What I don't understand . . .

[grmorton]

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

I am a TE. Thus, anything you say about them applies to me. To wit:

"Again, read my response above. It is the te-ist who claims evolution was done by God. It is the te-ist asserts the scientists don't have bias' and don't look to see this world without God. So I simply asked you a very simple question, where in those theories does it say thank you to God. You assert the scientist aren't against God and many are for Him, so I ask where is the thanks to the One who created in those theories. " YOu said this at http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10839546&postcount=15

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?

NO, I won't argue that point, but I will argue that you aren't getting your facts right about TE's concerning what they believe.

 

[MLML]

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.

Again, I have not stated, as you and herev have both claimed I have, what parts are essential for salvation. I have not claimed nor stated that one must understand as I to be saved. I have never said any such thing, and that is a gross misrepresentation of my points.

Here again you appeal to popularity as if it is a convincing factor on what to believe. As I previously have said, if I cared what the population said, I would call myself a Christian and act the opposite.

I have not claimed what is essential for salvation, but rather refute you for saying what isn't essential for salvation. You have claimed that the origins - for me this includes Genesis 1-3 - is not a salvation issue. Once again I disagree and I find fault in you for preaching it is non-essential.

I cannot and will not stay quiet when one preaches parts of the Bible are non-essential parts, that things such as original sin are not salvation issues, that parts of the Bible aren't salvation issues and are no concern to others.

For me this is a clear sign that someone is teaching falsely, claiming parts of the Bible - especially parts that have God Says - are non-essentials.

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.

If you were interested in what I actually said you would have seen I said it is your choosing to read it how you like. Whether you believe evolution or not isn't a problem for me nor is it a concern. But that is if you were interested in what I said rather than engaging in creating a further argument.

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.

Well Jesus said believe in Me and you shall not perish but have eternal life. I tend to believe in Him, believe Him, and follow Him. When it says either Jesus says, the Lord says, Father says, or God says, I listen up and take God for His Word rather than diminish His Words by saying it is a story not what God really said. But it is your right to say such a thing and it is fine with me.

You like to take it further and preach that it is ok and good for others to do the same. You seem to not be able to just leave it as this is how I believe, but rather feel it is your job or duty to tell others they can follow you in your belief.

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.

Define for me what 'Believe in Me' means.

Again, you misrepresent me, I believe to create an argument to use against me. I have not called into question your reading or interpretation. I have called into question your teachings, here on this forum.


The worst dangers aren't always well marked.

 

[MLML]

I am a TE. Thus, anything you say about them applies to me. To wit:

"Again, read my response above. It is the te-ist who claims evolution was done by God. It is the te-ist asserts the scientists don't have bias' and don't look to see this world without God. So I simply asked you a very simple question, where in those theories does it say thank you to God. You assert the scientist aren't against God and many are for Him, so I ask where is the thanks to the One who created in those theories. " YOu said this at http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10839546&postcount=15

So with te-ist having so many different beliefs, you believe I am talking to you when I talk to Vance? So then I can safely assume that whatever Vance believes you believe as well? I can safely lump you and Vance together as one when concerning beliefs?

I was not aware that you and Vance believe all of the same things concerning your faith, so I didn't believe I was also talking to you.

Still though I didn't demand you to answer me, nor did I say you didn't thank God. I said in those theories that are also challenging the Biblical account, there is not thanks to God as the creator. One needs not to explain God, or study God, but a mere thank you would have been appropriate for one to write if they were guided by God and a believer that evolution was God's method. I have also not stated that the followers of evolution, such as the te-ists don't thank God themselves in their lives. I have stated that those theories created do not acknowledge God in the slightest.

You will have to forgive me, but I find thanking God to be rather important in my life, so that is how I view things.

NO, I won't argue that point, but I will argue that you aren't getting your facts right about TE's concerning what they believe.

Well as soon as you te-ist get together and get your facts straight concerning what you all believe and don't believe concerning evolution and the Biblical accounts, I might be able to address you as a whole. But I cannot address you all as a whole because you all vary widely in what you believe.

Maybe you think it is necessary to just be careless and inconsiderate and lump you all together even though some accept an Adam and Eve, some don't, some accept a flood, others don't, some accept a real Moses, some don't, ect, ect.

Until the te-ist, as a whole, can get their own facts straight about what they believe, there will always be one like yourself claiming another is misrepresenting the te-ist. Even when they weren't even speaking of the te-ist as a whole but rather to an individual person.

It is rather comical that one side of the te-ist says we don't all have the same belief so don't talk of us as a whole. Then the other side of the te-ist says when you speak of a te-ist you are also speaking to me. I really wish you all would figure out if you want to be lump together and considered that you all believe exactly the same, or if you would rather be treated as individuals.

 

[herev]

as they come to carry me away, you will know it was here that I finally lost it!!! We will never understand each other. We will always have selective hearing, there is no hope--all is lost--all is doom-
ahhhhhh
reminds me of an original series Star Trek show called, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield
I'm done for--It's over, somebody put me out of my misery

and now here they come to take me away
[move]

[/move]

 

[Vance]

I have not claimed what is essential for salvation, but rather refute you for saying what isn't essential for salvation. You have claimed that the origins - for me this includes Genesis 1-3 - is not a salvation issue. Once again I disagree and I find fault in you for preaching it is non-essential.

I cannot and will not stay quiet when one preaches parts of the Bible are non-essential parts, that things such as original sin are not salvation issues, that parts of the Bible aren't salvation issues and are no concern to others.

But, see here you contradict yourself in the parts I emphasized. You are indeed asserting what is essential for salvation. But you are still missing the point. I never said that ANY Scripture is non-essential. I just said not every doctrine espoused from Scripture is essential for salvation. How one believes about every Scripture need not be the same in order to be saved.

And you seem to have ignored what I said earlier. Where did I say that I did not believe in original sin? I said just the contrary above.

For me this is a clear sign that someone is teaching falsely, claiming parts of the Bible - especially parts that have God Says - are non-essentials.

When have I ever said some parts are non-essentials? Again, do you equate essentials with essential for salvation? Because if you do, then you are saying that a correct interpretation of every part of Scripture is essential for salvation. Is that what you are saying? If not, then you agree with me that ALL of Scripture is God's direct and holy message to us, just as He intended, but we all need not agree on what that message is in every instance for us both to be saved.

Well Jesus said believe in Me and you shall not perish but have eternal life. I tend to believe in Him, believe Him, and follow Him. When it says either Jesus says, the Lord says, Father says, or God says, I listen up and take God for His Word rather than diminish His Words by saying it is a story not what God really said. But it is your right to say such a thing and it is fine with me.

Where are you coming up with this stuff? I also believe in Him, believe Him and follow Him. I also listen up and take God for His Word. I do not diminish what God says in any manner. This is where you, and most YEC's get derailed. You someone believe that accepting that God is telling us something in figurative language rather than literal language is somehow "diminishing" its importance, its validity, its essential nature for our Christian walk. Until YEC's accept that most TE's revere God's Scripture as much as they do, and feel God speaking directly through every Scripture, just like they do, and take such messages to heart, just like they do, they will always be misundersanding and misrepresenting the TE position.

You like to take it further and preach that it is ok and good for others to do the same. You seem to not be able to just leave it as this is how I believe, but rather feel it is your job or duty to tell others they can follow you in your belief.

Do you not feel called to tell others about God's messages in Scripture? Why don't you just leave your YEC interpretation of Scripture "as how you believe" and not tell others so they can follow your belief? I better call all the YEC ministries and let them know that we are not supposed to be spreading what we believe God is telling us in Scripture. I am sure they will shut down their website and stop writing books. I guess I better tell my pastor, too, since he is telling us what he believes Scripture is saying every Sunday, as is every pastor in the world.

Define for me what 'Believe in Me' means.

That we should believe that God is God, the creator of all we see. He is our Father and Jesus is His Son, who was sent to redeem our sins. I believe and accept this wholly.

Again, you misrepresent me, I believe to create an argument to use against me. I have not called into question your reading or interpretation. I have called into question your teachings, here on this forum.

But in doing so, you are simply disagreeing with my interpretation, since if you agreed with my interpretation, you would not oppose my propounding it.

The worst dangers aren't always well marked.

Oh, I agree. I think YEC'ism is one of the greatest dangers to Christianity in our time, but many in our evangelical nation just don't see it.

 

[MLML]

But, see here you contradict yourself in the parts I emphasized. You are indeed asserting what is essential for salvation. But you are still missing the point. I never said that ANY Scripture is non-essential. I just said not every doctrine espoused from Scripture is essential for salvation. How one believes about every Scripture need not be the same in order to be saved.

A contradiction was not made, but rather a fallacy on your part. Because I speak against you, who is claiming and teaching what is not essential in the Bible, does not mean I am preching what is essential.

Do you feel you have been called by God to tell others what they can take as essential and not essential in the Bible?

And you seem to have ignored what I said earlier. Where did I say that I did not believe in original sin? I said just the contrary above.

I did not say you didn't believe original sin. If you wanted to represent me accurately instead of falsely you would have responded to what I actual said: original sin is not a salvation issue according to Vance.

When have I ever said some parts are non-essentials? Again, do you equate essentials with essential for salvation? Because if you do, then you are saying that a correct interpretation of every part of Scripture is essential for salvation. Is that what you are saying? If not, then you agree with me that ALL of Scripture is God's direct and holy message to us, just as He intended, but we all need not agree on what that message is in every instance for us both to be saved.

Here are your words in response to the origina issue, Genesis 1-3:

"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."

I, unlike you, don't claim what is or isn't essential for salvation. I feel I am lead to just believe what is written as it is written. For me this is literal until the text suggests that it isn't literal. I read the literal with the mindset of who it was written to. Genesis 1-3 wasn't just written for the Hebrews but for all people to know where and how we got here.

You don't have to have the correct interpretation which would mean you don't have to be 100% correct on what you understand. I don't claim to understand how all that we see could have been done in a creation week, but I believe it happened. I have access to much more than those in third world countries concerning God. If I take what I have and choose to tell others they need not concern themselves with it as well because it is a non-salvation issue or a non-essential issue, it is not my place.

For some 'believe in Me' means believe whatever Jesus and God says. Genesis 1-3 has alot of God says, so I and others just believe what He says. You and others have choosen to believe God didn't actually say those things, but rather Moses or the whomever wrote it so we all would know God is the creator.

I have not once said that you must believe as me, or believe and understand everything or you will not be saved.

Where are you coming up with this stuff? I also believe in Him, believe Him and follow Him. I also listen up and take God for His Word. I do not diminish what God says in any manner. This is where you, and most YEC's get derailed. You someone believe that accepting that God is telling us something in figurative language rather than literal language is somehow "diminishing" its importance, its validity, its essential nature for our Christian walk. Until YEC's accept that most TE's revere God's Scripture as much as they do, and feel God speaking directly through every Scripture, just like they do, and take such messages to heart, just like they do, they will always be misundersanding and misrepresenting the TE position.

Well let me tell you where I have come up with this stuff, the Bible. In the Gospel Jesus says whoever shall believe in Him shall have eternal life. I didn't state you didn't believe, I stated what I believe. Again, do you wish for me to speak for you, or just myself. It seems when one speaks for another they get upset, when one speaks for only themself others get upset. One cannot win here.

Well when God says... and you say it is not really God saying literally, but it is allegorical, myth, figurative, you have changed the meaning of what God says. You have decided speak for God rather than allow God to speak for Himself.

I am sure you and many others revere God and His Word. I have not doubted that all. I believe you have misunderstood, and you take your misunderstanding and preach it as truth.

I must say you consistently try to play the part of you being misreprested, yet you are the one who consistently misrepresents my points.

Do you not feel called to tell others about God's messages in Scripture?

I do.

Why don't you just leave your YEC interpretation of Scripture "as how you believe" and not tell others so they can follow your belief?

I don't preach yec, I preach Christ crucified.

I better call all the YEC ministries and let them know that we are not supposed to be spreading what we believe God is telling us in Scripture. I am sure they will shut down their website and stop writing books. I guess I better tell my pastor, too, since he is telling us what he believes Scripture is saying every Sunday, as is every pastor in the world.

Your point here other than being sarcastic?

That we should believe that God is God, the creator of all we see. He is our Father and Jesus is His Son, who was sent to redeem our sins. I believe and accept this wholly.

I asked you this question hoping you would give a good answer. So in light of what you have said, shall the devil and his demons be saved as well, because they believe as you have stated here.

James 2:19

But in doing so, you are simply disagreeing with my interpretation, since if you agreed with my interpretation, you would not oppose my propounding it.

I have not been shy about saying I disagree with your interpretation. I have said it is your choosing to read it as you do. I oppose your continuing preaching that others can can attribute parts of the Bible as non-essential and teach others what parts are not salvation issues.

You have taught here that Jesus Christ being conceived of the Holy Spirit is not a salvation issue. That Jesus Christ could have been born through conception of a man and Mary and still be Christ, yet the Bible says if this type of conception takes place the child inherits sin.

This is the type of false teaching I highly oppose.

Oh, I agree. I think YEC'ism is one of the greatest dangers to Christianity in our time, but many in our evangelical nation just don't see it.

Another misunderstanding of yours. The greatest danger that is not well marked is those who are inside the church and teach falsely. If you were well versed in the Bible you would have known this because 2 Peter teaches it as the greatest danger not well marked.

 

[Vance]

A contradiction was not made, but rather a fallacy on your part. Because I speak against you, who is claiming and teaching what is not essential in the Bible, does not mean I am preching what is essential.

OK, there seems to be some confusion between what is essential in Scripture and what is essential for salvation. So, let's clear it up. Do you believe that a particular interpretation of each Scripture must be believed in order to be saved?

Do you feel you have been called by God to tell others what they can take as essential and not essential in the Bible?

Of course not. I just point out what my interpretation is and let them go from there. But Christians DO often discuss which beliefs are essential for salvation. Entire denominations are built around such debates. I say that my interpretation is that how one believes about the methods and timing of God's Creation is not, in itself, a salvation issue. If you believe it IS a salvation issue, then just explain why. But remember, your saying that it IS a salvation issue is also just your intepretation and doctrinal conclusion. And your presenting your conclusion is the same as me presenting mine.

I did not say you didn't believe original sin. If you wanted to represent me accurately instead of falsely you would have responded to what I actual said: original sin is not a salvation issue according to Vance.

Wrong again. I think a belief in our sinful nature and need of redemption is, indeed, a salvation issue. If you don't believe you are in need of redemption, then there is no need to accept Christ as your sacrifice.

Here are your words in response to the origina issue, Genesis 1-3:

"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."

Right, non-essential to salvation. Nothing in Scripture is superfluous, all is God's Holy message to us. Do YOU think a particular, "correct" interpretation of every Scripture in the Bible is necessary for salvation?

I, unlike you, don't claim what is or isn't essential for salvation. I feel I am lead to just believe what is written as it is written. For me this is literal until the text suggests that it isn't literal. I read the literal with the mindset of who it was written to. Genesis 1-3 wasn't just written for the Hebrews but for all people to know where and how we got here.

1. Yes, you did say that a belief in the virgin birth and in a literal Adam sinning were salvation issues, did you not?

2. I also believe what is written as it is written. And I believe it was written figuratively.

3. Why do you assume that we should start with the literal unless the text explicitly suggests otherwise? Only in the last couple of hundred years has this been how people read texts about the past. Why would God write in a way best suited to those reading after the Enlightenment, and not those who read it up to that point?

Are you under the impression that a literal reading was the norm throughout the Christian church, and before that with the Hebrews?

You don't have to have the correct interpretation which would mean you don't have to be 100% correct on what you understand. I don't claim to understand how all that we see could have been done in a creation week, but I believe it happened. I have access to much more than those in third world countries concerning God. If I take what I have and choose to tell others they need not concern themselves with it as well because it is a non-salvation issue or a non-essential issue, it is not my place.

Who said ANYTHING about not concerning yourself with ANY Scripture? Is it your place to tell people that they must read something literally? It seems to be the place of all the YEC ministries, that is for sure.

For some 'believe in Me' means believe whatever Jesus and God says. Genesis 1-3 has alot of God says, so I and others just believe what He says. You and others have choosen to believe God didn't actually say those things, but rather Moses or the whomever wrote it so we all would know God is the creator.

I also believe what He says. Why do you think we believe that God didn't actually say those things? I believe God inspired all of it, just like you do. I just think that what He inspired was meant to be read figuratively in many instances.

Well let me tell you where I have come up with this stuff, the Bible.

No, my point was where you are coming up with this stuff about what I believe. It is all wrong.

In the Gospel Jesus says whoever shall believe in Him shall have eternal life. I didn't state you didn't believe, I stated what I believe. Again, do you wish for me to speak for you, or just myself. It seems when one speaks for another they get upset, when one speaks for only themself others get upset. One cannot win here.

No, but you are, indeed, saying things about what I, and other TE's, believe which is not what we believe.

Well when God says... and you say it is not really God saying literally, but it is allegorical, myth, figurative, you have changed the meaning of what God says. You have decided speak for God rather than allow God to speak for Himself.

How is it changing the meaning of what God says if He MEANT it to be written and read figuratively. You are begging the question mightily. You are, for some reason, assuming that it is clear that God is speaking literally and millions of Christians from the earliest Fathers forward are just ignoring this "obvious" meaning and substituting something else in.

Have you considered that maybe God MEANT it to be read figuratively and it is YOU who is deciding to speak for God rather than allowing God to speak for Himself?

I am sure you and many others revere God and His Word. I have not doubted that all. I believe you have misunderstood, and you take your misunderstanding and preach it as truth.

And I think you do the same thing.

I must say you consistently try to play the part of you being misreprested, yet you are the one who consistently misrepresents my points.

Throughout your posts you say the following:
1. TE's don't accept God at his word
2. TE's substitute their own reading over the obvious meaning
3. TE's think certain parts of the Bible are not essential

These are not true. They are misrepresentations.

I have not been shy about saying I disagree with your interpretation. I have said it is your choosing to read it as you do. I oppose your continuing preaching that others can can attribute parts of the Bible as non-essential and teach others what parts are not salvation issues.

Again, you misrepresent. See above.

You have taught here that Jesus Christ being conceived of the Holy Spirit is not a salvation issue. That Jesus Christ could have been born through conception of a man and Mary and still be Christ, yet the Bible says if this type of conception takes place the child inherits sin.

Where does it say this? Not even all YEC's believe what you are propounding. Did Jesus not get genetic material from Mary?

I personally believe in the virgin birth, but I do not believe that such a belief is essential for salvation. You think it IS an essential only because of the "if/then" analysis I have already discussed. You say that IF you don't believe in the virgin birth, THEN you can't believe in X, Y or Z, which ARE essentials. Thus, you have a "pre-requisite" theory of the virgin birth being essential. But the fact that people DO believe in X, Y or Z without believing in the virgin birth disprove your "prerequisite" theory.

If a person recognizes his sinful nature, believes that Jesus has died in redemption of that sin and then accepts that gift of redemption, meaning they accept Jesus as their Lord as well as savior, they will be saved.

Do you not think this is the case? Do you place some additional requirements for salvation?

Another misunderstanding of yours. The greatest danger that is not well marked is those who are inside the church and teach falsely. If you were well versed in the Bible you would have known this because 2 Peter teaches it as the greatest danger not well marked.

Right, and the YEC's are inside the church and are teaching falsely. So, how does this NOT fit Peter's teaching?

 

[gnano]

I tend to think it is God who keeps me healthy, and allows the things that which I use to be available. I think I am beginning to understand this debate here.

Some look to thank science for what they have. Others look to thank God for what they have.

I just don't put that much importance on science as many of you te-ist do. God didn't call us to study science, He called us into fellowship with Him.

Maybe you can point out in the theories of evolution, big bang, and abiogenesis where it says, Thank you God.

Do you know in all of Thomas Aquinas works, he never once said thank you God?

Ah well, just a different way we both have when looking at things.

God did not make MRI scanners. Scientists did. God did not make cell phones. Scientists did. God did not make triple bypass surgery. Scientists did. And yet, I always hear people thanking an invisible man in the sky for these things. I never see people thanking scientists, science or technology. So how can you see such things as coming from God if it was MAN that made all these things with our weak and sinful minds?