What I don't understand . . .

[notto]

The theory of Evolution and the theory of Intelligent Design are both (general) theories because neither are VERIFIABLE.

In order for a theory to be a (scientific) theory it has to be VERIFIABLE.


So, both Evolution and Creationism will remain in the realm of Philosophy to be debated.

No, the evidence used must be verifiable and the conclusions falsifiable. The evidence used is verifiable but the conclusions of ID are not falsifiable.

By your standards, gravity and atomic theory are Philosophy as well.

 

[Dark_Lite]

As I have said previously, you want to believe in evolution, by all means go for it. If one feeding on milk needs to hold to evolution while being a young Christian, fine by me. I wouldn't subject a young Christian to the meat of scripture until they are strong enough from the milk - Gospels.

Funniest thing I've seen today.

The only way you get around the issue is to add to the Bible, and that in Proverbs and Revelations says we should not do.

Or perhaps they read Genesis slightly different than you. It's quite possible you know. We don't "add" to the Bible. We accept reality instead of attempting to fit it into a model that can't and doesn't exist.

 

[MLML]

A new Christian?! I have been a Christian for 30 years. Not well-versed in Scripture? Wrong again, I have studied the Scripture prayerfully and with the Spirit's guidance for that long as well.
Let's walk through your points:

1. No, I didn't say scientists were not biased. I said SCIENCE was not biased. If the theory is sound, it does not matter what the bias of the scientist is. I never said most scientists believe in God, most do not. But both those who DO and those who do not accept evolution. So, it is definitely NOT any bias which compels the theory, it is the evidence.

2. No theory in science is ever proven. Theories are just explanations of the data that we see and observe. We have evidence, observable and verifiable that shows evolutionary development over billions of years. The theory evolution is just the best explanation for that data that we have. And it is a very good theory because it fits all the data, makes accurate predictions and has not been falsfified.

3. I never said we should not give thanks to God. I just said that you don't seem to expect this in every other scientific proposal, so why evolution? This is NOT a difficult question, but you refuse to answer it.

4. You say that their refusal to "give thanks to God" within their theory shows that it was developed by people with no concern for God. But this does not follow. When I write a legal brief, do I need to include at the end "and all thanks be to God for law and justice" or it would mean I have no concern for God? The presence or absence of a reference to God is no indication whatsoever of the presenters concern for God. The presentation of scientific proposals is an explanation of how the natural world works. God set up this natural world to work without His direct and immediate intervention unless He chooses to. This is why both believers and non-believers come to the same conclusion regarding how it works.

Again, I ask, do you expect to see a "thank you" to God when a scientist explains photosynthesis? Or gravity? Or germ theory? Why not?

5. I have never said we can dismiss Genesis? Where did you get that? I don't know of ANY TE on this forum who has said that.

6. And, no, I do not believe the Scripture is EVER in error. I believe God has presented His message to us inerrantly. I just don't think the message He is giving is literal history and science, so to the extent it does NOT describe literal history accurately is NOT an error.

7. Even most of the YEC's here will agree that whether you read Genesis 1 and 2 literally or figuratively is not a salvation issue. What did Jesus say you must do to be saved?

8. We have covered the original sin issue already and I would refer you to that discussion.

Well, if you read correctly, I have not called you a new Christian. You have mis-interpretated what I have said, so you can argue. Gotta love that flesh, huh. When I said new Christian, I meant new Christians. That is what happens when you try to read it differently, then written.

I really hope you don't think that because you have '30 years' as a Christian that those years spent calling yourself a Christian means you are a mature one. Whether or not you are, God knows. Years spent is not a very good argument to use to conclude that you are mature. I have met some 40 year old people who are not mature. It is not years spent my friend that makes you mature, simple fact.

Yes, I still conclude - about Jesus not being conceived of the Holy SPirit is not a salvation issue - that you are not well versed in scripture. For any to come to that conclusion, is pointing a finger at themselves saying I either didn't read the Bible or didn't understand it.

You may have studied the scriptures, but did you surrender completely to God's Will so that you may understand. I have no interest, ever, you in trying to convince me or another of the answer. I have no interest in words that are not back in action. What I care about is what God see's in all of us. You nor anyone else has to answer to me or another. You and I and everyone have to answer to God alone.

I assume you understand Jesus is God. I assume you understand that when Jesus said believe in Me, it was much more then just believe He is the Son of God, God Himself. I assume you understand it is about that and much more that are followed up with actions. I assume you understand that carrying your cross means you are willing to die daily for God, in the name of God, for whatever God calls you to do. I assume you understand that when the Bible says 'God says' that it is also the 'Son says - Jesus says' because Jesus and God are one.

So tell me what did Jesus say, what do we need to do to be saved? Believe in Me? What does this mean, just believe He is God? Oh, the devil and his angels believe that and tremble. Shall they be saved too because they believe He is God? Or does Believe in Me mean something more, something greater? Can you discern and then teach others Genesis 1-3 is nothing to fret over, no need to take it seriously, it isn't a salvation point? Are you willing to put your soul on the line for that one?

 

[MLML]

As a TE, I give my thanks to God, not to you, and not for public show like the thanks of a publican. Who are you to say that TE's don't thank God for the wonderful world He made?

And if what is good for the TE ought to be good for the YEC. In all the CRSQ articles I have read, I haven't seen the word 'thank you god' very much. INdeed, I don't think it appears in the RATE book either, nor in the ICC proceedings.

Fantastic. Show me where I demanded you to answer to me. Show me where I said, Morton you don't thank God.

Allow me to use your reasoning, what is good for the atheist ought to be good for the Christian. Or shall I believe Jesus when He said He and His children are not of this world.

And as for your last statement, we all should be thanking God more than we do now, period. He deserves it. Would you like to argue me against this point?

 

[MLML]

Funniest thing I've seen today.

Thank you.

Or perhaps they read Genesis slightly different than you. It's quite possible you know. We don't "add" to the Bible. We accept reality instead of attempting to fit it into a model that can't and doesn't exist.

I completely understand it is possible. There are vast amount of people who read the Bible differently. There are some who say Jesus is only a good teacher or prophet. Shall I tell them it is ok to believe that because it is their perspective on how they read the Bible? Or should I say who Jesus really is?

If anyone is ashamed of Jesus, He will be ashamed of them on the day of judgement.

You accept your reality, I will tell of the truth written in the Bible.

 

[herev]

MLML, you are growing quite insulting in your posts
Is there something wrong?

You accept your reality, I will tell of the truth written in the Bible.

that you are not well versed in scripture

Are you willing to put your soul on the line for that one?

As I have said previously, you want to believe in evolution, by all means go for it. If one feeding on milk needs to hold to evolution while being a young Christian, fine by me.

whilie you have said Vance interpreted it differently, so did I, so perhaps it wasn't clear to begin with?

These are just to name a few in this thread alone. I recognnize that many TE's here have not been kind to you as well, but when you make these statements, you attack all of us with untruths that you have been told repeatedly ARE untruths. Is there no room in your heart for you to accept that we are Christians and just as faithful as yourself? Is it not possible for you to believe that we have studied the texts under ther supervision and prayerful guidance of the Holy Spirit, just as you have and still we interpret it differently?

God Bless

 

[Vance]

While you say it is not for you to judge, but only God knows, you make it abundantly clear that you believe we have not been properly led by the Spirit, are not fully within God's will, and generally are not as "in tune" with God as you are.

Very presumptuous of you. Pride comes before a fall.

 

[herev]

Pride comes before a fall.

Let's not misquote the Bible now Vance, it makes people mad
Pride goeth before destruction--a haughty spirit before a fall

 

[Vance]

Ah, true, and I think both might be applicable here.

I think there is no more destructive form of pride than spiritual pride.

 

[MLML]

MLML, you are growing quite insulting in your posts
Is there something wrong?

Just correcting some misunderstandings, as I see them. Don't let the words on the screen get to you, unless they hit home...

whilie you have said Vance interpreted it differently, so did I, so perhaps it wasn't clear to begin with?

These are just to name a few in this thread alone. I recognnize that many TE's here have not been kind to you as well, but when you make these statements, you attack all of us with untruths that you have been told repeatedly ARE untruths. Is there no room in your heart for you to accept that we are Christians and just as faithful as yourself? Is it not possible for you to believe that we have studied the texts under ther supervision and prayerful guidance of the Holy Spirit, just as you have and still we interpret it differently?

God Bless

Perhaps it is I who have not made it clear to you, herev and others. I have used the quote system provided here to make it clear who I am responding to.

The te-ist have a wide range of beliefs. Vance believes there was no Adam and Eve, herev believes there was. Karl believes Jesus wasn't fully God here on earth, Vance and herev do. Vance believe Jesus being conceived of the Holy Spirit is not a salvation issue, herev does.

It would be unfair of me to lump you all into one group and respond to you all as a whole, since you all hold a wide range of beliefs here. So I have tried to make it clear who I am responding to. Apparently, I have not been clear enough. Herev, what do you suggest I do more so that you and others are certain to whom I am responding to. I have tried the quote system to make it clear, but by your response here saying I am attacking you all, it wasn't clear to you who I was responding to.

Room in my heart for to accept, is a rather judgemental statement. I assume since you are a pastor you would understand that when God disciplines and punishes He does so out of love. Paul did the same, as do parents today with their children. What would show I have not room in my heart for you or others would be to remain silent.

I do not equate myself with any of the above mentioned names. I am only but a servant to God. I do try to follow their examples, as God saw it important for them to be written in the Bible.

In Psalms it says sin is passed on through conception when a male and female come to together. If Mary came together with any man, sin would be passed on to Jesus Christ, as the Bible states. Jesus Christ was without sin. He took our sins on Himself at His death. To say that it isn't a salvation issue that Jesus could have been conceived naturally is to say Jesus was in sin, for this follows the teachings of the Bible. One must add or subtract to rectify it. If Jesus was with sin, Jesus could not have been God, because God does not sin. Vance stated in another post this wasn't a salvation issue, I beg to differ and will say to teach this is false teaching.

Karl says Jesus wasn't fully God here on earth. This flys in the face of Biblical teachings throughout the Gospels. 'The Father and I are One', would be the most obvious. Another would be when Christ says 'I AM.' Stating Jesus was not fully God here on earth is also false teaching.

Herev, when the atheist tell others God doesn't exist, shall I be quiet? When the mormons say they too can become God, shall I sit quiet and not speak a word then too? When a Christian claims Jesus didn't raise from the dead, shall I be quiet and allow this teaching to be undisputed? When a Christian claims that Jesus wasn't God here on earth shall I hold my tongue so to obey your rules? When a Christian claims Jesus could have been born as we are today, thus in sin, shall I kept my mouth shut as if ashamed? When a Christian claims the Bible is in error, so it should be read differently, shall I be quiet or show that if one pays attention to grammar they would better understand?

Reality is what you make it, it is your perception. My reality is that I don't belong to this world, I am not subject to this worlds judgement, I am subject to God's and only God's judgement.

As I said to Vance, are you so sure that Genesis 1-11, and other parts of the Bible are not salvation issues that you are willing to teach others they aren't and put your own soul on the line for it? God could have given us anything, and so much more than just the Bible, but He gave us the Bible for a reason. I do not take lightly the teachings therein because I believe John when he said if they were to record all of Jesus' works, the earth would not be able to contain them. I believe the same with God, and yet we have about a 2000 page Bible. Not much, as compared to what could have been given if God revealed everything. So it is my belief that what He did reveal is alot more important than many here are giving credit for it to be, by dismissing parts as allegorical, or not needed for salvation.

You want to believe evolution, as I said I am fine with it. The problem lies when anyone teaches parts of the Bible are not salvation issues or are not needed to be concerned with. I am wholly convinced we will each be judged according to what we had the chance to know. We here have the chance to know all of the Bible and I believe we will be judged on the fact of what we did with God's Word here on earth. Did we believe and obey, or did we pick and choose what we wanted to believe and obey...

 

[California Tim]

As I said to Vance, are you so sure that Genesis 1-11, and other parts of the Bible are not salvation issues that you are willing to teach others they aren't and put your own soul on the line for it? God could have given us anything, and so much more than just the Bible, but He gave us the Bible for a reason. I do not take lightly the teachings therein because I believe John when he said if they were to record all of Jesus' works, the earth would not be able to contain them. I believe the same with God, and yet we have about a 2000 page Bible. Not much, as compared to what could have been given if God revealed everything. So it is my belief that what He did reveal is alot more important than many here are giving credit for it to be, by dismissing parts as allegorical, or not needed for salvation.

This is one of the most profound and thought provoking posts I've read in a long time. - And a very convincing case.

 

[MLML]

While you say it is not for you to judge, but only God knows, you make it abundantly clear that you believe we have not been properly led by the Spirit, are not fully within God's will, and generally are not as "in tune" with God as you are.

Very presumptuous of you. Pride comes before a fall.

It is obvious you think I am wrong and you are right. I too can conclude you think the same about yourself, that you are more guided then I.

I repeatedly have said, I don't mind if you believe in evolution. But even this you would like to argue against because I speak against you teaching that parts of the Bible are not salvation issues according to Vance. I have not right to say parts of the Bible aren't salvation issues so you need to not completely believe it, or read it a certain way. It is free to your own interpretation. That is a faulty way to teach. God gave us the Bible, if we are to respect what God has given us we would take it seriously and not conclude on our own what we can pick and choose to believe.

You have choosen for yourself to believe Genesis 1-11 is not accurate when read as another book of the Bible. As I have said, for you to believe this is your right. You though take this farther and teach others that they too can do the same and be ok. That they can conclude Genesis 1-11 can be read however they want as along as they include God somewhere. You teach others that they need not concern themselves with Genesis thinking it may clue into a salvation issue. What right do you have to lead others to what they can pick and choose in the Bible to be true and concern salvation or not? Who appointed you to say Genesis is does not concern salvation, Job doesn't concern salvation, Jesus being born of the Holy Spirit does not concern salvation?

Again, I repeat from your conclusions that you have shared on this forum I would conclude you are not well versed in scripture. And your 30 years of attaching yourself to the name Christian has no bearing on how mature you are as a child of God. I believe you are a child of God, but I believe you have not read the Bible and understood what is written inside.

 

[herev]

Just correcting some misunderstandings, as I see them. Don't let the words on the screen get to you, unless they hit home...

no problem

Perhaps it is I who have not made it clear to you, herev and others. I have used the quote system provided here to make it clear who I am responding to.

It appears that you are making generic statements. I have not been concerned as much on the ones you make clear and are refuting what someone has actually said they believe, the problem comes in when you make the statements like the ones I highlighted--which is NOT what they believe.

The te-ist have a wide range of beliefs. Vance believes there was no Adam and Eve, herev believes there was. Karl believes Jesus wasn't fully God here on earth, Vance and herev do. Vance believe Jesus being conceived of the Holy Spirit is not a salvation issue, herev does.

actually herev does for his own salvation, herev does not believe YOU have to believe it--herev believes YOU have to believe Jesus is your lord and savior and that you have to accept his gift of eternal life to be saved.

It would be unfair of me to lump you all into one group and respond to you all as a whole, since you all hold a wide range of beliefs here. So I have tried to make it clear who I am responding to. Apparently, I have not been clear enough. Herev, what do you suggest I do more so that you and others are certain to whom I am responding to. I have tried the quote system to make it clear, but by your response here saying I am attacking you all, it wasn't clear to you who I was responding to.

as I said, it was more the issues I pointed to, such as assuming that someone who disagrees with you is still on milk or that you believe the truth, but we don't, etc.

Room in my heart for to accept, is a rather judgemental statement. I assume since you are a pastor you would understand that when God disciplines and punishes He does so out of love. Paul did the same, as do parents today with their children. What would show I have not room in my heart for you or others would be to remain silent.

I agree that you should not remain silent if you feel God is telling you to speak. But words are all we have on the computer screen, we can't see love in your eyes or hear compassion in your voice, we can't feel your hand around our shoulder. All we have are words to witness with. When you choose words (either out of malice, ignorance, or neglect) that belittle, you are not witnessing, you are pushing others away. I've said since day one in this area that we need to speak to each other with respect in order for us to have true communication. In other words, TE's should not be calling YEC's intelligence into question--not one bit!! YEC's should not be calling TE's faith, Christianity, or spiritual maturity into question--these things are insulting and do not further conversation.

I do not equate myself with any of the above mentioned names. I am only but a servant to God. I do try to follow their examples, as God saw it important for them to be written in the Bible.

But Jesus, while he turned over tables in the Temple to show disdain for those who would cheapen God's house, sat down and supped with sinners, he loved them as they were. Let's follow that example.

In Psalms it says sin is passed on through conception when a male and female come to together. If Mary came together with any man, sin would be passed on to Jesus Christ, as the Bible states. Jesus Christ was without sin. He took our sins on Himself at His death. To say that it isn't a salvation issue that Jesus could have been conceived naturally is to say Jesus was in sin, for this follows the teachings of the Bible. One must add or subtract to rectify it. If Jesus was with sin, Jesus could not have been God, because God does not sin. Vance stated in another post this wasn't a salvation issue, I beg to differ and will say to teach this is false teaching.

to say you disagree is one thing, to assume others are not Christian is another. All we have to go on is their word--their salvation is between them and God alone. There really are Christians that I know who deny the virgin birth--I don't get it--I don't know how they do that, but I accept that they believe Jesus is God and that he is their personal lord and savior.

Karl says Jesus wasn't fully God here on earth. This flys in the face of Biblical teachings throughout the Gospels. 'The Father and I are One', would be the most obvious. Another would be when Christ says 'I AM.' Stating Jesus was not fully God here on earth is also false teaching.

I've never heard Karl say that. I think it would violate the requirement here that he accept the Nicene Creed if he did

Herev, when the atheist tell others God doesn't exist, shall I be quiet? When the mormons say they too can become God, shall I sit quiet and not speak a word then too? When a Christian claims Jesus didn't raise from the dead, shall I be quiet and allow this teaching to be undisputed?

We're in the Christian only area, these issues don't apply here

When a Christian claims that Jesus wasn't God here on earth shall I hold my tongue so to obey your rules?

first of all, they're not MY rules, secondly of course not--no one wants to silence you--I'm only asking that you examine your word choices and insinuations--and I'm not asking as a mod either, but as a fellow Christian--a brother in the faith.

When a Christian claims Jesus could have been born as we are today, thus in sin, shall I kept my mouth shut as if ashamed?

see above

When a Christian claims the Bible is in error, so it should be read differently, shall I be quiet or show that if one pays attention to grammar they would better understand?

see above, but this is one of the problems. I accept TE, but I do not believe the Bible is in error--this is one of the points I am trying to make.

Reality is what you make it, it is your perception. My reality is that I don't belong to this world, I am not subject to this worlds judgement, I am subject to God's and only God's judgement.

Good for you!

As I said to Vance, are you so sure that Genesis 1-11, and other parts of the Bible are not salvation issues that you are willing to teach others they aren't and put your own soul on the line for it?

I do it all the time I teach people to study and draw their own interpretations, but for me to suggest that ANYTHING other than faith in God's grace offered in Jesus' sacrifice is needed for salvation, then I have indeed added to the Bible and taken away from the power of the cross.

God could have given us anything, and so much more than just the Bible, but He gave us the Bible for a reason.

we all agree on that one--really we do--this is what I suggest that your heart is hardened against believing. WE interpret it differently and you think we disregard it.

I do not take lightly the teachings therein because I believe John when he said if they were to record all of Jesus' works, the earth would not be able to contain them.

Nor do I, nor does any TE that I know. WE all agree on those things.

I believe the same with God, and yet we have about a 2000 page Bible. Not much, as compared to what could have been given if God revealed everything. So it is my belief that what He did reveal is alot more important than many here are giving credit for it to be, by dismissing parts as allegorical, or not needed for salvation.

Again, believing it is allegorical is not to dismiss it--see what I mean--I take Genesis 1, 2, and 3 VERY SERIOUSLY. I simply interpret it differently than you do. And again, my comments on anything being necessary for salvation outside of faith stand. I will not take away from the gospel by adding to the requirements of salvation.

You want to believe evolution, as I said I am fine with it.

Good, but do you accept that I am of God, that I believe in His Son, and am obedient to the Spirit?

The problem lies when anyone teaches parts of the Bible are not salvation issues or are not needed to be concerned with.

Yes, that does seem to be a problem for you, but it is also by definition a judgmental one--if you believe that our belief in salvation is flawed then that is a judgment.

I am wholly convinced we will each be judged according to what we had the chance to know.

You'll have to prove that one to me. That is a gnostic teaching. We are not saved by any knowledge

We here have the chance to know all of the Bible

and yet, scholars study it their whole lives and never know all of it. Many good Christians study it and disagree on it's interpretation.

and I believe we will be judged on the fact of what we did with God's Word here on earth.

judged how?

Did we believe and obey, or did we pick and choose what we wanted to believe and obey...

this is the insulting part again. Despite being told repeatedly we are not simply picking and choosing and simply dismissing parts of the Bible, you continue to pass that judgment against us. This is exactly what I mean
God Bless

 

[Vance]

There is a difference between God's Holy Scripture for our edification and enhancement of our spirtual walk and effectiveness for Him and an issue of salvation. What does Paul say about Scripture (which to him meant the Old Testament)? What does Jesus say about what we need to be saved? What does Paul say about what is needed for salvation? Are YOU sure that you want to stake the presentation of the Gospel message with a greater list of "salvation issues" than God intended? Could this not detract from the essential belief and surrender? I don't want to single out the Roman Catholic Church, but at times it has taught a great deal of additional requirements for reaching Heaven beyond what Scripture gives us. I think we need to avoid falling into that same trap.

All Scripture is Holy, is God's wonderful gift to us for our edification and spiritual growth. There is no denying that. But to say that a particular interpretation about every aspect of Scripture is essential for Salvation is a very dangerous teaching.

Let's play out what you are saying to its logical conclusion. Since no two denominations, in fact, no two PEOPLE will ever have the same interpretation about every Scripture in the Bible, that means that there can only be one denomination, or possibly only one person, who "got it all right" and is actually saved. This is, I think you would agree, ridiculous. So, you would agree that not every text requires a particular interpretation, and thus belief, about its message in order for the reader to be truly saved. And if THIS is true, then you are back to picking and choosing what you will insist is a salvation issue. You may have a bigger "basket" of issues that you think are essential, but you are still picking and choosing among the Scripture for those essential issues.

Part of the problem comes down to the the "if/then" problem. There may be a belief that we both agree is an essential for salvation. Let's call that belief X. But you may take it a step further and say "well, if you don't believe Y, then I don't see how you could believe X, so Y is also an essential belief." But, if it wasn't for your position that it is a prerequisite for a belief in X, you would not think Y in and of itself was essential. But the point is that many people might very easily believe the essential X without believing Y. So, the problem lies with your incorrect assumption that Y is a prerequisite to a belief in X. I think this linking of issues is at the core of much of the dispute.

 

[Vance]

MLML said:
"Again, I repeat from your conclusions that you have shared on this forum I would conclude you are not well versed in scripture. And your 30 years of attaching yourself to the name Christian has no bearing on how mature you are as a child of God. I believe you are a child of God, but I believe you have not read the Bible and understood what is written inside."

Tim, what would you say about this conclusion?

 

[gluadys]

As I said to Vance, are you so sure that Genesis 1-11, and other parts of the Bible are not salvation issues that you are willing to teach others they aren't and put your own soul on the line for it? God could have given us anything, and so much more than just the Bible, but He gave us the Bible for a reason. I do not take lightly the teachings therein because I believe John when he said if they were to record all of Jesus' works, the earth would not be able to contain them. I believe the same with God, and yet we have about a 2000 page Bible. Not much, as compared to what could have been given if God revealed everything. So it is my belief that what He did reveal is alot more important than many here are giving credit for it to be, by dismissing parts as allegorical, or not needed for salvation.

You want to believe evolution, as I said I am fine with it. The problem lies when anyone teaches parts of the Bible are not salvation issues or are not needed to be concerned with. I am wholly convinced we will each be judged according to what we had the chance to know. We here have the chance to know all of the Bible and I believe we will be judged on the fact of what we did with God's Word here on earth. Did we believe and obey, or did we pick and choose what we wanted to believe and obey...

This is one of the most profound and thought provoking posts I've read in a long time. - And a very convincing case.

But it is grounded in misapprehensions about the TE position.

Item: "are you so sure that Genesis 1-11, and other parts of the Bible are not salvation issues ...?"

TEs do not believe that whole chapters of the bible, including Genesis 1-11 are not about salvation issues. There are very important salvation issues raised in these chapters. What we don't believe is that the days of creation week must be interpreted as literal calendar days is one of those issues. Some of us don't believe it is necessary to hold that Adam was a literal, historical person. But we do most emphatically believe that what the story in Genesis 2-3 tells us about our human nature, our broken relationship to God, our need for redemption and the promise of salvation are very important salvation issues.

Item: "So it is my belief that what He did reveal is alot more important than many here are giving credit for it to be, by dismissing parts as allegorical, or not needed for salvation. " Emphasis added.

TEs do not use allegorical interpretations to dismiss scripture, but because they believe this is the proper way to interpret this particular passage of scripture and that we come closer to the true message of this passage through an allegorical interpretation than through a literal interpretation.

I know that this is a very difficult concept to understand when a person has been taught all their life that "literal"="true". But that is not the meaning of "literal". "Literal" means "simplest, most basic, most obvious meaning". That meaning is not necesarily the truest meaning.

Item: "Did we believe and obey, or did we pick and choose what we wanted to believe and obey."

TEs no more feel they have any right to pick and choose what part of scripture we will believe and obey than non-TEs do. What we seek is the best understanding of scripture so that we believe and obey its true teachings. All of them.

 

[California Tim]

MLML said:
"Again, I repeat from your conclusions that you have shared on this forum I would conclude you are not well versed in scripture. And your 30 years of attaching yourself to the name Christian has no bearing on how mature you are as a child of God. I believe you are a child of God, but I believe you have not read the Bible and understood what is written inside."

Tim, what would you say about this conclusion?

Since I have not researched every thread related to the above comment, I cannot comment with auhority on this matter. I have been relatively focused on the origins forum and in particular those matters relating to the narrative historical aspect of the Genesis creation account. That having been said, and without making an individual judgement, I will concur, based on personal experience and associations, that time and effort alone do not necessarily spawn spiritual maturity. I have, for example, seen many disturbing statisitics demonstrating clearly a departure from the fundamentals of the Gospel within the clergy itself. Many "so-called" pastors (all very well versed in Biblical and doctrinal study) late in their careers come to question the essentials of the faith, not to mention the Biblical stance on peripheral issues such as homosexuality and abortion. Furthermore, many university theological scholars are very liberal (at best) insofar as Biblical application is concerned, yet few would argue their knowledge of the text. Paul summed it up well in this verse referring to many people in the latter days before Christ's return:

...always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Tim 3:7)​

He further instructs us not to grow weary in doing good, and to stay the course, run the race so as to be won etc etc. All these exhortations presuppose that at no time in a Christian's life can he/she relax and breathe a sigh of relief when it comes to developing our faith. Our struggles never end in this life and our level of maturity ultimately is proportional to the extent we become entirely dependent on the strength of Christ within us rather than our own. So in my opinion the big difference is in knowledge and wisdom. A 92 year old great grandmother who dropped out of 3rd grade to begin a family that eventually grew to 15 or more children, who herself never did a lot of reading, who never learned greek, never questioned a Bible passage's relevence is capable of being far wiser in spiritual matters than a PhD in theology or even a pastor of 20 years. So, I feel the visible fruit of the Spirit is a better guage in determining the level of spritiual maturity in a fellow believer than time in the faith.

 

[Vance]

Oh, I would agree that we are always growing and maturing in the faith, which is exactly why we should refrain from doctrinal dogmatism in non-essential matters. What is prideful and hubristic in the extreme is to assume that the degree to which someone doesn't agree with your own particular interpretation of Scripture is the degree to which they must be an "immature" Christian.

 

[MLML]

Oh, I would agree that we are always growing and maturing in the faith, which is exactly why we should refrain from doctrinal dogmatism in non-essential matters. What is prideful and hubristic in the extreme is to assume that the degree to which someone doesn't agree with your own particular interpretation of Scripture is the degree to which they must be an "immature" Christian.

Here in the first sentence you have concluded that the passages that I spoke of are non-essential matters.

I am not very dogmatic on what you believe when it comes to evolution. I am rather dogmatic when it comes to proclaiming what is non-essential in the Bible.

What is prideful is to make the claim and preach it on what parts of scripture are non-essential. It is not your interpretation that find faulty, it is your proclamation and teaching of your conclusion of what parts of scripture are non-essential that I find to be false.

I personally find the first sin to be a salvation issue because it touches on why Christ needed to come. It is rather important to understand the story. Whether you believe it to be allegorical or literal, as I have repeatedly said, is your own choosing.

I have not come here and told you my way is the right way. You and others have misrepresented me and claimed I have said such a thing when i have not. I have come here to refute you and others who claim pieces, parts, whole, of scripture are non-essential and teach it to others that they aren't.

All who teach will be held accountable to what they have taught, by God. I fear God, so I hold to His Authority that is written in His Word, I take it very seriously, and when the Bible says "God says" I take God for His Word.

 

[Vance]

And I think it is equally prideful to say what IS an essential salvation matter, and find the proclamation and teaching of it prideful as well. Most Christians on this forum, TE and YEC alike have agreed that how one believes about origins is not essential to salvation. That is all.

Now, you bring up the first sin. First of all, just because I may read a text figuratively does NOT mean that I don't believe there was a first sin. I have no idea whether there was a single person who committed a first sin. I DO believe that sin entered the world through human selfishness, greed and pride. And, I believe that as a result, we ALL are in a sinful state and in need of redemption. So, YES, the teaching in Scripture that we are all in a sinful state is an essential Truth that God is giving us, whether it is meant to be read literally or figuratively.

So, this gets back to my point above about determining that a point is essential to salvation because you believe it to be a prerequisite to a belief which is essential to salvation.

Also, I think you have somehow confused "essential for salvation" with just plain essential. I believe every part of Scripture is an essential message from God for our spiritual development and growth. EVERY part. I think you are assuming that believing something is written figuratively is someone believing it LESS, or not as seriously or as much "from God". I am not sure why you would think this.