- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Understand, my statement does not equate creationism with legalism. I would think the text was clear about that? Both are mutually exclusive; you can be one without being the other. Although I probably would argue that it's more likely a legalist would be creationist rather than a TE.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Mutually exclusive means that the two ideas do not share with one another. I can't be a Christian and reject the faith, the two views are mutually exclusive.
I was trying to avoid mentioning specific theologies here because I don't want open up any other cans of worms. I will point out one in particular: I belong to the church of Christ where many don't believe that using musical instruments is pleasing to God. That is hardly essential doctrine, although many of them argue otherwise. Most denominations have one or two of these issues where the legalistic members demand beliefs that are not essential.
Creationism is often criticized for being to literal in it's interpretation of Genesis, I have never heard them accused of legalism. I was a member of the Church of Christ for several years and left over a permissive attitude they had about liberal theology.
As to whether Paul is a creationist or not, I would say that question falls into the same realm as "was Jesus a Republican"? In other words, totally irrelevant, since the word would have no meaning in that time. Without counter-evidence, there is no reason to put your faith against the accepted norms of the time. It is only modern evidence that forces the question.
The New Testament writers that spoke on the subject were creationists, that is not even a question. Now at one time it had about as much meaning for me as whether or not Adam had a belly button but over time I have found TE to be a gross heresy. I have debated and discussed this in great detail and I do not compromise on doctrinal issues.
Believe it or not, I'm not trying to get into any particular discussion here. I am no scientist so I have to trust in my ability to discern the truth from others. My simple method is this: I listen to the argument (from creationist or scientific data), I read the critiques from the opposing side, and I then read the critiques of the critiques. You can judge the honestly of a critique by seeing how completely it deals with all the details of what it is critiquing. Admitting that something your opponent says has merit and you have no answer is a plus; avoiding it or misrepresenting it is a minus. Pushing data that has been proven false, or pushing data as fact that is not, is also a minus. That is how I read most of the arguments on this board, and how I read yours.
Evolution as natural history has grossly misrepresented the evidence, there is no doubt about that. You want the particulars I will be happy to help you with them.
I'm not trying to dismiss you offhand or to belittle your efforts.
I appreciate that and your welcome to ask your questions and make your thoughts known in this forum. These discussions can be contentious, the truth is we fight like cats and dogs. Still, it's an important subject and should be pursued with the intent of coming to a better understanding of the truth regarding human history. God willing, this we will do.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Upvote
0