Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

A Soul’s Salvation Could Hinge On the Earth’s Age


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
58 replies to this topic

#1
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,490 posts
A Soul’s Salvation Could Hinge On the Earth’s Age

 

http://www.apologeti...=9&article=3792

 

 

 

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

For over three decades, Apologetics Press has contended that the Earth’s age is a topic of great importance. A straightforward reading of Genesis leads the reader to the conclusion that God created the entire Universe in six, literal 24-hour days only a few thousand years ago (Butt, 2002; DeYoung, 2005). We have contended that a compromise of this biblical truth opens the door of acceptance to false beliefs, such as evolution and the mythologizing of the Bible’s historic narrative (Lyons, 2008).

 

In the course of our work, we have been accosted by many who do not appreciate our young Earth position. Many people, including a host of well-meaning Christians, think that the age of the Earth is not an issue that should be taught, since it “causes such division.” They believe that we should simply talk about creation, the Bible, Jesus, and His church, and leave “peripheral” issues like the Earth’s age alone. Why would we choose, they contend, to spend our time teaching about something that is irrelevant to a person’s salvation, when there are so many other topics that we could address?

 

The idea that the Earth’s age should be left alone struck us full force when we were invited to speak at a large elementary school several years ago. My colleague, Eric Lyons, and I were scheduled to speak to the kids about creation. We were told that the school’s position on the age of the Earth was divided, some teachers and administrators believing the evolutionary-based billions-of-years idea, while others accepting the biblical time frame. I informed them that the young Earth concept was central to our teaching, and that we simply would not be able to avoid the topic. They assured us that we could address the Earth’s age during our presentations. Once we arrived, however, the age of the Earth again became an issue. Due to some pressure from parents who had been informed of our position, the principal pulled Eric aside only minutes before he was scheduled to address the entire assembly. She informed him that he should not address the topic during his presentation. He was shocked, and reminded her that we had discussed this, and had been given approval to teach about the Earth’s age. Needless to say, Eric did not adjust his presentation. He continued with his message that an all-powerful God created the Earth thousands, not billions, of years ago.

 

A recent article posted on ScienceDaily underscores one primary reason why it is important for Christians to teach the truth about a young Earth. Sehoya Cotner and Randy Moore, biology professors at the University of Minnesota, teamed up with Christopher Banks of the school’s Office of Information and Technology. They presented to 400 students a survey that contained questions about creation and evolution. The result of the survey indicated that those students who accept the billions-of-years time frame for the Earth more readily accept concepts such as human evolution. The article reporting the research stated: “High school and college students who understand the geological age of the Earth (4.5 billion years) are much more likely to understand and accept human evolution” (“Students’ Perceptions...,” 2010, emp. added). Researcher Sehoya Cotner stated: “The role of the Earth’s age is a key variable that we can use to improve education about evolution, which is important because it is the unifying principle of biology” (as quoted in “Students’ Perceptions...,” 2010).

 

While Cotner is wrong that the false concept of evolution is the unifying principle of biology, she is exactly right about one thing: if students can be taught that the Earth is billions of years old, then they will more readily adopt evolution. At Apologetics Press, we have known this fact for years. The age of the Earth is the “gateway” concept that makes evolution palatable. The mental process at work in a person who compromises the biblical idea of a young Earth is the same process that must be in place to accept the erroneous concept of human evolution. Cotner’s research verifies the fact that the Earth’s age is not a peripheral issue that can be left untaught. Instead, the Earth’s age could literally be the point at which the battle to win the hearts and minds of our young people to the truth about Creation is won or lost. In a very real sense, what a person believes about the Earth’s age has the potential to greatly impact his or her eternal destiny. Cotner and her fellow evolutionists know the importance of the battle over the Earth’s age. That is why they are urging their fellow evolutionists to recognize it, and use the alleged billions of years to “improve education about evolution.”

 

Cotner’s enthusiastic rally around the age of the Earth should be a wake up call to Christians as well. If evolutionists understand the importance of teaching about the Earth’s age, creationists should recognize the battlefront and be willing to stand for the truth. It may well be the case that if you can keep one young person from believing in an old Earth, that young person will be insulated against other erroneous concept’s such as human evolution, and equipped to defend the basic truths of Christianity—that there is a God, the Bible is His inspired Word, and Jesus Christ is His son.



#2
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,258 posts

The problem is,unless you change the body of facts setting up a young earth scenario as a part of the Christian faith is going to make it much harder for anyone to actually hear the *gospel*.  I know for myself, it's just not possible to up and decide that the earth is 10k years old. Unless all the facts change tomorrow, or God literally changes my mind, it's not a live option. Pushing that dilemma on young people does  not seem like a good solution to anything except the promotion of an unstable cognitive dissonance.



#3
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,490 posts

The problem is,unless you change the body of facts setting up a young earth scenario as a part of the Christian faith is going to make it much harder for anyone to actually hear the *gospel*.  I know for myself, it's just not possible to up and decide that the earth is 10k years old. Unless all the facts change tomorrow, or God literally changes my mind, it's not a live option. Pushing that dilemma on young people does  not seem like a good solution to anything except the promotion of an unstable cognitive dissonance.

 

Ultimately, it is not about the age of the earth.  It is about providing a path toward an evolutionary mindset.  The old earth theory is just a weigh station on the way to becoming an evolutionist for many young impressionable minds.  It is where this is going.   The evolutionists know this and so they are not trying push Evolution completely.  They are cleverly setting the stage for evolution to be accepted by simply changing minds and getting them to accept certain premises that need to be in place before they can be convinced of evolution.



#4
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,258 posts

 

The problem is,unless you change the body of facts setting up a young earth scenario as a part of the Christian faith is going to make it much harder for anyone to actually hear the *gospel*.  I know for myself, it's just not possible to up and decide that the earth is 10k years old. Unless all the facts change tomorrow, or God literally changes my mind, it's not a live option. Pushing that dilemma on young people does  not seem like a good solution to anything except the promotion of an unstable cognitive dissonance.

 

Ultimately, it is not about the age of the earth.  It is about providing a path toward an evolutionary mindset.  The old earth theory is just a weigh station on the way to becoming an evolutionist for many young impressionable minds.  It is where this is going.   The evolutionists know this and so they are not trying push Evolution completely.  They are cleverly setting the stage for evolution to be accepted by simply changing minds and getting them to accept certain premises that need to be in place before they can be convinced of evolution.

 

All the more reason, in my mind, to talk about openly and honestly what the gospel is, in the bare sense, before deciding to attach all these extra requirements to it. It seems that you are coming from the mindset of protecting young Christian minds, whereas I can't help but thing about this in terms of not having seekers walk away over details which don't actually pertain to salvation. I don't think that YEC science has a chance. The doctrine itself I see as something distinct from that, at least I do now, but it has taken me a while to see that distinction. When someone comes looking at the faith and someone is pounding YEC on them suddenly there are images of Ray Comfort promoting the shape of bananas as proof of creation, and the entire thing looks too ridiculous to take seriously. I don't think this is a good distraction at all.

 

The gospel is belief, faith, in Jesus as the resurrected savior. Through Him we have eternal life. Seekers, young impressionable Christian minds, etc., should know that wherever they fall on the evolutionary question this is the case.



#5
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,490 posts

 

All the more reason, in my mind, to talk about openly and honestly what the gospel is, in the bare sense, before deciding to attach all these extra requirements to it. It seems that you are coming from the mindset of protecting young Christian minds, whereas I can't help but thing about this in terms of not having seekers walk away over details which don't actually pertain to salvation.

 

The Bible is not a book where you can divorce the beginning from the end.  Genesis is the seedbed for all of the theology including the theology of salvation, that will follow.  Genesis is where we learn about the origin of sin and the need that existed which precipitated the death of Jesus on the cross.

 

The Gospel depends on a literal interpretation of Genesis from beginning to end.  The Gospel is more than just "Jesus died on the cross for your sins."   That is the heart of it, but that is not where it stops or starts.   The Gospel begins in Genesis.   If Genesis doesn't really mean what it says, the apostles and Jesus himself were deluded and the death of Jesus on the cross was a meaningless act.



#6
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,258 posts

 

The Bible is not a book where you can divorce the beginning from the end. 

Yes you can.

 

 


 

The Gospel depends on a literal interpretation of Genesis from beginning to end.  The Gospel is more than just "Jesus died on the cross for your sins."   That is the heart of it, but that is not where it stops or starts.   The Gospel begins in Genesis.   If Genesis doesn't really mean what it says, the apostles and Jesus himself were deluded and the death of Jesus on the cross was a meaningless act.

 

Not at all. I believe that we are sinful and need of a Savior. I also believe evolution happened, under God's guidance. Whether you think this is a coherent view or not, it's a possible one. Insisting that people deny the mainstream scientific picture in totality is an unnecessary barrier.



#7
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,490 posts

 


 

The Bible is not a book where you can divorce the beginning from the end. 

Yes you can.

 

 


 

The Gospel depends on a literal interpretation of Genesis from beginning to end.  The Gospel is more than just "Jesus died on the cross for your sins."   That is the heart of it, but that is not where it stops or starts.   The Gospel begins in Genesis.   If Genesis doesn't really mean what it says, the apostles and Jesus himself were deluded and the death of Jesus on the cross was a meaningless act.

 

Not at all. I believe that we are sinful and need of a Savior. I also believe evolution happened, under God's guidance. Whether you think this is a coherent view or not, it's a possible one. Insisting that people deny the mainstream scientific picture in totality is an unnecessary barrier.

 

Sorry but Evolution and the Bible don't mix.  You can't be a true evolutionist and a Bible believer, any more than you can be an agnostic or an atheist and still be a Christian.     

 

The Bible doesn't make room for evolution.  Maybe they can be mixed in your theologically unsophisticated imagination, but they don't mix in reality.  The claims of Scripture are not compatible with Evolution and only someone who is willing to be honest about the text of the Bible can understand that.  Evidently, you are not willing to be. 



#8
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,258 posts

 

 


 

The Bible is not a book where you can divorce the beginning from the end. 

Yes you can.

 

 


 

The Gospel depends on a literal interpretation of Genesis from beginning to end.  The Gospel is more than just "Jesus died on the cross for your sins."   That is the heart of it, but that is not where it stops or starts.   The Gospel begins in Genesis.   If Genesis doesn't really mean what it says, the apostles and Jesus himself were deluded and the death of Jesus on the cross was a meaningless act.

 

Not at all. I believe that we are sinful and need of a Savior. I also believe evolution happened, under God's guidance. Whether you think this is a coherent view or not, it's a possible one. Insisting that people deny the mainstream scientific picture in totality is an unnecessary barrier.

 

Sorry but Evolution and the Bible don't mix.  You can't be a true evolutionist and a Bible believer, any more than you can be an agnostic or an atheist and still be a Christian.     

 

The Bible doesn't make room for evolution.  Maybe they can be mixed in your theologically unsophisticated imagination, but they don't mix in reality.  The claims of Scripture are not compatible with Evolution and only someone who is willing to be honest about the text of the Bible can understand that.  Evidently, you are not willing to be. 

 

Which claims of scripture are essential for salvation? Even if you want to say that you cannot have believe in Genesis and evolution (which I think I do, but putting that aside from the moment), why couldn't you believe that Jesus died for your sins and have faith in Him? You're adding a lot of extra stuff to salvation here.



#9
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,490 posts
Which claims of scripture are essential for salvation?

 

There is a difference between talking about what pertains to salvation and what is essential to salvation.  Genesis does pertain to salvation.   The need for salvation is establsihed in Genesis because of the fall of man in the Garden   The first Messianic Prophecy about Jesus and salvation is made in Genesis.   Genesis 1-3 establishes Jesus as the sovereign Creator, Righteous Redeemer and Eternal Judge of mankind.  Genesis is where the Abrahamic Covenant is first cut which is a type of the New Covenent cut in Jesus blood through which we get salvation.

 

The problem is that when you around trying to claim that Genesis can't be taken literally, you do immeasurable harm to the Scriptures pertaining to salvation in Genesis.  I am not saying that if you don't believe in YEC that you are not a Christian.   I am saying that the whole earth age debate isn't about the age of the earth.  It is about indoctrination into the myth of Evolution, which usually ends up producing theologically and spritually immature and inept Christians, or it ends up enabling some people's embrace of atheism.  

 

Even if you want to say that you cannot have believe in Genesis and evolution (which I think I do, but putting that aside from the moment), why couldn't you believe that Jesus died for your sins and have faith in Him? You're adding a lot of extra stuff to salvation here.

 

That only shows that you don't really have a firm grasp on what is being argued.
 



#10
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,205 posts

The Bible is not a book where you can divorce the beginning from the end.

Yes you can.


The Gospel depends on a literal interpretation of Genesis from beginning to end. The Gospel is more than just "Jesus died on the cross for your sins." That is the heart of it, but that is not where it stops or starts. The Gospel begins in Genesis. If Genesis doesn't really mean what it says, the apostles and Jesus himself were deluded and the death of Jesus on the cross was a meaningless act.

Not at all. I believe that we are sinful and need of a Savior. I also believe evolution happened, under God's guidance. Whether you think this is a coherent view or not, it's a possible one. Insisting that people deny the mainstream scientific picture in totality is an unnecessary barrier.
Sorry but Evolution and the Bible don't mix. You can't be a true evolutionist and a Bible believer, any more than you can be an agnostic or an atheist and still be a Christian.

The Bible doesn't make room for evolution. Maybe they can be mixed in your theologically unsophisticated imagination, but they don't mix in reality. The claims of Scripture are not compatible with Evolution and only someone who is willing to be honest about the text of the Bible can understand that. Evidently, you are not willing to be.

Very controversial comment you made here Shiloh, and one that I don't believe is your call. In particular your comment-

"You can't be a true evolutionist and a bible believer..."

At least you didn't say, " and a true believer..."

But, to say that everyone who believes in evolution CANNOT BELIEVE in the bible rubs me very wrong. I don't think I'm alone either. And for your benefit, I do believe in micro evolution, but not macro evolution.

#11
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,258 posts

 

Which claims of scripture are essential for salvation?

 

There is a difference between talking about what pertains to salvation and what is essential to salvation.  Genesis does pertain to salvation.   The need for salvation is establsihed in Genesis because of the fall of man in the Garden   The first Messianic Prophecy about Jesus and salvation is made in Genesis.   Genesis 1-3 establishes Jesus as the sovereign Creator, Righteous Redeemer and Eternal Judge of mankind.  Genesis is where the Abrahamic Covenant is first cut which is a type of the New Covenent cut in Jesus blood through which we get salvation.

 

The problem is that when you around trying to claim that Genesis can't be taken literally, you do immeasurable harm to the Scriptures pertaining to salvation in Genesis.  I am not saying that if you don't believe in YEC that you are not a Christian.   I am saying that the whole earth age debate isn't about the age of the earth.  It is about indoctrination into the myth of Evolution, which usually ends up producing theologically and spritually immature and inept Christians, or it ends up enabling some people's embrace of atheism.  

 

Thanks for clearing up this distinction.

 

I think you overestimate the linkage conceptually between evolution, the fall, and the need for salvation. I can see it is all very tightly linked in your mind, very well. I don't think any of that has to follow. Evolution could be true and the fall be a historical fact, specifically involving a specific man and woman named Adam and Eve. The fall could be non historical and still be true insofar as humans are fallen and separated from God. That we are fallen and separated from God is a fact that we could ascertain even apart from knowing anything about Genesis at all.

Granting that you are right, that YEC is the only legitimate way to interpret Genesis and is true about the world, it still seems possible to me for believers to grow in faith and so on without granting that. Moreover, if you are right, I would expect that in the lives of individual believers the Spirit might very well lead people to your conclusion. I can see why you or others would argue it, insofar as you think it is true and I agree that truth is important, but I think you underestimate the harm that is done by your rhetoric going the other way- that people get the impression that the only way to really be a Christian is to embrace YEC, which just seems utterly impossible to many.

 

Given that it is not necessary to salvation, I question the usefulness in such heavy-handed rhetoric. I think it is *essential* that seekers, Christians in the sciences etc., realize that there are believers out there who think the the universe is old, that the earth is old and there are plenty of believers out there who think that evolution is the case (though divinely guided).



#12
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,490 posts

 

 

 

The Bible is not a book where you can divorce the beginning from the end.

Yes you can.


The Gospel depends on a literal interpretation of Genesis from beginning to end. The Gospel is more than just "Jesus died on the cross for your sins." That is the heart of it, but that is not where it stops or starts. The Gospel begins in Genesis. If Genesis doesn't really mean what it says, the apostles and Jesus himself were deluded and the death of Jesus on the cross was a meaningless act.

Not at all. I believe that we are sinful and need of a Savior. I also believe evolution happened, under God's guidance. Whether you think this is a coherent view or not, it's a possible one. Insisting that people deny the mainstream scientific picture in totality is an unnecessary barrier.
Sorry but Evolution and the Bible don't mix. You can't be a true evolutionist and a Bible believer, any more than you can be an agnostic or an atheist and still be a Christian.

The Bible doesn't make room for evolution. Maybe they can be mixed in your theologically unsophisticated imagination, but they don't mix in reality. The claims of Scripture are not compatible with Evolution and only someone who is willing to be honest about the text of the Bible can understand that. Evidently, you are not willing to be.

Very controversial comment you made here Shiloh, and one that I don't believe is your call. In particular your comment-

"You can't be a true evolutionist and a bible believer..."

At least you didn't say, " and a true believer..."

But, to say that everyone who believes in evolution CANNOT BELIEVE in the bible rubs me very wrong. I don't think I'm alone either. And for your benefit, I do believe in micro evolution, but not macro evolution.

 

If Evolution (macro) is true, the Bible is  erroneous.  Macro evolution stabs at the heart of the Bible's authority which calls everything the Bible teaches into question at the most fundamental level.   If macro evolution is true, man never fell in the Garden, the Bible's claims to the origin of sin or even sin's existence is suspect due to the fact that in the basic concept of evolution, man isn't created in God's image at all.   He is just another cog in the wheel, an accident. nothing more than a higher animal/primate, or a collection of chemicals and molecules. 

 

There is a very good reason why evolution is seen as an alterative to Genesis and not a complimentary addition to it.  Even nonChristians are honest enough to admit the fact that Evolution is completely incompaptible with Genesis 1-11.   There is no way a genuine follower of Jesus can also faithfully adhere to macro-evolution.  The claims of the Bible make no room for it.

 

Unfortunately, many are not theologically equipped to see the problem.  The divorce faith in Christ from the rest of the Bible and that is a fundamental theological error.



#13
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,490 posts

 

Thanks for clearing up this distinction.

 

I think you overestimate the linkage conceptually between evolution, the fall, and the need for salvation.

I am not oversating it all.   The Bible makes the direct connection.  I am simply reflecting how the Bible connects the fall and salvation and the fact is that the claims of Evolution fly directly in the face of what the Bible says.  You are simply not theologically equipped or you are simply unwilling to see the connection.

 

I can see it is all very tightly linked in your mind, very well. I don't think any of that has to follow. Evolution could be true and the fall be a historical fact, specifically involving a specific man and woman named Adam and Eve. The fall could be non historical and still be true insofar as humans are fallen and separated from God. That we are fallen and separated from God is a fact that we could ascertain even apart from knowing anything about Genesis at all.

 

No, you can't and the Bible makes that clear. Only in your imagination is such a thing possible.   You are so committed to Evolution that the Bible's claims are pretty much expendable and unecessary whenever you need them to be, as you are illustrating in the above comment.   According to you, we don't need the Bible's explanation for the origin of sin.  You are proving a point that I made on another thread about how Darwinism erodes the Bible's authority.   The bottom line is that for you science is the authority and the Bible is useful until it and science collide. 

 

Without Genesis you cannot:

 

1. Explain the origin of sin

2  You cannot explain why man is a sinner

3. You cannot explain why Jesus is the last Adam

4. You cannot explain the need for Jesus to die for sin that doesn't exist.

 

Granting that you are right, that YEC is the only legitimate way to interpret Genesis and is true about the world, it still seems possible to me for believers to grow in faith and so on without granting that. Moreover, if you are right, I would expect that in the lives of individual believers the Spirit might very well lead people to your conclusion. I can see why you or others would argue it, insofar as you think it is true and I agree that truth is important, but I think you underestimate the harm that is done by your rhetoric going the other way- that people get the impression that the only way to really be a Christian is to embrace YEC, which just seems utterly impossible to many.

 

Which is not what I said, but I understand the need to paint my responses that way in the absence of the ability to respond to me without misrepresenting what I said.

 

Given that it is not necessary to salvation, I question the usefulness in such heavy-handed rhetoric. I think it is *essential* that seekers, Christians in the sciences etc., realize that there are believers out there who think the the universe is old, that the earth is old and there are plenty of believers out there who think that evolution is the case (though divinely guided).

 

I have found a lot of religionists who are evolutionists.  I have not found that a lot of "belevers"  who claim evolution also tend to question the Bible's authority in other areas.   They tend to support gay marriage, abortion, and deny the inerrancy and accuracy of Scripture.   None of that is surprising since they have already established the low estimation they have for the Bible in the first place.   



#14
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,258 posts

 

 

Thanks for clearing up this distinction.

 

I think you overestimate the linkage conceptually between evolution, the fall, and the need for salvation.

I am not oversating it all.   The Bible makes the direct connection.  I am simply reflecting how the Bible connects the fall and salvation and the fact is that the claims of Evolution fly directly in the face of what the Bible says.  You are simply not theologically equipped or you are simply unwilling to see the connection.

 

Constantly impugning  my motives or accusing me of ignorance doesn't really further the discussion. You've said this before.

 

 


 

I can see it is all very tightly linked in your mind, very well. I don't think any of that has to follow. Evolution could be true and the fall be a historical fact, specifically involving a specific man and woman named Adam and Eve. The fall could be non historical and still be true insofar as humans are fallen and separated from God. That we are fallen and separated from God is a fact that we could ascertain even apart from knowing anything about Genesis at all.

 

No, you can't and the Bible makes that clear. Only in your imagination is such a thing possible.   You are so committed to Evolution that the Bible's claims are pretty much expendable and unecessary whenever you need them to be, as you are illustrating in the above comment.   According to you, we don't need the Bible's explanation for the origin of sin.  You are proving a point that I made on another thread about how Darwinism erodes the Bible's authority.   The bottom line is that for you science is the authority and the Bible is useful until it and science collide. 

 

Without Genesis you cannot:

 

1. Explain the origin of sin

2  You cannot explain why man is a sinner

3. You cannot explain why Jesus is the last Adam

4. You cannot explain the need for Jesus to die for sin that doesn't exist.


 

1. separation from God

2. why? again, it's a fact we observe, we are clearly separated from God and all of us have sin

3. insofar as Adam stands for, as a literal person or  not, the fall of humanity, yes I can. (and I am not committing myself to the notion there is no historical Adam here, by the way).

4. What? it's clear we are sinners separated from God, whatever else you want to argue. That this is so is one of the empirically verifiable aspects of Christianity.

 

 

 

 

Granting that you are right, that YEC is the only legitimate way to interpret Genesis and is true about the world, it still seems possible to me for believers to grow in faith and so on without granting that. Moreover, if you are right, I would expect that in the lives of individual believers the Spirit might very well lead people to your conclusion. I can see why you or others would argue it, insofar as you think it is true and I agree that truth is important, but I think you underestimate the harm that is done by your rhetoric going the other way- that people get the impression that the only way to really be a Christian is to embrace YEC, which just seems utterly impossible to many.

 

Which is not what I said, but I understand the need to paint my responses that way in the absence of the ability to respond to me without misrepresenting what I said.

 

 

Any misrepresentation is completely unintentional. I'm not even sure what you are disagreeing with here.

 

 

Given that it is not necessary to salvation, I question the usefulness in such heavy-handed rhetoric. I think it is *essential* that seekers, Christians in the sciences etc., realize that there are believers out there who think the the universe is old, that the earth is old and there are plenty of believers out there who think that evolution is the case (though divinely guided).

 

I have found a lot of religionists who are evolutionists.  I have not found that a lot of "belevers"  who claim evolution also tend to question the Bible's authority in other areas.   They tend to support gay marriage, abortion, and deny the inerrancy and accuracy of Scripture.   None of that is surprising since they have already established the low estimation they have for the Bible in the first place.   

 

 

 

Alright sure. But there are religionists the other way aren't there? those who claim to believe the Bible in every matter but turn the gospel into heavy handed legalism, as an example. That people can abuse positions doesn't make the positions themselves intrinsically bad.

 

My concern isn't with the ultra liberal Christian who sees Jesus as nothing but an enlightened moral teacher. Yes that type will be embracing evolution along with many other things. My concern is with the genuine believer in the gospel, or the sincere seeker, for whom YEC is an impenetrable stumbling block.



#15
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,205 posts
Before we get deeper in, may I first stop and see if we all agree on what I call the salvation foundation first and foremost:

1. Whether one is truly saved or not is for God and God alone to decide, not you or me

2. Salvation is BY FAITH ALONE in what Christ did at Calvary. Do you believe Christ is the son of God and died to pay the penalty you (and me of course) deserve for sins committed?

3. Nothing can be added to #2 to meet the criteria necessary for ones salvation

4. If one passes Gods test (#2), then many other beliefs one may have, even erroneous or misguided, will not cause one to lose their salvation

5. Once you have passed the #2 test, your belief in age of the earth, abortion, gay marriage, Calvinism, speaking in tongues, transubstantiation, women ministers, what Bible translation is the best, pre trib, post trib, mid trib or pan trib, etc are all non essential issues that have no bearing on ones salvation

Do we all agree with these five axioms?

The reason I want to lay this foundation is because the title of this thread, " a souls salvation could hinge on the age of the earth" somewhat sends up a red flag to me. Before even getting into the posts, Someone reading this title could already be confused. I think it wise to lay this foundation first so that when we get deeper, we all agree these five axioms are on HOLY GROUND and are a given.

Agreed?

#16
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,490 posts

Before we get deeper in, may I first stop and see if we all agree on what I call the salvation foundation first and foremost:

1. Whether one is truly saved or not is for God and God alone to decide, not you or me

2. Salvation is BY FAITH ALONE in what Christ did at Calvary. Do you believe Christ is the son of God and died to pay the penalty you (and me of course) deserve for sins committed?

3. Nothing can be added to #2 to meet the criteria necessary for ones salvation

4. If one passes Gods test (#2), then many other beliefs one may have, even erroneous or misguided, will not cause one to lose their salvation

5. Once you have passed the #2 test, your belief in age of the earth, abortion, gay marriage, Calvinism, speaking in tongues, transubstantiation, women ministers, what Bible translation is the best, pre trib, post trib, mid trib or pan trib, etc are all non essential issues that have no bearing on ones salvation

Do we all agree with these five axioms?

The reason I want to lay this foundation is because the title of this thread, " a souls salvation could hinge on the age of the earth" somewhat sends up a red flag to me. Before even getting into the posts, Someone reading this title could already be confused. I think it wise to lay this foundation first so that when we get deeper, we all agree these five axioms are on HOLY GROUND and are a given.

Agreed?

Spock,  you are somewhat confused.    I have never stated that there was anything outside of faith in Jesus and His finished work on the cross that can be added as a requirement for salvation.  I have never stated that anything outside of faith in Christ was essential for salvation.

 

The point I am endeavoring to make is precisely the point the article makes and that is that in the secular world, OEC is a gateway to make Evolution more palatable to young minds, particularly those who are sitting on the fence when it comes to trusting the Bible.

 

There are, as I have pointed out previously, atheists on this very board that have claimed over the years that it was evolution and the time they spent studying evolution and the view of the old earth that finally caused them to discard the Bible as a reliable or trustworthy book.

 

The issue I and the article are raising is not about what is required for salvation.  The issue is how things like OEC and Evolution carry the very real potential of causing nonbelievers to doubt the Bible's veracity.   When the Bible's trustworthiness is doubted in one or two areas, it sets a precedent that allows people to doubt the Bible's veracity when it comes to important issues like salvation.   If the Bible got it wrong in chapter one, if God is wrong coming out of the gate, what is stop Him from being wrong in other parts of the Bible as well.

 

In addition I would also like to note that there are things in Scripture that while not essential for salvation are essential in terms of being biblically well grounded.  You lump the age of the earth, gay marriage and abortion with issue like speaking in tounges, the timing of the rapture, but those are entirely dissimlar things.  Where a person stands on gay marriage and abortion is often very telling in terms of how they view the Bible and how they view God.

 

There are a lot of people who think they are Christians because they believe the right things and say the right things.   Their notion of being a Christian stems from believing a set of propositional truths, and they mistake that for being a "Christian."    Being a Christian isn't merely acknowledging the right things.  It is about a relationship with God, about being born again.   No amount of right believing can substitute for that.   Those people are the kinds of people who end up abandoning their faith at the first challenge to what they believe, because their beliefs are no rooted in a real relationship with God.  

 

They often abandon the faith because science has taught them that the Bible is wrong about the following:

 

  • The age of the earth
  • The creation of earth
  • The origin of life
  • The existence and origin of sin
  • The historicity of Adam and Eve
  • The global flood

If an unbeleiver is taught that the Bible is wrong aobut all of those things, why would he/she have a reason to trust the Bible at any other point?   That is where all of this leads.



#17
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

Before we get deeper in, may I first stop and see if we all agree on what I call the salvation foundation first and foremost:

1. Whether one is truly saved or not is for God and God alone to decide, not you or me

2. Salvation is BY FAITH ALONE in what Christ did at Calvary. Do you believe Christ is the son of God and died to pay the penalty you (and me of course) deserve for sins committed?

3. Nothing can be added to #2 to meet the criteria necessary for ones salvation

4. If one passes Gods test (#2), then many other beliefs one may have, even erroneous or misguided, will not cause one to lose their salvation

5. Once you have passed the #2 test, your belief in age of the earth, abortion, gay marriage, Calvinism, speaking in tongues, transubstantiation, women ministers, what Bible translation is the best, pre trib, post trib, mid trib or pan trib, etc are all non essential issues that have no bearing on ones salvation

Do we all agree with these five axioms?

The reason I want to lay this foundation is because the title of this thread, " a souls salvation could hinge on the age of the earth" somewhat sends up a red flag to me. Before even getting into the posts, Someone reading this title could already be confused. I think it wise to lay this foundation first so that when we get deeper, we all agree these five axioms are on HOLY GROUND and are a given.

Agreed?

Spock,  you are somewhat confused.    I have never stated that there was anything outside of faith in Jesus and His finished work on the cross that can be added as a requirement for salvation.  I have never stated that anything outside of faith in Christ was essential for salvation.

 

The point I am endeavoring to make is precisely the point the article makes and that is that in the secular world, OEC is a gateway to make Evolution more palatable to young minds, particularly those who are sitting on the fence when it comes to trusting the Bible.

 

There are, as I have pointed out previously, atheists on this very board that have claimed over the years that it was evolution and the time they spent studying evolution and the view of the old earth that finally caused them to discard the Bible as a reliable or trustworthy book.

 

The issue I and the article are raising is not about what is required for salvation.  The issue is how things like OEC and Evolution carry the very real potential of causing nonbelievers to doubt the Bible's veracity.   When the Bible's trustworthiness is doubted in one or two areas, it sets a precedent that allows people to doubt the Bible's veracity when it comes to important issues like salvation.   If the Bible got it wrong in chapter one, if God is wrong coming out of the gate, what is stop Him from being wrong in other parts of the Bible as well.

 

In addition I would also like to note that there are things in Scripture that while not essential for salvation are essential in terms of being biblically well grounded.  You lump the age of the earth, gay marriage and abortion with issue like speaking in tounges, the timing of the rapture, but those are entirely dissimlar things.  Where a person stands on gay marriage and abortion is often very telling in terms of how they view the Bible and how they view God.

 

There are a lot of people who think they are Christians because they believe the right things and say the right things.   Their notion of being a Christian stems from believing a set of propositional truths, and they mistake that for being a "Christian."    Being a Christian isn't merely acknowledging the right things.  It is about a relationship with God, about being born again.   No amount of right believing can substitute for that.   Those people are the kinds of people who end up abandoning their faith at the first challenge to what they believe, because their beliefs are no rooted in a real relationship with God.  

 

They often abandon the faith because science has taught them that the Bible is wrong about the following:

 

  • The age of the earth
  • The creation of earth
  • The origin of life
  • The existence and origin of sin
  • The historicity of Adam and Eve
  • The global flood

If an unbeleiver is taught that the Bible is wrong aobut all of those things, why would he/she have a reason to trust the Bible at any other point?   That is where all of this leads.

 

 

Why do you keep lumping OEC and Evolution together, you know this is false and yet you do it with almost every post.  OEC does not teach that the bible is wrong on any of those things, with the possible exception of the flood being global or worldwide.   OEC does not teach the bible is wrong on the age of the earth, or the creation of earth, or the origin of life, or the the existence and origin of sin, or the historicity of Adam and Eve.  No matter how much you want it to be true, it just isnt.  So, I would ask you as one brother to another to stop repeating this falsehood.



#18
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,205 posts

Before we get deeper in, may I first stop and see if we all agree on what I call the salvation foundation first and foremost:
1. Whether one is truly saved or not is for God and God alone to decide, not you or me
2. Salvation is BY FAITH ALONE in what Christ did at Calvary. Do you believe Christ is the son of God and died to pay the penalty you (and me of course) deserve for sins committed?
3. Nothing can be added to #2 to meet the criteria necessary for ones salvation
4. If one passes Gods test (#2), then many other beliefs one may have, even erroneous or misguided, will not cause one to lose their salvation
5. Once you have passed the #2 test, your belief in age of the earth, abortion, gay marriage, Calvinism, speaking in tongues, transubstantiation, women ministers, what Bible translation is the best, pre trib, post trib, mid trib or pan trib, etc are all non essential issues that have no bearing on ones salvation
Do we all agree with these five axioms?
The reason I want to lay this foundation is because the title of this thread, " a souls salvation could hinge on the age of the earth" somewhat sends up a red flag to me. Before even getting into the posts, Someone reading this title could already be confused. I think it wise to lay this foundation first so that when we get deeper, we all agree these five axioms are on HOLY GROUND and are a given.
Agreed?

Spock,  you are somewhat confused.    I have never stated that there was anything outside of faith in Jesus and His finished work on the cross that can be added as a requirement for salvation.  I have never stated that anything outside of faith in Christ was essential for salvation.
 
The point I am endeavoring to make is precisely the point the article makes and that is that in the secular world, OEC is a gateway to make Evolution more palatable to young minds, particularly those who are sitting on the fence when it comes to trusting the Bible.
 
There are, as I have pointed out previously, atheists on this very board that have claimed over the years that it was evolution and the time they spent studying evolution and the view of the old earth that finally caused them to discard the Bible as a reliable or trustworthy book.
 
The issue I and the article are raising is not about what is required for salvation.  The issue is how things like OEC and Evolution carry the very real potential of causing nonbelievers to doubt the Bible's veracity.   When the Bible's trustworthiness is doubted in one or two areas, it sets a precedent that allows people to doubt the Bible's veracity when it comes to important issues like salvation.   If the Bible got it wrong in chapter one, if God is wrong coming out of the gate, what is stop Him from being wrong in other parts of the Bible as well.
 
In addition I would also like to note that there are things in Scripture that while not essential for salvation are essential in terms of being biblically well grounded.  You lump the age of the earth, gay marriage and abortion with issue like speaking in tounges, the timing of the rapture, but those are entirely dissimlar things.  Where a person stands on gay marriage and abortion is often very telling in terms of how they view the Bible and how they view God.
 
There are a lot of people who think they are Christians because they believe the right things and say the right things.   Their notion of being a Christian stems from believing a set of propositional truths, and they mistake that for being a "Christian."    Being a Christian isn't merely acknowledging the right things.  It is about a relationship with God, about being born again.   No amount of right believing can substitute for that.   Those people are the kinds of people who end up abandoning their faith at the first challenge to what they believe, because their beliefs are no rooted in a real relationship with God.  
 
They often abandon the faith because science has taught them that the Bible is wrong about the following:
 
  • The age of the earth
  • The creation of earth
  • The origin of life
  • The existence and origin of sin
  • The historicity of Adam and Eve
  • The global flood
If an unbeleiver is taught that the Bible is wrong aobut all of those things, why would he/she have a reason to trust the Bible at any other point?   That is where all of this leads.

Couldn't you just have said, Agreed.

#19
OneLight

OneLight

    Royal Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,107 posts

Despite all the theological bickering, salvation DOES NOT hinge on age of the earth, it hinges on Christ Jesus and our acceptance of Him.  A person can be saved while not knowing anything about Genesis 1 or any of the OT, as long as they accept Jesus as the Son of the Father and His death and being raised from the dead.
 
John 10:9
I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
 
Acts 2:21
And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved.
 
Acts 4:12
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
 
Acts 16:30-31
And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
 
Romans 10:8-10
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

 

There are many more verses stating the same, salvation through Christ Jesus and Him alone.  Everything else comes after one is saved, despite what anyone tries to say.



#20
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,490 posts

Despite all the theological bickering, salvation DOES NOT hinge on age of the earth, it hinges on Christ Jesus and our acceptance of Him.  A person can be saved while not knowing anything about Genesis 1 or any of the OT, as long as they accept Jesus as the Son of the Father and His death and being raised from the dead.
 
John 10:9
I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
 
Acts 2:21
And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved.
 
Acts 4:12
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
 
Acts 16:30-31
And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
 
Romans 10:8-10
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

 

There are many more verses stating the same, salvation through Christ Jesus and Him alone.  Everything else comes after one is saved, despite what anyone tries to say.

Yes, Onelight.  No one has said anything different.






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network