Your Origin View

[Gold Dragon]

Do you think the Bible has parts that are unimportant? WHy do you think God moved men to write the Scriptures, if only certain parts are important and other don't need a correct understanding?

I believe that not all of the Bible is important to Salvation. Which is why most evangelicals direct non-Christians or new-Christians to the gospels and Romans to understand the basics of Christianity and the essentials of salvation.

However the entire bible is important to understand God's revelation and relationship to mankind throughout history, especially in the context of the nation of Israel and the Church.

 

[Ben_Hur]

Even though the virgin birth is covered in the Nicene Creed, it has been said in this forum here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1117245-teism-provides-ammo-against-christianity.html&page=4

that it is not a salvation issue. You know the Nicene Creed covers the virgin birth in the second article called redemption.

I think these people may represent the ones that may have suffered a bit of damage as they spilled over the "dam" in my analogy above. There will always be those that question this sort of thing, but I would venture to speculate that there would be less had the "dam" not been there.

 

[GodSaves]

The whole Bible speaks about redemption. Redemption is crucial to salvation. The evangelists stick with the Gospels because that is where everything comes together. Christ, who is God comes and lives among us. He dies for us, as the last sacrifice needed for redemption. To take the Bible as you can read it however you like and it still will lead one correctly is to undermine the topic.
There are two main teachings that are present in the whole Bible, the Law and the Gospel. You can't undermine the Law and expect to completely understand the Gospel.
A non-believer at that point of decision doesn't need to completely understand everything but rather the basics of salvation. It is the milk they are given. The rest of the Bible is the meat to teach one to live Holy. This is that acts of faith, that keep your faith alive.

To say you can read it however you wish, many will have different idea's of what Holy living is. And as we see in society this has already happened. There are homosexual's who are pastors, and claim they live Holy lives even thought Scriptures teach against it. They have interpretated those scriptures to mean they don't pertain to them.

 

[Gold Dragon]

To take the Bible as you can read it however you like and it still will lead one correctly is to undermine the topic.

I definitely don't take that bible as however I like to read it. Especially not like however YECs like to read it.

I read the bible using the best hermeneutical practices available to me to determine the context that the original authors and audiences of the bible wrote and read those verses so I can have closest interpretation and application for my life possible to what God intended in the writing of those verses.

 

[Vance]

In another thread artybloke has said creationism is a lie created by Satan. So it has been said creationists are not being lead by the Holy Spirit, but rather by Satan.

Was I the only one who saw that as a humorous, rather than serious, statement?

Do you think the Bible has parts that are unimportant? WHy do you think God moved men to write the Scriptures, if only certain parts are important and other don't need a correct understanding?

Every part of the Bible is important, whether it be for instruction, guidance, inspiration, comfort, perspective, truths about God's relationship to Man, truths about His mercy and grace, the path to salvation, etc, etc. But not all of it rises to the same level of importance for our salvation. I think you would agree that not every proverb or Psalm is of equal importance to our salvation as the teaching of Jesus on that subject.

Do you not agree that my two possibilities are, indeed, the two possibilities? Do you think that every disagreement over doctrine or interpretation among all the Christians by those seeking the guidance of the Spirit throughout history is the result of #1?

 

[GodSaves]

Have you read read Steven W. Boyd's article on how to read Genesis? He has a Ph.D. in Hebraic and Cognate Studies. He did a study on Genesis to see if it should be read poetic, comparing it to other Hebrew poetry. Quite fascinating.

 

[GodSaves]

The whole Bible teaches us wisdom for a Holy life. I think Proverbs is quite profound and teaches a great deal of wisdom. I find Psalms to be equally important because they are songs written to praise God. They give Glory to God, I find that to be important.

I think it is often forgotten that the Bible teaches one to live Holy, now that one has found salvation through Jesus Christ. That is why the Bible is so important and essential in becoming more like Christ. The Holy Spirit leads us on this path. Question still remains why so many TE's vary so greatly in their beliefs. And this is not just about origins, but about who was myth who was real, what did happen, what didn't happen, what is essential for Holy Living, what isn't. The last statement here I made is that everything in the Bible is essential for Holy Living. To say one is not that important is a misnomer that leads one down the wrong path.

But again, this is just the creationists side of the coin.

 

[Vance]

The whole Bible teaches us wisdom for a Holy life. I think Proverbs is quite profound and teaches a great deal of wisdom. I find Psalms to be equally important because they are songs written to praise God. They give Glory to God, I find that to be important.

I think it is often forgotten that the Bible teaches one to live Holy, now that one has found salvation through Jesus Christ. That is why the Bible is so important and essential in becoming more like Christ. The Holy Spirit leads us on this path.

Not forgotten here! I think every TE would agree with all of this, and to the same extent as you and I do.

Question still remains why so many TE's vary so greatly in their beliefs. And this is not just about origins, but about who was myth who was real, what did happen, what didn't happen, what is essential for Holy Living, what isn't. The last statement here I made is that everything in the Bible is essential for Holy Living. To say one is not that important is a misnomer that leads one down the wrong path.

But again, this is just the creationists side of the coin.

No, that is the Christian side of the coin, and we all agree.

But the reason for differing beliefs about all the areas you mention has nothing to do with being TE or YEC or OEC, these are differences and issues among Christians of all types, all denominations and all beliefs about origins. If you want to ask why, then you must ask why as to all Christianity, since it goes beyond a person's view about origins. Why did all these differences about doctrine and theology arise within the first century of the Church? And throughout the history of Christianity? Is it just those who believe exactly as you do who are correctly led by the Spirit?

What makes you think that someone who believes differently than you about origins believes differently than you about Holy Living?

 

[GodSaves]

What makes me think there is a difference between the two?

You have said Adam and Eve didn't exist.
I have said they did.

You have said evolution was the process.
I said creation.

You have said billions of years it took.
I said 6 days.

You or another TE (can't remember) have said Abraham was not real.
I said he was.

You or another TE (can't remember) have said Moses was not real.
I have said he was.

You have said it was only a local flood.
I said it was global.

You or another TE (can't remember) have said Job was not real.
I have said he was.

You or another TE (can't remember) have said Jonah was not real.
I have said he was.

You have argued against a virgin birth of Christ.
I said it did happen.

There are differences across the board here between TE's and YEC's.

 

[Vance]

"There are differences across the board here between TE's and YEC's."

But that is the point, there are differences between Christians all over the place. It is not just TE's who hold the views that I have, and not just YEC's who hold the views that you have. There are Calvinist YEC's. Do you agree with their interpretation and doctrine regarding predestination? There are Catholic YEC's. Do you agree with all of their interpretation and doctrines?

YEC's differ on non-origin issues as much as TE's differ on non-origin issues. There is no difference there in the least. So, this is a red herring on your part.

The only difference is that TE's tend have a wider breadth of beliefs about the possibilities of origins, but even YEC's differ in their beliefs on origins. You, yourself, have argued that the age of the earth is not important, while other YEC's find it essential. Some believe the flood was around 2400 B.C., according to the genealogies, while others push it back further to accomodate known history.

No, there is nothing about TE'ism which is unusual in this area.

And, for the record, I have not argued "against a virgin birth". I also believe it happened, and have said so many times. Yet another misrepresentation. I have only argued that it is not a salvation issue.

 

[GodSaves]

Nicene Creed differs with you Vance on the virgin birth in the Second article called redemption.

 

[Vance]

Nicene Creed differs with you Vance on the virgin birth in the Second article called redemption.

Yes, and that is a statement of belief, not a list of requirements for salvation.

Personally, Karl is more conservative than me in that one regard, since I do not feel as if Man is the measure of what is proper "Christianity", and fallible humans created the creeds. I happen to believe in all but one line of that Creed. Actually, just one word do I have a problem with.

What is your thought about the necessity of believing every word of the Nicene Creed in order to be saved and going to Heaven?

 

[GodSaves]

I dunno, but the Nicene Creed something you said you believed, since it was a requirement for posting in the Christian Only Forums.

 

[GodSaves]

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

<-- the above seems pretty important to me-->

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

<--seems pretty important to me as well-->

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

<--Well it all seems pretty darn important for salvation and for being a Christian, but I am sure you will disagree.-->

 

[Vance]

I dunno, but the Nicene Creed something you said you believed, since it was a requirement for posting in the Christian Only Forums.

The word I have a problem with is "apostolic" since this has been used (IIRC) to refer to a support for the Catholic (or Anglican/Presbyterian) Church organizations. If this can have a different meaning, then it is fine with me.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

My version says Catholic and Apostolic.

It simply means that there is one true church, to which all believers belong regardless of their individual church memberships, and that church was founded by the Apostles.

Incidently, I don't think acceptance of the Nicene creed is essential to salvation. It is the definition of what Christian belief is, but that's not the same thing - I expect Satan has a pretty good understanding of and belief in the creed, but I don't expect to find him serving behind the bar at the Everlasting Arms (a pub in the new Jerusalem, I gather).

En fait, I don't think that relationship with God or salvation are actually based on propositional belief at all. I've spent many years pushing propositionalism as far as I could, and found I can go no further with it.

 

[Vance]

Ah, my understanding of why they included "Apostolic" is to confirm the authority of that church structure which can trace direct descent from the Apostles, as in the concept of "Apostolic Authority" upon which the Roman Catholic Church bases it Papal, and overall, authority.

 

[Trymybest]

Ya know,
I see these silly arguments going at every forum but I fail to find one instance in the old or new testament where ANY group or person including Christ, ever argued about, or even raised the question. It's only when you look to man (meaning science) for your answers do the problems arise.
Why is almost everyone so willing to ignore the power of God to do as He wishes without explaining Himself to us? If "A day is as a 1000 years" could it just as easily be a million years? 10 billion years? 2 years? Which is more likely, God, knowing all possible future scientifc discoveries, put a mistake in His Holy Scripture by saying the whole "A 1000 years..." etc.? Or that some just refuse to see it as a statement of time having no control where God is concerned? Why do so many profess to believe in God, yet choose to limit His power and ability so that they can shoehorn Him into their ability to understand.
As far as science goes. DNA is the holy grail of science these days. And the claims of evolutionists are that there is less than 3% difference in the DNA of apes and man. And there is a difference in all supposedly evolved species. Yet there is a complete lack of explanation as to how this different or additional DNA got added to the ape to make him man. And where are the continuing evolutions?
Looking at the supposed evolution of man one would come to the conclusion that as a species man has the ability to add and drop DNA, or other requirements for evolution with each stage of the process. Why else would the ape have developed through evolution the tough, hair covered hide necessary for survival, but man, after evolving and changing his DNA, stop growing the full body hair, develope softer skin, weaker muscles and smaller body structure and basically become MORE fragile and succeptible in the same environment. Did the lack of hair allow man to conquer his environment better than having hair and tough hide would?
Would a creature that "climbed out of the primordial ooze", lose the gills and the ability to breathe under water, or would they be more likely to hang on to that part of evolution as an asset to survival? And after all isn't that the largest part of the evolution argument, "adapt to survive"?
I like what science can do and has achieved as far as being able to SHOW me the world and the cosmos, but I never rely on science to explain it to me. They're almost always wrong the first few times they explain something and, they are not going to be responsible for me when I answer to God.