shernren]

I think the whole problem is that we all are spending too much time looking at each other and too little time looking around. We shouldn't attack others, we should discuss what others believe. But what could I possibly say to have you YEC people make peace with me the great distorter of God's Words and the revealed truth through the Apostolic Fathers?

(Other than "I give up! You guys are right, even if I don't believe it!" )

Ok lemme ask something objective. Assuming (just for a split second) that we don't take into account the sayings and teachings of the Fathers. Then, by the Bible alone, would the Bible suffer in any way from loss of integrity if the Genesis origin passages were treated not as historical truth but rather as foundational assumptions of the Christian worldview? Things that don't exist can be very very real and true.

To give a specific example: what if when Paul wrote that sin came before death, he was not referring to a historical Garden-of-Eden fall, but to the foundational reality that sin is the cause of total (complete-human) death? Would that position in any way insult the Bible or Apostle Paul?