Why the geocentrism analogy is useful

[California Tim]

"James, the brother of Jesus, in addressing the council at Jerusalem declared, "It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God (Acts 15:19)." The apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans said, "Make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way (Romans 14:13)." Don Stoner challenges us in the following pages to remove a great impediment to the furtherance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

We agree on the admonition to avoid causing a brother (fellow Christian) to stumble. I am referring to your other statement regarding the unsaved. We are never told or encouraged to avoid the controversial issues in order not to "offend" those in need of salvation. The verse above is directed at Jewish Converts who felt that Gentile Christians should immediately become bond-slaves of the Jewish law. Paul was correcting them on their erroneous doctrine.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Are you under the impression that we go around handing out little Bible tracts stating that one must believe in the literal 6 day creation to be saved? We are here on a specific forum to discuss a specific issue of interest. If you find this offensive, perhaps you might be more comfortable in a forum not focused on the issue of origins. And as for the "minority" issue, you may rest assured, it has no bearing on whether or not Genesis may be properly interpreted correctly as a literal historical narrative.

addition to some spirited discussion with many educators, AiG staff—and some volunteers—distributed about 20,000 witnessing tracts and hundreds of free books.

Through the generosity of Answers in Genesis supporters nationwide who have a burden to reach educators with the Gospel, the cost of all these materials —and the expense of renting the exhibit booth—were already paid for by the time the convention started.

from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3408.asp

the booklets are listed at:
http://shop3.gospelcom.net/epages/A...35aa00881d30271d45579e7b0659/Catalog/Booklets
all YECism as Gospel

so yes many YECists associate Gospel of YEC=True Christianity
the great dividing line between real and not real faith

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Are you under the impression that we go around handing out little Bible tracts stating that one must believe in the literal 6 day creation to be saved?

Go over to AiG and similar places. They come pretty close to it.

 

[Vance]

We agree on the admonition to avoid causing a brother (fellow Christian) to stumble. I am referring to your other statement regarding the unsaved. We are never told or encouraged to avoid the controversial issues in order not to "offend" those in need of salvation. The verse above is directed at Jewish Converts who felt that Gentile Christians should immediately become bond-slaves of the Jewish law. Paul was correcting them on their erroneous doctrine.

I am not talking about avoiding offense. I am talking about placing stumbling blocks. Look at James statement in Acts, he is talking about making the way clear for those who are coming to Christ, not just those who have already arrived. In that case there was a doctrine of the Church that all should be circumcised. Paul disagreed with this doctrine, but it was still there, and many Christians believed it was very important. Now, this was not a "salvation" issue, and even if important, it was something about which honest and believing Christians in the church (Paul, for one) disagreed about. So, why should it be presented dogmatically? Paul knew he would have a hard time brining Gentiles to Jesus if they were required to get circumcised! So, they all agreed that this issue should not be presented dogmatically.

Now, even after this agreement was reached, some Christians kept going back to Paul's Churches and telling them that if you weren't circumcised, you were not really part of the Body of Christ. Paul was FURIOUS!! They were placing that unecessary stumbling block again! What effect would this have? It would not only cause those who had accepted Christ to abandon Christianity (or why would Paul have been so upset) and it would have prevented the growth of the Church body.

I see this as exactly the same thing.

 

[California Tim]

Now, even after this agreement was reached, some Christians kept going back to Paul's Churches and telling them that if you weren't circumcised, you were not really part of the Body of Christ.

Here we agree yet again. It's what I already said. The message concerning stumbling blocks referred to Christians new to the faith encountering the false legalistic doctrines of others in the church. By stating, in your words, "you were not really part of the Body of Christ" one is implying the recipient of the message at least accepted Christ -received the grace part, but did not follow-up on the "works" part of the false theology being advanced by the legalists.

 

[Vance]

Here we agree yet again. It's what I already said. The message concerning stumbling blocks referred to Christians new to the faith encountering the false legalistic doctrines of others in the church. By stating, in your words, "you were not really part of the Body of Christ" one is implying the recipient of the message at least accepted Christ -received the grace part, but did not follow-up on the "works" part of the false theology being advanced by the legalists.

Yes, we agree on that part, but I also pointed out how it would apply equally to non-Christians, but you didn't address that issue.

But, really, are you saying that we should NOT avoid putting such stumbling-blocks before the non-Christian to begin with? This doesn't seem to make much sense.

Further, the presentation of YEC'ism is ALSO a stumbling-block to fellow Christians. Many are raised in a strict YEC environment and are never told that this is an area that Christians differ over. They are taught that evolution is equal to atheism and that if you believe in evolution, you don't believe in Scripture. In fact, in my church it is taught that if evolution is true, then we may as well all abandon Christianity because the entire Bible can not be trusted. You have heard some of your fellow YEC's here say this same thing.

Can you not see how this type of presentation could be a stumbling block to those fellow Christians so indoctrinated?

Also, what is your thoughts on Dr. Ross' overall position?

 

[California Tim]

Yes, we agree on that part, but I also pointed out how it would apply equally to non-Christians, but you didn't address that issue.

I did address it in post #18 although it might have escaped your notice.

But, really, are you saying that we should NOT avoid putting such stumbling-blocks before the non-Christian to begin with? This doesn't seem to make much sense.

No. I am saying we are not to repackage the message simply to appease the the recipient that might be offended by the truth as presented in the Bible. (we're not talking only about origins in this case - but salvation issues as well.)

Further, the presentation of YEC'ism is ALSO a stumbling-block to fellow Christians.

Which is unfortunate and avoidable. First of all, this issue should nver be raised as a barometer of salvation IMO. Secondly, it should not be forced upon a fellow believer but offered only upon request. But since we are all here of our own volition, to discuss, debate and contend for a particular belief on the issue or to explore other opinions on the matter, I fail to see how it applies between us on a forum such as this.

As for Dr. Ross' take on the matter I cautiously disagree. But then you already knew that by what I've said above. Divisions that arise because of differences of opinion on interpretation are inevitible. However, the proper interpretation remains for all, unaffected bythe debate. If such an axiom exists, then it seems prudent for the matter to be discussed, debated and resolved so that the Church may be united in proper understanding as intended by the Holy Spirit. Compromising truth, OTH, even for the sake of unity, historically has led to spiritual decay and apostacy. When the issue is advanced to consider the general public's perception, I find even less compelling evidence that we are to capitulate on truth due to it's "contradictory" nature toward a world-view - whether it be philosophy, morality or science. As I've clearly demonstrated earlier, such rejection of the message of salvation, is rarely (if ever) truly founded on scientific grounds, but on the nature of God Himself.

 

[mhess13]

Apart from the USA where Christians seem to be paranoid about creation the above question would probably be "Who?"

Can you not get it into your head, C. Tim and all you others, that world-wide, you YEC's in the USA are considered to be a cult-like, tiny minority?

Christians across the world are spreading the Gospel of Salvation, not majoring on whether Genesis is a scientific treatise or not. And this is what you Americans should be doing, not causing uneccessary division, despair and a turning away from God.

6,000,001,458,231,765,092,111,856,097,325 people could look at the grass and tell me that it is maroon. That does not make it true.
An appeal to popularity is not quite support for your position.

I take offense at the cultlike remark. That borders on flaming.

 

[Vance]

Tim, I agree with everything you just said except that last sentiment. I know that the perceived contradiction between science and Scripture can be devastating for some people's faith.

However, I agree that we should never compromise the truth for the sake of unity, and that is not what I am advocating at all. We should hold firm to what we believe while being humble about our own abilities and lack of omniscience. My point is that we should not present the issue as "gospel" truth, but as our firmly held position which other's within the Body of Christ differ with.

While you may not be teaching YEC'ism in the dogmatic, absolutist way we have described, it IS being taught that way, to new converts, the general public and our youth. To devastating effect.

As for this forum, well that is different. Here, we can go as deeply as we like into the pros and cons of each position. But even here, there are many others lurking and I cringe everytime I see mhess or some other YEC argue that if you believe evolution, you don't believe Scripture.

 

[California Tim]

Vance,

We share much in common where the lost are concerned. I'd have no doubt we'd effectively work side by side evangelizing to the unsaved. On the issue upon we disagree, where you find a particular motivation to reject Christ as being founded on a peripheral issue (like science), I see it a bit differently. The reason is, (please forgive me if I forgo posting the verses this time), the message of salvation is revealed by the Holy Spirit within the heart of the recipient. While I am neither fully Calvinist nor fully Arminian, I do believe in the predestination of believers. I do not fully understand the coexistent nature of predestination and accountability (free will) any more than I fully understnd the Trinity. But I simply believe what the Bible says is reliable even when I do not fully understand it.

Over and over again, Christ tells us how the world would hate him (and us for His sake), not because of any peripheral issue, but because they'd CHOOSE the darkness willingly. He clarified that they actually prefer -even knowing the truth- to remain in unrighteousness. That they'd choose evil lifestyles over righteous is not open to debate. That is the reason I am less intimidated by arguments of "insensitivity" and such leading the lost further away. It is simply not true. They choose the darkness and apparently will continue to for eternity. Our job is to spread the word (plant the seed), and lead those in whom the seed has sprouted to the Lord (harvest). Ultimately the Holy Spirit takes residence in the spiritual heart of the believer and I trust Him to complete His work in that life as promised - independently of our vain debates on peripheral issues.

What you and I are discussing now is closer to the "meat" for mature Christians to chew on who are secure in the knowledge of Christ and unfazed by petty differences on the peripheral issues. The "milk" will be fed to many Christians their whole life according to Paul - and that is an unfortunate situation, but not one that should cripple the rest of us in our spiritual growth through matters like these. There is much for us to learn spiritually in discourses like those between us here, but it cannot progress at the optimum rate if we continually fall back on the fear we might offend some less mature or insincere Christians who are visiting here of their own free will. Feel free to disagree with me on this one , but I personally enjoy charging ahead to more weighty discussions rather than continually apologize for the sake of possibly having offended others unable to grasp the deeper spiritual truths to be found within the scriptures in these discussions.

 

[Living Stone]

Vance,

It is not the responsibility of Christians to repackage the message of the Gospel or any other part of the Bible in such a way as to eliminate potential conflict with a world-view. I have demonstrated with the links provided the totality of the rejection of the GOD OF THE BIBLE. The excuses given mean little. The underlying principle is what is important and that principle has little to do with our personal differences on Genesis. Ask every non-Christian why they reject Christ and they'll usually reveal the true answer eventually, but initially will cover with a superfluous reason:

Ask an agnostic scientist: "because the Bible conflicts with science"
Ask a homosexual: "because the Bible opposes homosexuality
Ask a univeralist: "because the Bible is exclusionary"
Ask a pacivist: "because the God of the OT is vindictive"

I could go on. But the point is that the true motive is a simple rejection of the Holy Spirit, the God of the Old testament, and ultimately the claims of Christ. The initial excuses are fabricated to justify the rejection already present in the lives of these people. For the same reason I will not reinterpret the Bible's opposition to homosexuality in order to "win a homosexual convert", I would not be quick to offer a figurative Genesis as a means to pacify an agnostic over the creation issue in order to "win him over" either. Because the real reason is they reject God - period.

AMEN.

 

[Vance]

Tim, I agree completely that in our own discussions, there is no reason at all not present it as straightforward as we like. But I don't think you believe that it is a salvation issue, so I do not fear you making that type of either/or distinction in any case. As you say, this is more of a "meat" issue, in the sense that it is important and weighty, but not something necessary for salvation. The problem is that within the last 30 years the YEC movement has made it a "front and center" issue, creating the impression for believers and non-believers alike that belief in "Creationism" is a central tenet of Christianity. This means that it is served up as milk, with many problems resulting.

But as for the danger to the faith, I am much more on the Arminian side of the fence and so see people completely able to choose their way in or out of heaven. And when someone has been told their entire life that evolution equals atheism, and that if they accept evolution they are rejecting Scripture, then they eventually come to accept evolution . . .

Recently mhess and Twincrier said that if they ever learned without doubt that evolution was true, they would abandon Christianity. 'nuff said.