In the end, what do I think really matters about christians

[Anonymous]

The author and I on this site disagree on the age of the earth, and in the interpretation of genesis.

I've said else where and I'll probably say it here several times, I see no major problem (though it's true, many evo-christains and young earthers do think their disagreement is a major problem. I respectfully believe they are wrong, earth's age is almost beside the point. God of course loves you all any way.) between evo-christians and young earth creationists. (Let me clarify something. Evo-Christian is not derogatory. It does not translate to evil-Christian. Evil-Christain would most likley mean someone who calls upon the Bible to teach and (or) justify terrible acts, such as adultry, rape and murder. Evo-Christain is simply someone who thinks certain eliments of evolution theory do not violate the Bible.)

Here's what I see as really mattering.

A. There is a God.
B. God is the origin of all things, he has no origin.
C. God is all powerful.
D. God created the Universe, and as his creation, it is subject to him.
E. The Bible is not open to interpretation (hence where indeed my arguements with the former of this board begin. We agree on this basic consept, just not what it means in terms of creation.)
F. God created man special and in his own image
G. God created the world originally perfect.
H. Man caused the fall of himself and creation.
I. Man is desperately wicked and cannot hope to have his actions save him.
J. There is an after life, and in it, a penalty called hell, and a paradise called heaven.
L. God loves man and does not desire to condemn him.
M. The penalty for sin must be paid.
N. Jesus paid the penalty for sin on the Cross.
O. In order to be saved, one must repent of his ways and follow Jesus. This is a once and for all desicion.
P. Salvation cannot be lost.
Q. Prayer is direct communication with God, no priest or middle man of any kind is required, God's reply may be spoken or shown, it can be "no".
R. Gods commandments in the Bible lay out for us the difference between good and evil.
S. Good and Evil exist, they are not just suggestions, good ideas or something to keep in mind.
T. God is good, Perfect, innocent and Holy.
U. Finally, Revelation is an account of earth's last days. (Though yea, it sure is hard to understand.)

[Anonymous]

Is there a major Protestant disagreement I take seriously. Usually no. But there is one that is perhaps the most important, and is a disagreement about one of the most important principles I laid out above.
Loss of salvation. (There's already a thread on this, and I'll probably join it, but I'll breifly state the problem here to.)
If salvation is not once and for all, it is not certain, if it is not certain, it borders on usless and one could easily call God sadistic, watching us desperetly wonder in abject total fear of whether or not we are truely saved. How can I put faith in uncertainty? I cannot know if I've rebelled too much, all I can know is that I have rebelled, and once is too many times.

[Jac3510]

Hey BP . . . good to have you aboard.

In general, I think the point you raise is a good one--as an aside, though, you might want to tidy up your terminology . I have a tendency to look at the Bible in terms of primary and secondary doctrines. Of course, I have to be careful here, because I don't want to make it sound as if some of the Bible is more inspired than others. If God explains a doctrine, it is obviously something we need to know!

So, what I mean by that is that there are some things that are absolute must-haves, so to speak. You listed some of them. Broadly, I'd say those that relate directly to salvation are "primary." Secondary doctrines would be "everything else." Also, we should note that some doctrines are more practical than others. Let's take the SDA's doctrine of Saturday-only-Sabbath and compare it to doctrine of Assurance.

Now, I'd say that theologically speaking, Assurance is a far more "important" doctrine. As you point out, the idea that you can lose your salvation has a huge impact on how you approach Jesus Christ and His offer of grace. But, what all would agree on, even who disagree on this, is that all Christians should avoid backsliding and work hard to please God. Further, we know that no man can judge another's salvation (another doctrine?), so here, we see that Assurance is of little practical value except, as its name implies, to assure us of our salvation.

Saturday-only-Sabbath, though . . . that's very practical. That deals with how we worship. Yes, it has some pretty deep theological roots. It deals extensively with the relationship between the New Covenant and the Mosaic Law, but, I'd argue that it is of lesser theological importance than Assurance. It probably isn't going to change the way you approach grace (as assurance might, or, more extreme, our RCC brethren's view of grace via the sacraments). In any case, it is still far more practical . . .

So, we come to creationism. How old is the earth? Is it a "primary" or "secondary" doctrine? It certainly has important theological ramifications, but, I'd label it a practical doctrine, and this is why: how am I to approach a non-believer? If his major objection is to a young-earth creationism, is it not easier to use a biblically valid old-earth interpretation so as to get directly to, and even support, the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ?

Ultimately, I don't think it matters how old the earth and the universe is or which interpretation of Genesis is right, be it YEC, OEC, the Gap Theory, Framework . . . whatever. To me, here's the more important question: what is the quickest and most direct way to my listener's heart with the Gospel? I have a friend I wouldn't bother arguing OEC with. He absolutely distrusts all of science. So, I'll recount Genesis if he so desires, and move directly forward. I see no reason to bog him down with apologetic details to defend a position that isn't important in this context. On the flip side, I'm not going to argue YEC with a staunch evolutionist. I'd rather spend my time proving the historicity of the Resurrection after I've dismissed his straw man attack against Christianity via YEC.

I don't want to sound like I'm playing both sides of the fence. People have been arguing for thousands of years on the best way to interpret Genesis. Given today's scholarship, OEC or some version of the Gap Theory seem to hold the most promise, but I don't believe we can say absolutely dogmatically, nor do we need to, what the "proper" interpretation is. It isn't even the point of the text. The entire idea behind Genesis 1-3 isn't to satisfy some idol curiosity that we have, but rather to present God as the omnipotent, omniscient, Sovereign Lord of All who has an interest in and plan for mankind. This was especially true for the Exodus generation.

So, I lean OEC, but I don't think it's something that should be dividing us. I just hate to see people turned away from the faith because people refuse to back down on a "secondary doctrine" like YEC . . . remember Paul's advice:

"I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1 Cor. 9:22

God bless

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
Why pick on the SDA's?
.
.

[Anonymous]

I'd rather spend my time proving the historicity of the Resurrection after I've dismissed his straw man attack against Christianity via YEC.

Sorry, but I think this would be a very poor method. You do not believe Young Earth Creationism, you're an Old Earth Creationist. (Acceptable term?) If the person finds out you're lying, you'll be shut down very quickly. You can't argue against your convictions. That's in no way what I'm saying. There are things I believe should divide a church. I'll associate with a Christian that does not agree with basic Biblical principles, but in much the same way as a person who is lost.

[Jac3510]

Why pick on the SDA's?

Cause, like Catholics, it is so easy

Sorry, but I think this would be a very poor method. You do not believe Young Earth Creationism, you're an Old Earth Creationist. (Acceptable term?) If the person finds out you're lying, you'll be shut down very quickly. You can't argue against your convictions. That's in no way what I'm saying. There are things I believe should divide a church. I'll associate with a Christian that does not agree with basic Biblical principles, but in much the same way as a person who is lost.

Number A) I'm not lying. I wasn't there when God made everything. Here's the simple fact, BP: the Bible does not specificy how old the universe is. Further, even if you proved beyond any doubt that Moses had solar days in mind when he penned Genesis 1, that wouldn't prove young-earth-creationism. I fact, I hold to something like that myself . . . I have my doubts that Moses was thinking of "ages." But, again, God uses words in OT texts that have fuller meanings down the road. Three quick examples:

1) See the plural personal pronouns in the creation event. Do you think that Moses had the Trinity in mind? Absolutely not. He, most likely, was using "the royal we." It was used to convey the majesty of God, but, and here's the important part, that word sows the seed for future revelation regarding the Trinity.

2) Isaiah 53:9 reads:

• And the made his grave with the wicked
  • and with a rich man in his death;
  although he had done no violence,
  • and there was no deceit in hismouth (ESV)

This verse has four lines of Hebrew poetry. The first two are an example of synosymous parallelism, while the second two are an example of [/i]synthetic paallelism[/i]. Concerning the former, the author makes a statement, and then repeats the same idea using different words. Concerning the second, the author makes a statement and then modifies or adds to it with a second line.

So, here, we see that Isaiah clearly though the Messiah would be buried with the wicked rich. You can see that he is equating the wicked with the rich. But, that's not what happened in history, is it? Jesus was killed with the wicked--he was crucified between two thieves. He was buried with the rich (remember Joseph of Arimethia's tomb). So, we see then that God can take the words of an author and fulfill them in a much larger context. One final example would be

3) John 11:50 reads, "Nor do you understand that it is better for you that oneman should die for the people, not that teh whole nation should perish." Caiaphas the high priest is speaking here. Remember that at this time the Jews were still under the Old Covenant. The high priest was still the high priest. He had no idea how right he was! God used his words and fulfilled them in a larger context.

So, while authorial intent is extremely important, there are demonstrable cases where God fulfilled the text in a larger way that perhaps the inspired writer might have thought.

Back to Genesis, then . . . there is no way for us to know if Moses had a solar day or an age in mind. As noted previously, even the Jews of old argued about this, and there is Scripture both ways to prove it. Therefore, my question for the text is not, "How old does the Bible say the earth is?" My question is this: "What truth is God conveying to me in this passage?" Now, certainly He is conveying truth through historical events. If He didn't that would be making him the liar, and the most holy of books would be nothing more than a collection of myths. But, the simple fact is that the Bible does not make it explicit as to if God created the earth in 168 hours or billions of years.

Again, then, I am not lying. I have a strong tendancy in one direction, but my dogmatic statements regarding creation, especially to unbelievers, have nothing to do with age or science. My whole goal in that area is to remove any "scientific" objections the non-believer might have. Instead, when asked about creation, I point out a few basic facts:

1) The universe is finite.
2) God is trancendent of it.
3) God created the univese
4) Because He created it, it belongs to Him.
5) God has an interest in what goes on in man's life--He has an interest in how we behave.
6) Man is not an accident, etc.

All of these are of the utmost importance if we are to understand the ultimate nature of the resurrection.

Number B) It should be clear, then, that I am not arguing against my convictions. I am always very candid with an unbeliever when I tell them my personal position. However, I tell them the same thing I have told you: my goal is to show the corrolation between science and the Bible, but I immediatly go on to tell them what is more important. As I said in another debate on another board, the Christianity does not rise and fall on solar days vs. day-ages. It rises and falls based on the historical fact or historical fiction of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I never argue against my convictions. I simply have varying levels of convictions on different subjects. Note, especially, the previous verse I mentioned from 1 Corinthians. If, tomorrow, scientists come out and start saying the earth is only 10,000 years old, well, my position doesn't hurt a bit, and I still have all the credibility I ever did. If tomorrow a new, great discovery continues to affirm the current geological ages, I've still lost nothing, because it all fits into the text. Why? Because, ultimately, it is not important which interpretation you choose except to remove objections that a person might have and maintain the basic theological truths mentioned above, and extending to the fact of the Fall of Man.

So, all that said, if you think that YEC is a basic Christian principles, I'd just invite you to reconsider that. It's just not what's important. As they say, "Choose your batles carefully." That's just one that I'm not willing to fight with non-believers.

God bless

[Anonymous]

Sorry Jac3510, I had you confused with someone else here who said he believed YEC had taken the text of the Bible and the physical evidence, and in many cases purposefully distorted and lied. He even seemed to believe YEC was in some way out to get Old Earth creationists. You have to agree, I would have been right in that case... but that wasn't you.

[Kurieuo]

I'm assuming you confused Jac for me?

I apologise if anything I said may have offended you. In relation to YEC taking the text out of the Bible, God gave His Word for everyone. So I think it is wrong if YECs took it, and that they should return the text to the Bible so everyone can read it. One of the commandments is after all not to steal.

Kurieuo.

[hfd]

"I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1 Cor. 9:22

A totally useless theology. Of course Pauline theology, not the teachings of Jesus is the foundation of so-called 'Christianity'. Jesus was anything but all things. His message, as presented in the Bible, was quite conservative.

[Canuckster1127]

"I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1 Cor. 9:22

A totally useless theology. Of course Pauline theology, not the teachings of Jesus is the foundation of so-called 'Christianity'. Jesus was anything but all things. His message, as presented in the Bible, was quite conservative.

What books does your Bible have in it?

[FFC]

"I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1 Cor. 9:22

A totally useless theology. Of course Pauline theology, not the teachings of Jesus is the foundation of so-called 'Christianity'. Jesus was anything but all things. His message, as presented in the Bible, was quite conservative.

How about "when in Rome do as the Romans do"...wait, that's not in the bible is it? Seriously, I think the verse is more about looking for similarities as opposed to differences when witnessing to non believers. It's not an anything goes philosophy. Paul worked in the power and grace of the Holy Spirit, and he freely admitted that. When we start picking and choosing the passages of scripture that we like and don't like we are seriously putting ourselves in danger of spiritual shipwreck. I'm not saying your doing that, but we have to be careful.

[hfd]

"I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1 Cor. 9:22

A totally useless theology. Of course Pauline theology, not the teachings of Jesus is the foundation of so-called 'Christianity'. Jesus was anything but all things. His message, as presented in the Bible, was quite conservative.

What books does your Bible have in it?

I suspect the same one yours has. Jesus was not all things to all people.

[FFC]

"I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1 Cor. 9:22

A totally useless theology. Of course Pauline theology, not the teachings of Jesus is the foundation of so-called 'Christianity'. Jesus was anything but all things. His message, as presented in the Bible, was quite conservative.

What books does your Bible have in it?

I suspect the same one yours has. Jesus was not all things to all people.

Sure He was or he'd never be able emphasize with anybody. He even became sin for us in order to save us. Being all things to all people is not condoning or joining in with their personal philosophies or sins. At least that's not the way I take it to mean.