The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

[gluadys]

I'm A True Believer But I'm Also Agnostic At The Same Time

That's possibly one of the best definitions of true belief I have ever heard.

 

[Keachian]

I'm an 8, though I push that 1 is the true Literalist standpoint and so should be adopted by all literalists, however I Know that God could have created the world in 6 days I also just decided that God could in fact view the earth as a flat object due to differences in perception.

Redoing answer time, may as well, still an 8 but I do think that there could have been a literal Adam and Eve.

Also I'd class myself as a ANE literalist these days as well

 

[mark kennedy]

I think it's fair to say I'm right back where I started. Everything I explored with regards to genetics and Biblical exegesis and exposition are dovetailed together. The only doctrinal issue for me is the creation of Adam and Eve and the need for justification argument of Paul in Romans 5. Having determined that there is neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes I'm right back where I started.

It was a long trip, I sometimes wonder why I started it in the first place. I'm glad I did though, genetics is such a magnificent scientific marvel. We have seen from the opening of the 20th century to the publication of the Initial Sequence of the Human Genome 2001, the birth of a new science.

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. Nature, Feb 2001​

Am I the only one who feels a sense of awe and wonder at this?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[theFijian]

The only doctrinal issue for me is the creation of Adam and Eve and the need for justification argument of Paul in Romans 5.

I differ from other TEs in that I think that a historical Adam is necessary for Paul's argument in Romans 5. Just as Christ is our federal head and his righteousness is imputed to us, so too as Adam is our federal head his unrighteousness was imputed to us. I would concede however that Paul's use of language doesn't necessarily make that absolutely watertight from Rom 5.

 

[mark kennedy]

I differ from other TEs in that I think that a historical Adam is necessary for Paul's argument in Romans 5. Just as Christ is our federal head and his righteousness is imputed to us, so too as Adam is our federal head his unrighteousness was imputed to us. I would concede however that Paul's use of language doesn't necessarily make that absolutely watertight from Rom 5.

Paul makes it clear that we are all sinners in the first three chapters of Romans, right up until...I'd say about 3:19. following that, the Apostle is speaking of the revelation of the righteousness of God in Christ that is by faith. Chapter 4 speaks of Abraham and David who were made righteous by faith. Then comes Romans 5.

I'm not telling you what your stand on the doctrine of original sin should be, of course I think I know, but it's a matter of conviction. I'm telling you where I was with it and why this doctrinal issue was the catalyst for my brand of Creationism. It has come full circle and my convictions run deeper then ever, thanks in large part to the skepticism rampant in the scientific and academic community.

I'm not now nor have I ever been anti-science or anti-evolution. I have searched the scientific literature to see if there were reasons for faith to be found there. In the process I discovered genetics and that alone made the whole thing worthwhile. Anyone can shoot down Darwinism or Creationism, it's all too easy. Actually learning something about the genetic basis for inheritable traits is another matter and would appear to be neutral with regards to origins.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Martyrs44]

That's possibly one of the best definitions of true belief I have ever heard.

On what planet? Give scripture for that.

 

[gluadys]

On what planet? Give scripture for that.

Mark 9:24

 

[Leggomyegolas]

I for one am looking forward to sitting in the replay room in Heaven, and seeing how God really did it and going, "Ohhhh, so *THAT'S* how it happened! It makes so much sense now!"

In the meantime, I'm undecided. I probably fit somewhere between 5 and 6 though. I believe Adam and Eve, and Noah, and Abraham were all real historical people, just as the Bible describes. But as to whether the earth is thousands or billions of years old, or whether every living thing was created in 6 literal days, or over millions of years, I see it as a minor point, and not worth spending a lot of time arguing about.

 

[SkyWriting]

I for one am looking forward to sitting in the replay room in Heaven, and seeing how God really did it and going, "Ohhhh, so *THAT'S* how it happened! It makes so much sense now!"

In the meantime, I'm undecided. I probably fit somewhere between 5 and 6 though. I believe Adam and Eve, and Noah, and Abraham were all real historical people, just as the Bible describes. But as to whether the earth is thousands or billions of years old, or whether every living thing was created in 6 literal days, or over millions of years, I see it as a minor point, and not worth spending a lot of time arguing about.

THERE ya go! I think the WHOLE point is that God was explaining that HE did it! You say to ignore the timelines, and I think that is the message.

People get too hung up on "reality" and it moves them to trust in things other than God Himself.

 

[sophia rose]

yes i agree...thanks

 

[kw5kw]

...
6. Theistic Evolutionists (with a literal Adam and Eve) - believe in an old earth and universe, but accept that God used evolution as part of His creation, basically as science describes it. But they feel that there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal Garden. Some attribute this Adam and Eve to an instance of special creation, others to election as "representatives", etc. Also believe in biogenesis, not abiogenesis.

7. Theistic Evolutionists (no literal Adam and Eve, but biogenesis) - believe that Man evolved along with the other species (pursuant to God’s plan), but that the initial spark of life was immediately God induced. Some even push this forward to some mass special creation of a variety of "kinds" around the Cambrian period, with all the species evolving from there.

8. Theistic Evolutionists (abiogenesis) - God created everything and established the full system of natural laws upon with the universe and the earth would work. And it did. With life arising at the time and place He had known it would, etc.
...

I believe that God created the universe—science confirms this also; aka: the big bang.

I believe that God created the Sun, Earth along with the remainder of the galaxies but in His time frame that is, not ours. I don't believe in a 7-day (168 hours of...) creation. There is enough physical evidence to disprove the literal translation of Genesis i! That doesn't mean God didn't create, it means that God created in His time frame not man's!

I also believe that God created life—all life! For instance: I believe that God created the chicken (rooster and hen) and then the hen laid the egg to bring life to more chickens. I also believe that after God created the chicken then the chicken was allowed to become diverse (evolve). I believe that God created all the life in the same manner from the lowest single cell organism to mankind;ie. plants (trees, grasses, flowers) and animals (dog, frog, man). God created the original(s) [male and female] of each species and then each species was allowed to develop from there—This puts me more on #6. I also believe that The LORD allowed many species to perish during the course of history—His reasoning not ours.

I also believe that: Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Heb 13:8

I believe that God spoke to Moses spoke in parables and that is what Moses wrote down for us in Genesis.

Mat_13:3a And he spake many things unto them in parables...
Mat_13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat_13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat_13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
Mat_13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
Mar_4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
Mar_4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?
Luk_8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

I believe that the creation record in Genesis should be taken as a parable. A story that is not to be taken literally but to understand in the same way as we understand the parables that Jesus used to teach us. I also believe that Noah was a real man, but the actual flood was confined to his world of the day not a flood that covered the entire planet Earth. The wold of Noah knew nothing of the western Hemisphere, Australia or even Africa or eastern Asia. Noah's world was localized to the area that he knew. Think of the American Indian who knew nothing of the Middle East, when the Colorado River flooded out to create the Grand Canyon the Jews knew nothing of these floods; likewise, the American Indians knew nothing of the Great Flood of Noah but knew of the floods of their world (North America.)

I'm not disputing what is written I feel that Moses wrote what the uneducated Jew of the time could understand. That God put it in Moses' hand so that his writing would be able to last and be understood by all; viz. the educated as well as the uneducated.

These are my original thoughts.
I am your humble servant.
Russ

 

[kw5kw]

duplicate post and I've never had this problem with this forum before... sorry

 

[BobRyan]

There is currently a spectrum of belief regarding origins, and this is tied loosely to how literal one reads Scripture and/or the degree to which one is willing to allow the evidence of God’s Creation inform their beliefs *about* that Creation. We must keep in mind that every position except the one on top, the Flat-earthers, involves a certain degree of allowance of scientific knowledge to influence Scriptural interpretation.



...

So, where do you fit in? I don’t necessarily want everyone to post their "number", but it is interesting to see it all laid out like this. If any have suggestions or tweaks to make to the this list, go ahead and say so.

I accept Intelligent Design as observed fact.

I believe in YLC -- Young Life Creationism - rather than blind faith darwinism -- or blind faith evolutionism.

Young Life Creationism accepts the Bible account of the 7 day creation week - but does not claim to know how long the rocks that make up the earth were here prior to that time.

And the rest of the universe is not said in Genesis 1:2-2:3 to have been created in that same 7 day period of time. Only the Earth, Sun, Moon and all life on earth.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Genesis account describes a 7 day literal week for the creation of all life on earth.

God then summarizes the point in legal code "SiX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord made.." Ex 20:8-11.

Almost everyone who rejects the Bible 7 day creation week - says they reject it due to some outside-the-text-agenda that Moses could not have known and that the newly freed egyptian slaves were not at all likely to have "read into the text".

Thus nobody is opposing the text on the basis of exegesis. Rather they are eisegeting their own preferred "ignore the details in the text and make up what you like to fit evolution's long ages mode" style of story telling.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

 

[Captive]

I choose number 4, the only one that's referred to as a "theory". I think it should be called the "Gap Fact" because it's the one with the most Biblical proof.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I am a Young Earth Creationist (#3). I do not believe that true science disproves a young earth. If I found that it did for sure - I might consider another avenue.

I believe that the entire concept of our redemption through Christ as a 2nd or last Adam demands a literal 1st Adam.

I reject the Gap Theory because death entered God's altogether good creation through the fall of that literal 1st Adam.

Call me old fashioned if you will. But, as a wise man once said,

"I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen."

 

[Rock in a Pond]

There is currently a spectrum of belief regarding origins, and this is tied loosely to how literal one reads Scripture and/or the degree to which one is willing to allow the evidence of God’s Creation inform their beliefs *about* that Creation. We must keep in mind that every position except the one on top, the Flat-earthers, involves a certain degree of allowance of scientific knowledge to influence Scriptural interpretation.

1. Flat-earthers - believe that a plain reading of Scripture indicates that the earth is flat. Very few still hold on to this belief.

2. Geocentrists - believe that the sun and all the stars .....

_______________________

Food for thought:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-specific-person.7878086/page-9#post-67519613

 

[TheBear]

"I'm A True Believer But I'm Also Agnostic At The Same Time"

That's possibly one of the best definitions of true belief I have ever heard.

So true!

Belief and knowledge are two separate things. Once one has direct knowledge of something, it is no longer faith. I have no knowledge of a deity. Also, I have no faith in a deity. ( Your mileage may vary. )

 

[Percivale]

I'm #6, though I could be swayed one position in either direction with just a bit more evidence.

The Gap theory is specifically contradicted in Exodus 20-'in six days God made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them.' Doesn't fit science well either.

On the differences between 5-7, some clarification is needed. Is the difference between 5 and 6 about how to interpret Genesis 1 or about what happened scientifically? One could believe a day-age interpretation and universal common descent, or an allegorical interpretation and special creation of kinds.
On the difference between 6 and 7, to me a literal fall is more important theologically than a literal Adam. If one believes that the first humans came into being as a larger group, but had from the first awakening of sentience a unique relationship with God and a qualitatively superior moral state compared to later people, which they then lost due to some collective decision to turn away from God, one's theology is still in line with Christian doctrine. But if this is not explicitly explained, a rejection of a literal Adam and Eve tends to sound like a rejection of an actual Fall.

#8 differs from 7 mostly on science; whether life can come about naturally. So far the science doesn't favor 8 from what I can see. If there is also a difference about what one believes as to what God can or would do to the natural world, that would be a more major difference.