Why I don't believe in evolution...

[The Barbarian]

I am glad I wasn't drinking something when I read that - I likely would have spat liquid all over my screen. Such great insolence to level that accusation against me. I do believe it was the serpent who can be quoted as saying, "Did God really say...?".

Which version of the Bible was that?

My "interpretation" of "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", is, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

You're in agreement with other Christians in that; you just don't approve of the way He did it.

No, I present the Word of God as the Word of God.

With a few additions and modifications. We get that. You won't go to hell for not accepting the way He created things, but it's not a good idea to present your interpretations as His word.

 

[coffee4u]

No one can prove anything because there is no method that does not require subjective assumptions. I believe that there is a credible answer to the question.
This is what I believe:
Those who believe in old earth/young creation are partly right. There was also a creation, that we see recorded in the fossil record, prior to Adam. That creation was destroyed by a catastrophic flood. This was the result of Satan's rebellion. The being once called Lucifer, "Light Bearer", became Satan, God's adversary. This theory has been around since the early days of the church, long before geology was understood as it is now.

Obviously what I've said is the highly condensed version. It may be completely wrong. It does make sense of some difficulties in more traditional points of view.

That's what you believe. scripture does not say there was anything prior to Adam.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's what you believe. scripture does not say there was anything prior to Adam.

Actually, it does. Adam was created fairly late in creation, even if you take the story literally.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

Actually, it does. Adam was created fairly late in creation, even if you take the story literally.

I think you understand what she means. I know you have an argumentative spirit (which you celebrate as though it were a good thing, affectionally referring to yourself as "crabby"), but you should really pick your rebuttals more carefully. No one likes a smart-aleck.

The Bible plus science does NOT equal the Word of God. The Bible alone is God's Word, and it's 100% true and infallible. The tradition of men, whether science or the unbiblical teachings of a certain Roman church, are 100% fallible.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think you understand what she means. I know you have an argumentative spirit (which you celebrate as though it were a good thing, affectionally referring to yourself as "crabby")

Actually, "crabby" means something else.
crab•by krăb′ē

• adj.
  Grouchy; ill-tempered.
• Difficult; perplexing; crabbed; disagreeable.
• 
  adj.
  
  Crabbed; difficult, or perplexing.

It's a reference to a Bob Dole joke. Not sure you'd understand.

but you should really pick your rebuttals more carefully

It was so obvious, couldn't resist.

No one likes a smart-aleck.

Never could pass up a good straight line. It's a wonder I survived basic training.

 

[Aussie Pete]

That's what you believe. scripture does not say there was anything prior to Adam.

It is possible to translate the word "was", "became" in the account of creation. The same word is used of Lot's wife. She did not start out a pillar of salt. The implication is that Adam and Eve were to restore the earth, not populate it for the first time. Now I'm not claiming that this is a truth essential to salvation or essential for Christians to believe. What it does is explain the fossil records.

I'm not going to present the full reasoning behind this concept. People have written books about it, so this is not the right place. If you are interested, Watchman Nee's "The Mystery of Creation" is well worth reading.

It's not always helpful to argue from silence. God has revealed what He wants to reveal in His Word. We have a record of only a tiny sliver of the ministry of Christ on the earth. As far as God is concerned, it's enough. The same goes for many other mysteries.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Who knows? There may be some wild truth that harmonizes science with the Bible. But if God wanted us to know it, He would have told us.

I used to believe in evolution for animals and soulless, pre-Adamic humans. I believed that Cain took a pre-Adamic wife. I believed that all humans today are descended from Adam, with the pre-Adamic humans being wiped out in the Flood. That was my way of harmonizing evolution and the Bible. There may very well be other ways that work far better when it comes to harmonizing science and the Bible. I don't bother with them.

Now that I am saved, I just believe the Bible 100%, as it is described, as if I were reading it with no scientific understanding whatsoever. Setting my thoughts on bizarre theories, conspiracy, too much prophecy, and other such distractions were a product of my vain, unregenerate imagination.

It's not a bizarre theory. It is possible to justify it biblically. If you are not interested, fine. But some people are interested. I read a fascinating book on the subject. I sure have not made it my life's work to promote this point of view. Some people may be helped. Others reject it. Some stay neutral. That's fine by me.

 

[coffee4u]

It is possible to translate the word "was", "became" in the account of creation. The same word is used of Lot's wife. She did not start out a pillar of salt. The implication is that Adam and Eve were to restore the earth, not populate it for the first time. Now I'm not claiming that this is a truth essential to salvation or essential for Christians to believe. What it does is explain the fossil records.

I'm not going to present the full reasoning behind this concept. People have written books about it, so this is not the right place. If you are interested, Watchman Nee's "The Mystery of Creation" is well worth reading.

It's not always helpful to argue from silence. God has revealed what He wants to reveal in His Word. We have a record of only a tiny sliver of the ministry of Christ on the earth. As far as God is concerned, it's enough. The same goes for many other mysteries.

I don't have a need to explain things. I thank God I don't because I think It would drive me crazy. It is much easier in spirit to simply trust and believe and to let go of reasoning.

The world is how God wants it to be and not only do I believe it to be unexplainable I believe it is meant to be unexplainable.
Why?So that we can trust in God rather than our own intellect.

As I said up thread, is there an explanation for a man walking on water, or a donkey talking or the walls of Jericho coming down? Pick any miracle you like. They were demonstrations of Gods power. By their very nature they fall outside of mans reason, intellect and understanding. Trying to come up with a reason is to make the world into something orderly and understandable, but it is also arrogance. It is in effect bringing God down to our level by saying, "this all has a reason that we can figure out because of how smart we are."
God said:
Job 38:4
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
No, I don't think we do.

Doesn't matter if the reason put forth is billions of years of evolution or a previous world or something else, they are human reasons to try and explain something physical.
Which always comes back to human reason vs what God says.

 

[The Barbarian]

It is much easier in spirit to simply trust and believe and to let go of reasoning.

It makes it easier to believe all sort of things that aren't true, as well as some that are. That's the problem with abandoning reason.

But faith in God is reasonable.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

It makes it easier to believe all sort of things that aren't true, as well as some that are. That's the problem with abandoning reason.

But faith in God is reasonable.

Faith alone, in Christ alone, is reasonable.

Anyone who doesn't believe that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, is not reasonable and is not a Christian. And this is not a protestant vs catholic issue, as there are protestants who do not, and catholics who do.

I can afford to be wrong about evolution. It is not something upon which my salvation depends. But how we are saved is something that no one can afford to mess up.

 

[The Barbarian]

Faith alone, in Christ alone, is reasonable.

That's the theological problem with "sola fide"; it's contrary to God's word.

Famously, Martin Luther helped set the sixteenth-century Reformation in motion with his German translation of the New Testament, translating Romans 3:28 by adding the word “alone” to the passage, making it read:

“For we hold that a man is justified by faith alone, apart from works of the law.”

The problem is that the only time the words “faith” and “alone” are used together occurs in James 2:24—where the word “not” is placed before them:

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
About Faith: What St. Paul Said and Didn't Say in Romans - Ascension Press Media

Second, reasonable belief would be to have faith in the Father and in the Holy Spirit as well, if you believe God on this. If you don't, then you could trust neither the Father's promises to us in Genesis, nor scripture itself, since the Holy Spirit is the inspiration for scripture.

I can afford to be wrong about evolution. It is not something upon which my salvation depends. But how we are saved is something that no one can afford to mess up.

Fortunately, Jesus made it very clear how He will decide.

Matthew 25:31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

Does this mean works alone will save you? No, it does not:

1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. [2] And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. [3] And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Hence, as God says:
James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

That's the theological problem with "sola fide"; it's contrary to God's word.

Sola Fide is contrary to God's Word?

LOL!

It's only, you know, the entire New Testament. Such as Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:8, John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8, Romans 4:5, and I could go on and on.

In the book of James, it says, as the body without life is dead, so faith without works is dead. But works are because we have been made alive in Christ. That is what James is saying. We are not made alive because of works, we have works because we are made alive. Made alive by faith. Alone.

I will tell you what is contrary to God's Word. Apostolic Succession (nowhere in the Bible). Praying to Saints (nowhere in the Bible). Perpetual virginity of Mary (nowhere in the Bible). Immaculate conception (nowhere in the Bible). Mary as co-redeemer (nowhere in the Bible). Transubstantiation (nowhere in the Bible). Purgatory (nowhere in the Bible). Limbo (nowhere in the Bible). The Pope as the vicar of Christ (nowhere in the Bible). That the one, holy, catholic church must be ruled corporately rather than consist of local churches (nowhere in the Bible).

You aren't on sturdy ground there, pardner. This little debate is about as one-sided as the Ted Bundy trial. Are you sure you want to go down this road? I can do this all day.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sola Fide is contrary to God's Word?

Let's look again...
James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

That's what God says. I believe Him. You should, too.

You aren't on sturdy ground there, pardner.

I'm agreeing with what God says to us in the Bible. It's sturdier than you think it is.

I can do this all day.

And at the end of the day, God's word still stands. And that's what counts. And that other stuff? Lots of things are true that are not in the Bible. But nothing is true that the Bible says is not true, such as sola fide.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

Ah...nice try, but no dice.

Considering the context, the proper rendering is, "declared righteous". The NIV reads, You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. That is a good translation of the verse. The Greek word is δικαιοῦται, and is the same word used in Galatians 2:16 and Acts 13:39. And since we know that the Bible is inerrant and does not contradict itself, and that the verse in James is the outlier, we have to look at it in deeper context. And what James is trying to convey, looking at the context, is that works prove justification.

You have to look at context, letting scripture interpret scripture. A common tactic of heretics is to take one verse, completely out of context, and blow it up so big as to formulate a doctrine, and use that as the lens by which they interpret all other verses.

You aren't in good company, using such a tactic. You ought to cut that out, Crabby.

 

[The Barbarian]

And what James is trying to convey, looking at the context, is that works prove justification.

Well, let's see again...

James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

Sorry, it doesn't say what you want it to say. It's such a problem for your new doctrine of "sola fide" that Martin Luther tried to have the Book of James removed from the Bible, correctly saying that it contradicted his invention of "faith alone."

...Luther, at least for a period of time, thought that the book of James contradicted what (he believed) was the Apostle Paul's teaching that justification came by faith alone (article on the canonicity of the manuscript). The Bible Knowledge Commentary admits, in its preface to this Biblical book, that it was "well known" that Martin Luther had problems with this New Testament work.

Luther, according to the Holman Bible Dictionary, Disciple's Study Bible and other references, had the greatest difficulty with what James wrote about faith and works in the second chapter of his book. Some of the key parts from verses 14 to 26 which Martin Luther disagreed with are the following.

My brethren, what good does it do, if anyone says that he has faith, and does not have works? Is faith able to save him? . . . In the same way also, faith, if it does not have works, is dead, by itself. But someone is going to say, "You have faith, and I have works." My answer is: You prove your faith to me through your works, and I will prove my faith to you through my works.

But are you willing to understand, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works . . . Do you not see that faith was working together with his works, and by works his faith was perfected? . . . You see, then, that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only (James 2:14, 17 - 18, 20 - 22, 24, HBFV).
https://www.[bless and do not curse...se]/question/why-did-luther-reject-james.html

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

^ It's funny how this guy just pretends I said nothing else, ignores the explanation, ignores the Greek, ignores the context I provided, and parrots his earlier comment. As if now all of a sudden he is a strict literalist.

That means he's got nuthin. All he can do is parrot himself. There is simply no denying the context.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's funny how this guy just pretends I said nothing else, ignores the explanation, ignores the Greek

It seems you don't get what the Koine Greek meaning is:
James 2:24 ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ "that a man is justified by works."

That is the context. You're just not happy with it. But it says exactly what it says.

Same word Paul uses:
...ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ πίστεως...

...a man is not justified through works of the law, if not through faith...

Which is what James says.
James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

You're ignoring the context because, as Luther correctly claimed, James contradicts Luther's new doctrine of sola fide. You're willing to accept part of what God says, but not all of it.

 

[coffee4u]

^ It's funny how this guy just pretends I said nothing else, ignores the explanation, ignores the Greek, ignores the context I provided, and parrots his earlier comment. As if now all of a sudden he is a strict literalist.

That means he's got nuthin. All he can do is parrot himself. There is simply no denying the context.

Yes he does that. Complete waste of time trying to hold a conversation with him. Wait until he tries to tell you that what you believe, your doctrine, comes straight from man or a church even after you have repeatedly told him and shown him you get it straight from scripture. Who knew that some random old man in the US 15+ hours away knew my life better than myself, amazing.

 

[The Barbarian]

When they abandon scripture and go for "he's just such a...!", you know they're out of arguments.

 

[Job 33:6]

I hate to say it guys, but in my opinion, the Bible teaches both. Just as we continually bump our heads over predestination vs good works, it's kind of the same topic. And I would simply say that it's one of the great dichotomies of scripture.

1. , All are sinners and God doesn't owe anyone anything for any action we perform. People are not "owed" or "due" salvation for performing good acts. God doesn't have to save anyone for any act we do because God is sovereign. And so good works just isn't sufficient for salvation, at least not on its own.
2. That God could know the future and could work in our hearts or harden our hearts and only save by His power/grace and not by anything "due" or "owed" to us through works. And yet, if God were purely and utterly 100% in control of salvation, and if there was truly nothing we could do, no action or work or choice we could make to earn salvation, even the grandest choice to follow Jesus is not enough to "earn" salvation, because God doesn't owe any sinner anything, except what God gracefully gives by His own will. But in this view, God potentially is a tyrant that created people predestined for hellfire with no action they could perform to get out, not even an act of choosing to follow Christ would be sufficient to be "owed" salvation. This God would send people to eternal damnation for reasons that people have no say or choice in.

But scripture simply teaches both. In some cases God does what He wants and predestined people for damnation, and in other cases, good works are emphasized as playing a role in our justification and salvation.

If every person were only saved by good works, then it would suggest that we were in charge of our own salvation, which doesn't make any sense because only Christ has power to save and we are all sinners in the end anyway.

If every person were only saved by faith without any action of our own, it would draw into question God's benevolence for those who choose to follow Jesus (an action we choose to do) but still aren't saved.