St. Augustine and Creation

Hi jamsie,

Listen, I get it. I understand that not everyone agrees with me and that's certainly ok with me. I just don't think that any of this particular issue is really the great bugaboo that some are trying to make it out to be. I don't know of anyone, including myself, who sits down with a friend or stranger and starts up a discussion about knowing Jesus and telling them the good news of God's salvation, and within that conversation even brings up the issue of the age of the creation.

All of these people in your first link are claimed believers. Most of them apparently even believed at one time in the young earth model. But....science has turned them away from that. Look, that's also ok with me. As I posted in my earlier thread, not all of those who bear the name christian will be saved. I think Jesus was very, very clear when telling his disciples that not every one who says to me, "Lord, Lord". Will be saved. He says that there will be many, who on the day of his Father's judgment, will be crying out to him that he surely must know them because they did great miracles and deeds and prophesied in his name.

Friend, no one on this earth has ever done anything in Jesus' name that didn't identify as a christian to the world. There are no atheists going around holding seances and feeding the poor and prophesying in Jesus' name. There are no muslims going around doing miraculous deeds in Jesus' name. There are no Hindus or Buddhists who are visiting the sick and poor and the brokenhearted and doing great things for them, in Jesus' name. All these many people that are calling out to Jesus lived upon the earth at some point and proclaimed themselves to be christians doing things in the name of Jesus. Yet, Jesus said that he never knew them.

What do you think? I mean personally, just your understanding. Did Jesus believe that the account of his Father of the manner and time of the creation of all things was as his Father said? Maybe that's why Jesus never knew them. Jesus said that believers would be one with him and the Father. What if our denying the truth of the very first words of the Scriptures is why Jesus doesn't know them? Sure, they did wonderful things in the name of Jesus, but they didn't believe all that God has told us. Did Jesus not believe all that God has told us?

I'm just curious, and I've asked the question many times, what is it about those 'many christians' that caused Jesus not to know them?

Do you believe that on the day we are all called to judgment that God's going to look out across the sea of faces and say, "Man, I'm sure glad science was able to straighten you guys out on that account I gave you of my creating all that exists in both the heavens and the earth."

God bless,
In Christ, ted

miamited said:

Hi jamsie,
What do you think? I mean personally, just your understanding. Did Jesus believe that the account of his Father of the manner and time of the creation of all things was as his Father said? Maybe that's why Jesus never knew them. Jesus said that believers would be one with him and the Father. What if our denying the truth of the very first words of the Scriptures is why Jesus doesn't know them? Sure, they did wonderful things in the name of Jesus, but they didn't believe all that God has told us. Did Jesus not believe all that God has told us?

I'm just curious, and I've asked the question many times, what is it about those 'many christians' that caused Jesus not to know them?

Do you believe that on the day we are all called to judgment that God's going to look out across the sea of faces and say, "Man, I'm sure glad science was able to straighten you guys out on that account I gave you of my creating all that exists in both the heavens and the earth."
God bless,
In Christ, ted

Click to expand...

ted, I suspect that Jesus not knowing them has more to do as a relational judgment, not one on peripheral interpretations. That is another more involved subject. Many have turned away from YEC perhaps prompted by science but also by a fresh look at the Genesis account....such as me.

However, I think Machen, Schaeffer, and others clearly outlined the diminished impact of Christianity on present culture. My perspective is gathered from my circle of people - friends and acquaintances - and so I understand the nature of anecdotal "evidence" however, it is certainly relevant to me. Just as one can "cherry pick" scripture so Christians can "cherry pick" what science they will accept though they are broadly immersed in such discoveries every day. So I've heard that the "Flintstones" was considered by Christians to be docmentary, or that the creation museum was so bad it was good.

As you ask what is it about those "many Christians" causing Jesus to state "I never knew you", I ask why do so many refuse openness to other Genesis views? I keep a record of all my Creation thread posts, and few have offered any considered answers to my questions. So from my perspective No it isn't an essential in a salvific sense for Christians but perhaps a stumbling block for non-believers....just my opinion based on personal interactions. As with many things...opinions vary! Blessings to you...…...

miamited said:

Do you believe that on the day we are all called to judgment that God's going to look out across the sea of faces and say, "Man, I'm sure glad science was able to straighten you guys out on that account I gave you of my creating all that exists in both the heavens and the earth."

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Click to expand...

Do you think He will say the same regarding beliefs on a spherical earth and Heliocentricty? The bible has some clear verses implying a flat earth and Geocentricity yet I don't see too many YEC's supporting either of those.

Hi LoG,

Unfortunately, I'm not in agreement that the Scriptures posit a flat earth or geocenticity. Most flat earth claims come from one's inability to understand some basic terms. For example, circle doesn't infer anything regarding the dimension of a thing, other than it is round. Some then make the claim that four corners means it is square. While that certainly has more going for it than 'round', I think it's perfectly clear that the earth is not square even by those who look at satellite images and are unable to see the dimensional depth of the earth, but certainly agree that it isn't square.

On the other hand, as regards the creation event, at least twice God caused to be written that He created all that is in this realm in six days. Five times in his description of those six days He explained that each one consisted of an evening and a morning. There are literally a couple of dozen verses in which God accounts the age of man from the beginning of Adam. So, I find there's a bit more evidence in the Scriptures regarding the creation event and the time and way in which it was done, while there are only a couple of fairly obtuse words used to describe this idea that the earth is flat or is the center of the universe.

However, on the earth being the center of the universe, it may well turn out that is true. We don't know because we haven't been able to map out the entirety of the universe and, therefore, aren't able to determine where its center might be. But, I don't find that the Scriptures make any claim one way or the other as to where the center of this created realm of God is. The Scriptures do point out that the beginning was all and only about the earth. That after the earth was created God flung the stars across the heavens. Did the spreading of those stars stop at equidistant points from the earth? We don't know and likely won't ever know unless God should reveal that to us at some point.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

HTacianas said:

Origen is the earliest commentator on Genesis that I know of. Around 200 AD or so he ruled out a literal six day creation based on the internal wording of Genesis itself.

I've read numerous Jewish commentaries on creation that range from instantaneous creation to a literal six days to an unspecified period of time. The most fascinating one I ever read was from the middle ages that God had created numerous creations, all on the same earth. But he wasn't satisfied with the first ones so wiped them out in succession and recreated over and over until he was satisfied. That commentary was made with no scientific yardstick to measure by.

Click to expand...

Hi HT,

And so...

The whole of the nation of Israel made up a calendar based on the ages of all those creation accounts?

I understand that within the Jewish people, just as within the Christian community, there are outliers with some differing ideas. But that an entire nation fashioned their calendar to reflect the young earth creation model attested to by the simple understanding of the Genesis account is not the same as one reading of one person's account of how they think the creation came to be. The fact that a few dozen or even a hundred Jews may also be discussing the same differences that christians find themselves discussing today regarding the creation event, doesn't explain an entire nation establishing for themselves a calendar based on the simple Genesis account.

Just as today, most people accept that the calendar we use divided as B.C. and A.D., is based on a rough estimation of when Christ came. B.C. literally stands for 'before Christ' and A.D. literally stands for 'in the year of the Lord'. That calendar was adopted in a time when most people accepted that Jesus was born and did walk about the earth near the point of the changeover. Similarly, when the Jewish calendar came into fashion, most Jews believed that the earth came to exist and started counting the years from the approximate time that they believed it came to exist.

This isn't about one man having, what you call a 'fascinating' idea about the creation event. This is about an entire nation pretty well accepting the biblical account of the creation. And more specifically, this is about the very nation that God calls 'His people'. I think it stands fairly obvious that for many, many centuries the nation of Israel, as a whole, believed the young earth creation model.

Now, you don't. That's fine with me. However, I find quite sufficient evidence for my simple mind that God's word is true and correct in all that it tells us about the creation event and the time in which it occurred. A day, is merely a rotation of the earth upon its axis. In the moment that the earth came to exist standing alone in the whole of the universe, if it was spinning as it does today, then within what we now count as 24 hours, a day would have passed. Each day, just as we divide the 24 hours evenly as a.m. and p.m., God divided into equal halves as evening and morning. It is my firm conviction that God included that little snippet of information because He foreknew that the day would come when men would not put up with sound doctrine. He wanted to ensure that His children did have some basis to understand that those six days were pretty much like all the hundreds of thousands of days that have passed since.

God then accounted all the years of the human race from Adam to Abraham and through to the days of captivity in Egypt. He accounted those generations in years for the very purpose of our being able to actually count out the years of existence of God's created realm for man. Otherwise, God would have simply listed off the genealogies in the same way that Matthew did. Adam had a son whose name was Seth, and then had many more sons and daughters. Seth bore a son whose name was Enosh and then had many more sons and daughters. Enosh had a son whose name was Kenan, etc. In my studies, there's really only one reason that God did list all the numbers...so that we could count.

Just as in the wilderness after leaving Egypt God had the Israelites number themselves. So we can now know without a smidgen of doubt that there were at least several hundred thousand people who left Egypt and what a might miracle God was doing by providing for all these people in the wilderness for 40 years. God generally uses numbers for the same reason and in the same way that we do...to count.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

MrsFoundit said:

One quick internet search says it is not. Most Creationists do not regard it as a salvation issue, and potential Christians have to be willing to believe in miracles anyway, because the resurrection is.

Click to expand...

For me the literal truth of Gen 1 is indeed a 'salvation issue', I was atheist/ agnostic for 42 years until I accepted the science of geocentrism (after much sceptical research). Only then was I able to start to look to Christ and shortly thereafter God showed me how He'd led me a circuitous route to His true love and amazing grace, baptism of fire and the Spirit. Amen and praise the Lord, to search for the truth is to be hauled in by Jesus' net.

And btw, the earth is stationary, just as the Bible plainly teaches. Just let God be true. Believe His earthly witness, and heaven's doors will surely open up.

miamited said:

A day, is merely a rotation of the earth upon its axis. In the moment that the earth came to exist standing alone in the whole of the universe, if it was spinning as it does today, then within what we now count as 24 hours, a day would have passed. Each day, just as we divide the 24 hours evenly as a.m. and p.m., God divided into equal halves as evening and morning. It is my firm conviction that God included that little snippet of information because He foreknew that the day would come when men would not put up with sound doctrine. He wanted to ensure that His children did have some basis to understand that those six days were pretty much like all the hundreds of thousands of days that have passed since.

Click to expand...

ted, always appreciate the thought involved in your posts and responses...though I at times disagree. I also appreciate this was directed elsewhere but thought I would offer some response.

There are valid scholars that refute the calendar and the genealogies as used to determine a timeline. I've read both sides, so as many issues is quite open to debate. I tend to be more focused on the actual Genesis creation account, though I believe that Romans 1:20 and Psalm 19 precisely address creation in that God informed humankind that details of his creation can be known/understood through "things he made", the "heavens", etc. Of course that falls under the purview of the sciences, which of course one can dismiss. That dismissal is not the point of discussion though I believe it to be rather myopic.

From my studied perspective what is more germane and relevant is what Genesis 1 actually says. Therein lies the basis from which all peripheral additions should build to a conclusion...though understanding that we can not know God from "beginning to end". So that is where I believe there exists a neglect in a "sufficient delicacy" in which one reads and approaches Creation. Accepting a 24 hour day still leaves open what exactly we are told that occurred on the given day... and that to me is where from a literal standpoint it is not unpacked by many.

Blessings....

Hi jamsie,

Thanks for your response:

Jamsie said:

There are valid scholars that refute the calendar and the genealogies as used to determine a timeline. I've read both sides, so as many issues is quite open to debate.

Click to expand...

I understand that. There are valid scholars that one can come up with to refute pretty much every historical claim made in the Scriptures. There have been valid scholars to deny some of the groups of people mentioned in the old covenant. There have been valid scholars to dismiss the worldwide flood, the parting of the sea, the sun standing still in the sky and a shadow cast by the sun going backwards. The world has no shortage of valid scholars that deny the Sonship of Jesus or that there even is a God who created all things. So, please understand that I'm also aware and have seen the 'evidences' offered by most of them, although I'm always open to looking at anything you might have that may be newer regarding the issue. My issue, however, is with the facts of what is written in the Scriptures and, as relates to this issue, that while there are valid scholars who deny the truth of the Jewish calendar... it's still there and most of Israel still uses it.

As I said, just as most other countries use the Gregorian calendar and accept that it is somehow based on the life of the Messiah promised in the Jewish Scriptures. While there are those factions that deny that there ever was a Jesus or that the one known by that name certainly wasn't any miracle performing Son of God, our Gregorian calendar still stands as a testament to Jesus' life. So yes, I believe that today there is a lot of argument over whether or not Jesus ever lived or was who he claimed to be, at the time the Gregorian calendar came into existence it seems to have been pretty well accepted as fact. I make the same claim regarding those valid scholars that you now say deny the beginning of the Jewish calendar, there apparently was a time that those valid scholars must not have had much influence on the general population of Israel.

However, I'm always mindful of one short piece of Scripture that Paul wrote for us when considering 'newer' discoveries or thoughts and ideas about the things of God.

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

What are the chances that a lot of these newer ideas are a result of this prophetic warning from Paul?

Jamsie said:

So that is where I believe there exists a neglect in a "sufficient delicacy" in which one reads and approaches Creation. Accepting a 24 hour day still leaves open what exactly we are told that occurred on the given day... and that to me is where from a literal standpoint it is not unpacked by many.

Click to expand...

That bit is going to have to be expounded on for me to understand what it is that you're trying to say to me. I'm not sure what is meant by 'Accepting a 24 hour day still leaves open what exactly we are told occurred on the given day...'


God bless,
In Christ, ted

miamited said:

That bit is going to have to be expounded on for me to understand what it is that you're trying to say to me. I'm not sure what is meant by 'Accepting a 24 hour day still leaves open what exactly we are told occurred on the given day...'
God bless,
In Christ, ted

Click to expand...

ted, The question arises in certain tangential cases what is sound doctrine? You believe YEC is sound doctrine I do not, and I believe dismissing Romans 1:20, etc. is not what God intended to convey.

A plain reading of Genesis is that the only and primary distinction of each day is clearly God's commands/fiats. The commands were the sole operative agent of creation. (Psalm 33:6, Heb. 11:3, and 2 Peter 3:5) On each day it is that God has not Done something but rather to have Said something, not to have Made something but to have Commanded something. That is the clear activity of each day.

It is clear that God's commands/fiats involved mediate creation and agency not immediacy. Following "Let there be light, and there was light." we find commands such as "Let the land", "Let the water". etc. directed at created matter to bring forth or produce, no immediacy mentioned.

There is much more but circumstance is such that I can only offer this last thought for now. The structure of Genesis 1 is interesting as one will note fiat "And God said"), fulfillment ("And it was so" - God's efficacious will), parenthetical/post fulfillment, and day.

I apologize might not be able to respond for awhile...somethings very heart breaking and troubling has come up...

Hi jamsie,

Thanks for your reply:

Jamsie said:

ted, The question arises in certain tangential cases what is sound doctrine? You believe YEC is sound doctrine I do not, and I believe dismissing Romans 1:20, etc. is not what God intended to convey.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is the question. What is the sound doctrine that Paul was referring to? Trust me, I don't dismiss anything that God has caused to be written in the Scriptures.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

You are free to understand the passage as you see fit.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

HTacianas said:

Or how many teens are driven from the knowledge of Christ because someone told a literal six day creation is somehow an article of the Christian faith?

Click to expand...

This is the real damage that creationism does to faith, but only if creationists claim that such an interpretation is the only acceptable interpretation.

MrsFoundit said:

Do you believe that it is impossible for a person to be saved if they do believe that we have free will, and are cursed, that Jesus was God incarnate, died on the Cross and was resurrected (as recorded in the Gospels) thereby we are not doomed by the curse, but do not believe that Genesis is a scientifically or historically accurate in its depiction?

Click to expand...

It's not how God will judge you. Creationists, unless they make an idol of their new doctrines, are no less Christian than any of the rest of us.

miamited said:

Yes, that is the question. What is the sound doctrine that Paul was referring to? Trust me, I don't dismiss anything that God has caused to be written in the Scriptures.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

You are free to understand the passage as you see fit.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Click to expand...

I think the passage, as with Psalm 19, is quite clear as to God's general revelation specifically to nature. "Being understood from what has been made,..." certainly gives credence to the knowledge gained from science of the world around us. It seems to me that the discoveries of science that only tend to magnify his "eternal power and divine nature". Again, it seems rather myopic to "cherry pick" what suits our limited understanding without due consideration. Why it is necessary to put constraints on a timeless and eternal God, when no such constraint is stated in scripture is baffling.

As for "sound doctrine" one need only peruse "General Theology" to realize that one can't paint to broad a swath on certain issues. There are of course essential doctrines but God left much to interpretation.

I'm not sure why it always is in these discussions that a critical look at Genesis 1 is avoided. I added nothing to my brief view that isn't a plain and clear reading of Genesis 1. Blessings...........

Jamsie said:

I think the passage, as with Psalm 19, is quite clear as to God's general revelation specifically to nature. "Being understood from what has been made,..." certainly gives credence to the knowledge gained from science of the world around us. It seems to me that the discoveries of science that only tend to magnify his "eternal power and divine nature". Again, it seems rather myopic to "cherry pick" what suits our limited understanding without due consideration. Why it is necessary to put constraints on a timeless and eternal God, when no such constraint is stated in scripture is baffling.

As for "sound doctrine" one need only peruse "General Theology" to realize that one can't paint to broad a swath on certain issues. There are of course essential doctrines but God left much to interpretation.

I'm not sure why it always is in these discussions that a critical look at Genesis 1 is avoided. I added nothing to my brief view that isn't a plain and clear reading of Genesis 1. Blessings...........

Click to expand...

Hi jamsie,

For the record, I believe that I have taken a 'critical look' at Genesis 1. I have studied it quite at length. I think our difference lies in what we will accept as the support of the facts laid out for us in Genesis 1. You want science to support what you find written and I accept God as the support for what is written.

God bless,
In Crhist, ted

miamited said:

For the record, I believe that I have taken a 'critical look' at Genesis 1. I have studied it quite at length. I think our difference lies in what we will accept as the support of the facts laid out for us in Genesis 1. You want science to support what you find written and I accept God as the support for what is written.

Click to expand...

Doesn't everybody say that about their own chosen way to think about it.
Thus it often is not "what is written", but tradition taught .....
Not necessarily in line with truth nor facts.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Doesn't everybody say that about their own chosen way to think about it.
Thus it often is not "what is written", but tradition taught .....
Not necessarily in line with truth nor facts.

Click to expand...

Hi YSJ,

I'm going with that depending on what one considers 'critical'. For me, 'critical' study means that you have measured it against other's claims. That you have weighed the various and opposing understandings. I would agree that most people who have studied the Scriptures would say that their study has been somewhat critical in nature. I'm not so clear on your inference that it often is not "what is written", but tradition taught. I can only speak for myself, but I don't believe that my position concerning the things of the Scriptures is tradition taught. As I say, I have critically weighed the Scriptures. This means that I have heard the 'tradition' taught versions and looked into them as well. Where a traditional understanding doesn't stand up, I will dismiss it. But, I think all will agree that some traditional understandings are in line with what the Scriptures teach.

It has traditionally been believed and espoused that Jesus was the Son of God. I agree with that because it is in line with the Scriptures.

It has traditionally been believed that the communion emblems actually become the blood and body of the living Lord. I disagree with that because I don't find it supported by the Scriptures.

However, as I say, perhaps I am misunderstanding your point here.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

miamited said:

For me, 'critical' study means that you have measured it against other's claims. That you have weighed the various and opposing understandings.

Click to expand...

I only got this far... to quote. reading.

Nothing in Yahweh's Way, Plan, Purpose, or Word ever led me to compare any false teaching while seeking the truth, no , not ever.
I believe it is sinful to "weigh" anything from the enemy as if it might be true, or to seek from those opposed to Jesus any help at all, ever.