The Genesis Enigma

[mark kennedy]

I don't know what you are trying to accomplish with this paper but good luck with that. This confrontational style will get you no where with fundamentalists. You are not proposing anything new here and you may want to consider moving to a more Liberal church since you have very liberal views.

Just a passing remark, I'm out.

 

[gluadys]

I Will future Christians look back at today’s traditional Creationists in the same way that we look back at our flat Earth and geocentric believing forefathers?

Almost certainly.

I think you are tackling a difficult subject with great courage.

Just two comments.

1. Modern creationists generally do accept that evolution occurs. Yours would be an extreme church even by creationist standards if it asserts that every species is specially created. Most creationists accept evolution within the "kind" which is an undefined group larger than a species.

2. You have rightly identified the most difficult problem as the alleged evolution of humanity. This comes down to two issues:

Is a literal individual (Adam) necessary to the gospel?

Is it possible to reconcile the existence of a literal Adam with the evolution of humanity?

Some versions of theistic evolution say both questions can be answered in the positive.

Some versions say both questions must be answered in the negative.

If you find yourself answering the first in the positive, and the second in the negative, then you must logically reject the evolution of humanity--and theistic evolution.

Pesonally, I answer both in the negative.

btw, I do not find your views liberal at all, but well within the creationist perspective.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I agree with both Mark and Gluadys.

WRT the former, I don't really see a confrontation tone in your text. However, Mark's warning is a good one. My grandfather had a saying (that is most likely not original with him) that "A man convinced against his will is a man unconvinced."

WRT the latter: I agree with gluadys that these questions are central to the main question of whether one can accept evolution and still accept the gospel. An additional question, though of slightly less importance, is "what is the meaning of death?". The TE almost always answers that it is spiritual and as such the question of death among animals is unimportant.

I should add that the reason Mark said "Just a passing remark, I'm out" is that he is a Creationist. The Origins Theology subsection is divided into 3 sections: 1) The main section where TEs (theistic evolutionists or EC/evolutionary creationists) and YECs (young earth creationists) and OEC (old earth creationists) and other flavors debate each other, 2) The Theistic Evolution subsection (this one) where TEs discuss variances in their view and other Christian are restricted to "fellowship posts" -- this is compartively moderately enforced -- and hence Mark's comment, and 3) The creationist subforum where non-TEs go to discuss variances in their views and TEs are restricted to fellowship posts -- compartively more strictly enforced.

I hope this additional information makes navigating this portion of CF easier.

 

[mark kennedy]

I hate to dwell on this but the fact is it's an interesting topic. I don't appreciate invasions into the Creationism forum and I won't belabor my time here. The fact is that Genesis is an interpretive challenge. If you think the first few chapters are very general despite their historical relevance then we have no real differences. I'm a young earth creationist by default, without a very good reason I won't abandon that.

That said, I can see how a person acquainted with Jesus Christ based on their faith in the Gospel message could conclude otherwise. I'm not the enemy and I am actually very grateful for the skepticism I have found.

A word of advice if it would be out of line for me to offer it. Extend the right hand of fellowship from time to time. If you are really convinced of the Gospel message and it's changed you life from the inside out then share that.

Bottom line, that being true do you really care if some Christians have a problem with your ideology? I don't care how you baptize people or how you celebrate the Lord's Supper. I don't care if you wear a big hat or wear long robes in your religious ceremonies. What I do care about is what you believe about Jesus Christ. If you have received him by faith and walk in the power of the Holy Spirit I say take my hand, we have no differences worth mentioning.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Tinker Grey]

I hate to dwell on this but the fact is it's an interesting topic. I don't appreciate invasions into the Creationism forum and I won't belabor my time here.

<snip>

A word of advice if it would be out of line for me to offer it.

Hey, no probs. AFAIK, the rules here are considerably more lax.

Seriously, a casual scan of your text reveals nothing for me to be object to.

 

[gluadys]

This paper is not targeted at them but rather at secularists who are not Christians and will not become Christians if they are forced to adopt Creationist credo on creation.

It works much better as an appeal to creationists. In fact, you say:

However, before I can weld the two different concepts together, I need to challenge Creationists to answer a difficult question.

This applies to the second part as well. Both this introduction and the next section are based on an appeal to scripture and suggest a re-interpretation of some key texts. Such an appeal is only meaningful to those who already accept the testimony of scripture and so is not really targeted at secularists.

I am convinced as an ex creationist that it is vital to believe in the former existence of Adam, so that Christ’s death has purpose in saving us from the death that Adam and therefore we immediately inherited with his first sin.

One point you should consider is that even if Adam is not an historic individual, there is still a first sin.

Because it is evident that we do sin, I have never understood the notion that without a literal Adam, Christ's death would have no meaning. Each and every one of us needs to be redeemed from our own sins and there is not one of us who is not a sinner.

I'll add a few comments to the other thread as well.

 

[cleminson]

Gluadys posted : One point you should consider is that even if Adam is not an historic individual, there is still a first sin.

Because it is evident that we do sin, I have never understood the notion that without a literal Adam, Christ's death would have no meaning. Each and every one of us needs to be redeemed from our own sins and there is not one of us who is not a sinner.

Gluadys, I do not believe that sin is the issue, I believe that it is possibly only something that we can do after we recieve new life. Sin is rebelion against God, if we don't know him can we sin?. Adam's sin was catastrophic for him and for us in that it led to his death. i.e. no way back into Paradise.I believe that the death that Adam recieved is what Jesus died to rectify, without Adam's death then there can be no meaning to Christ dying to give us back that Life that Adam lost.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I thought Jesus died to rectify my sin.

 

[cleminson]

Hi Tinker Grey. Yes I believe that he did fogive sin but He did not need to die on the Cross to do that. As God He forgave sin while He was alive on this Earth. Mary Magdelene etc. On the Cross he bore all of our sin and sickness but we are told that He died to give us life and life more abundantly. Romans 5:17-19 where it says, &#8221;For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous&#8221;. And in 1Corinthians 15:22, &#8220;For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive&#8221;.And in 1Corinthians 15:45 &#8220;So also it is written, the first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit&#8221;. I believe that it was easy for Christ to forgive sin both then and now but He needed to die on the Cross to give us back the life that Adam lost when he sinned in Paradise. I hope that my statement become clearer now.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I disagree. In point of fact, regardless of whether Adam existed or not, I sin. Regardless of Adam, I need redemption.

Read verse 12 (NIV): Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

It is my sin, it is your sin that Jesus died for.

Whether Adam is a metaphor for the natural condition of man or whether Adam really was the first one to sin, it is our sin for which Jesus died. Adam is irrelevant to the fact that we need redemption.

 

[cleminson]

I disagree. In point of fact, regardless of whether Adam existed or not, I sin. Regardless of Adam, I need redemption.

Read verse 12 (NIV): Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.

Whether Adam is a metaphor for the natural condition of man or whether Adam really was the first one to sin, it is our sin for which Jesus died. Adam is irrelevant to the fact that we need redemption.

Hi Tinker. I hope that I have got this quote thing right this time. I agree 100% that Jesus was the Sacrificial Lamb and that we all need Redemption from our sins. Both those we have commited and those we might still commit. I certainly needed this redemption and now know that if I sin again, then I have an advocate in Jesus who stands before the Father.

I believe that Adam is vital to our understanding of sin and death and if you read around the verse you quoted, I hope that you will understand from where I come.

Romans 5:8-21, &#8220;But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life; and not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned: - for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come. But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many. And not as through one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment came of one unto condemnation, but the free gift came of many trespasses unto justification. For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, even Jesus Christ. So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous. And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly: that, as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


I like to compare sin to fruit, it must be nice fruit or we would not pick it. It is not the fact that we pick the fruit and enjoy it for a season, it is the fact that we are born "dead" that matters, " through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin", so even if it were possible to live sinless lives, we are still dead, because of Adam's sin and his immediate death. God forgave many sins while He walked with humans on this Earth but it took His sacrifice to bring us into Life. To restore us to that life that Adam had before he fell to this earthly existence and then died again, this time like we die, 930 years later.


Is it possible that that part of humankind that has not heard of the Law of sin and death, do not have their sins imputed to them. "sin is not imputed when there is no law"?

What is sure is that every one is "dead" and only coming to Jesus can save us and restore Jew and Gentile to new Life in Jesus Christ.


22 years ago as a OE Creationist with evolutionary tendancies (what a sin!!!!) I struggled with Adam and finally pushed him into the world of the allogorical. But I believe that God would not let me rest there and so for nearly a quarter of a century, I have been trying to tie OE Creationism to some form of Theistic evolution. That is my mission and I believe that I have found a theory that does that. Is it possible that I am now a "Fundimentalist OE Creationist Theistic Evolutionist", YES I AM. Hallelujah!!!!
Belief in the Literal Adam is now possible without compromising the evolutioary theories. The only thing that I strongly dissagree with in the evolutionary theories is the use of the words "genetic mutation". God does not nor ever did create mutations. Though scientists will probably not assign this creative change in the genes of extinct animal to a God driven creative process, they will never draw Creationists to their belief in evolution.

Thank God governments are trying to find ways of not angering pupils and parents of creationist views. Maybe we can get our leader to ask the scientists to be a bit more "creative" with the words they choose to portray their theories. A little less confrontational.

 

[mark kennedy]

I disagree. In point of fact, regardless of whether Adam existed or not, I sin. Regardless of Adam, I need redemption.

Read verse 12 (NIV): Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

It is my sin, it is your sin that Jesus died for.

Whether Adam is a metaphor for the natural condition of man or whether Adam really was the first one to sin, it is our sin for which Jesus died. Adam is irrelevant to the fact that we need redemption.

Adam is anything but irrelevant. Paul was in every way that matters a Creationist and this has long been a doctrinal issue. I will not compromise on the authority of Scripture and the Gospel is explicit that we are indeed sinners due to our liinage. Otherwise we would have a choice whether or not we would sin and we have none.

That is not to say that we have no choice about whether or not we continue in sin. There is only one alternative to perdition and if you don't know what that is then you have only to ask.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[cleminson]

Adam is anything but irrelevant. Paul was in every way that matters a Creationist and this has long been a doctrinal issue. I will not compromise on the authority of Scripture and the Gospel is explicit that we are indeed sinners due to our liinage. Otherwise we would have a choice whether or not we would sin and we have none.

That is not to say that we have no choice about whether or not we continue in sin. There is only one alternative to perdition and if you don't know what that is then you have only to ask.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I repeat. Christians spend too much time talking about sin and sinners. We all commit sin as Christians and yes Jesus forgave and forgives our sins, He also healed people and still heals, fed people and still feeds, preached to people and still preaches to people through the foolishness of man's preaching, cast demons out of people and still does and prophesied to people while He lived on this Earth and still does BUT that does not mean that everyone that He ministered to then or now came to new life.

I have seen many non-Christians healed and like in Jesus' day, they recieve their healing and go home to carry on living their own lives, separate from God. It was only the sinner on a cross next to Him and those who recieved His New Life after He returned to be with God the Father that can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Most Christians that I have met of all "flavours", have new life but it did not come from forgivness of sins, it came from Christ's death on the Cross. He died to cancel Adams death, so that we might enter into Paradise.

Adam's demotion required Jesus' blood to cancel it.

Adam was real or Christ's sacrifice was pointless.