Paul James

If you believe in theistic evolution then you are robbing God of His glory and power and saying that He cannot create a whole universe in an instant of time if He decides to do it that way. Theistic evolution is the shoe-horning of atheistic theory into the Scripture. It also presents a cruel and heartless God who caused animals to suffer and die over millions of years before Adam. It also makes God out to be a liar, when at the end of the 6th day He looked over His creation and saw that it was "very good", well formed, totally functional and a perfect paradise. It makes Paul out to be a liar when he said that sin entered the world through Adam, and death along with sin. It also undermines the gospel and makes Jesus the second Adam meaningless, when Paul said that the first Adam brought death into the world, but the second Adam brings life. And that the death of Christ on the cross is meaningless because He died to redeem us from sin and death, but if death did not come with Adam, then what did Christ's dead redeem us from from? It also makes the new heavens and earth meaningless because if struggle and death has always been part of God's creation, then we face millions of years of future struggle and death in His new heaven and earth. So, theistic evolution undermines the whole foundation of Biblical Christian faith.

The Jesus of the Bible quoted from Genesis as literal history of real events. If you do not believe in Genesis as literal history, then you are not following the Jesus of the Bible who did. If you are putting your trust in a Jesus who believes in theistic evolution, and Genesis as just allegory, and that Adam and Eve were created on a pile of the millions of broken bones of dead animals, and that death and sin did not originate with Adam and Eve, as Paul said, then you may be skeptical that Paul was speaking the truth in his letters, because he said, "Be followers of me as I am a follower of Christ". and obviously followed the Jesus of the Bible, then you cannot be a follower of Paul. He also said that if a person preached and taught another Jesus other than the one in the Bible, let him be accursed. So, where does that place you, if the Jesus of the Bible believed Genesis 1-11 as literal history, and did not believe in theistic evolution in any form?

If you don't believe that Genesis 1-3 is literal history of what really happened, then how can you be sure that the Jesus you are believing in is the Jesus of the Bible? The Jesus of the Bible believed and taught that Genesis 1-3 was actual literal history, and did not teach theistic evolution at all. So, if you are trusting in a Jesus who doesn't believe that Genesis 1-3 is literal history and that the world was created through theistic evolution, then are you trusting the right Jesus? Food for thought.

I don't believe that any genuine believer in Christ will be around when the Antichrist appears. The only thing stopping evil from becoming dominant in the world to the degree when the whole world will be deceived by the Antichrist, is the Holy Spirit dwelling in true believers. When millions of true believers suddenly disappear from the world and the Holy Spirit goes with them, there will be no more restraint on evil taking over completely and the devil having free reign to set up his Antichrist.

If you don't believe that Genesis 1-3 is literal history, written by God who was there, then there is no reason for believing that God actually wrote the rest of the Bible. In actual fact, the rest of the Bible becomes meaningless, and the death of Jesus on the cross loses its meaning as well. If one can pick and choose from the Bible what is literal and what is not, when when the Scripture says, "It is appointed unto men once to die and after that the Judgment", one can say that this is not literature but figurative, and that there won't necessarily be a judgment one day where I have to be accountable for the way I have lived my life. And that "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" is not literal truth at all, but that in order to please God I have to engage in self-improvement so that the god I believe in will love me and accept me. And that Jesus was just a good man and some kind of Jewish prophet who go into trouble with the authorities and was put to death; and this story about him rising from the dead is just something made up by the disciples. Also, Paul was a religious teacher who taught doctrine relevant to the people of his day, but we don't have to believe it these days. My view is that we believe all the history of the Bible as literal history, or none of it.

If Genesis 1-3 is not literal history, then the foundation for the gospel of Christ is destroyed, and there is no assurance of salvation.

This was Paul's thorn in the flesh: "22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. 23 Are they ministers of Christ?—I speak as a fool—I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. 24 From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; 26 in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 27 in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness— 28 besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I do not burn with indignation?" (2 Corinthians 11:22-29). Nothing to do with any physical sickness put upon him by an angel.

If you take the time to read the context in the whole chapter, you will see that Paul's thorn was nothing physical or mental. To say it is, is reading stuff into the Scripture that isn't there.

Yep, Paul got sick like anyone else. There are no surprises there given what he went through as part of his ministry when he described what his thorn in the flesh was. He was not a super human. He got sick at times, and as he described in 2 Corinthians 1, he got stressed and depressed to the point where he despaired of life itself.

Nothing of the sort. Read the context. You will see that Paul's thorn in the flesh was the suffering and persecution he went through, and not through any physical sickness. The idea that Paul had some type of sickness was nonsense read into the verse by Cessationists who don't believe that God heals today. But then there are others who go to the other extreme, and teach that God is a vending machine who has to heal people on demand. I don't believe that either. Benny Hinn's declaration of healing for people has caused millions of premature deaths of people who stopped taking their medication and refused to continue working with their doctors because they were told they were healed.

Seeing that the Flood totally changed the structure of the world into what we know of it today, we have no idea of what existed at the time of Adam. Firstly, when Adam disobeyed God, he brought death and God's curse into the world, in fact, the whole universe changed, and imperfection and decay came into it. Adam and Eve and all living creatures became mortal, and the ground was cursed making plants have a limited life span, and weeds appeared. Wild animals stopped being vegetarian and started being carnivorous began killing and eating each other. There could have been a type of dome of water surrounding the earth at the time of Adam, right through to the Flood, and when the Flood happened, the water from above fell to earth in a cataclysmic torrent, as well as the crust of the earth breaking up, forcing the land into the separate continents and islands, instantly killing all human and land animal life. The fossil records and discovery of mammoths with vegetable matter still in their mouths gives evidence of instant death through a cataclysmic event. So, if you want to go with the 18th Century atheistic philosopher's, "You have your interpretation and I have mine", you are welcome to it. I just believe what the Bible literary says, because God was there and He knows what happened and has presented a true record of it.

God was there when He created the world, and He personally gave Moses the information to have a written record of how He did it. Right up to the 19th Century, no one doubted the literal history of Genesis - until the devil inspired liberal theologians to ask, "Did God really say it?" merely repeating what Satan said to Eve in the garden: "Has God said?" The real reason why evolution became popular is that the liberal theologians did not want to include the God of the Bible in the creation, because if they did, they would have to account to Him one day for the way they lived, and because they knew that their personal morals left a lot to be desired they dreamed up a God whom they felt comfortable with. Therefore liberal evolutionary theologians have a different meaning for God, Christ, faith, etc., to who the God of the Bible really is. Their "Christ of faith" is not the historical Jesus of the Bible, and their "faith" is existential "faith in faith" (if I believe it, then it is true for me). There are those who discount a literal view of Genesis will say, "That is just your interpretation". That comes from an 18th Century "enlightened" atheistic philosopher who taught that truth is no longer objective but subjective. So, instead of saying that something is true because it is true, they say that something is true if we believe it is true for us. So, a person following that godless philosophy will say, "You may believe that Genesis 1-3 is true for you, and that is your interpretation, but that doesn't have to be my interpretation". So a godless philosopher will say, just as Satan said to Eve in the garden, "God didn't really mean to say it literally - He really meant something else, and I'll give you my interpretation of what He said."

"And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." Where does it say "dome" here? Looks like you are reading something into the verse that isn't there. I would rather believe what God said in Genesis, than the evolution fairy story made up by atheists who don't want to be morally responsible to a God who might judge them one day.

Of course, none of us were there when the world was created, so any theory has to be mere guesswork. But God was there, and He said exactly how he created the world. It doesn't need interpretation. What you are actually saying is that God's Word should be evaluated and interpreted by mortal, finite man, who thinks he can tell God how He created the world. I see man's arrogance in that. The fact is, that people don't want to accept that God created the world exactly the way He said He did - in six 24 hour days. So it is not just interpretation, but a matter of the will -that evolutionists flatly refuse to accept Genesis as literal history, because they want to leave God out of the picture as much as possible, and dream up an image of a God they feel comfortable with.

When I first went to the most Pentecostal or AOG churches, although I heard many praying in tongues during worship times, I never saw anyone get up and address the people in tongues. When it came time for the preaching, the pastor preached a clear gospel message, and as a result of that clear gospel message, I received Christ as my Saviour. In all my time with Pentecostal groups, I have never witnessed anyone getting up and preaching in tongues. That would never have been accepted in any Pentecostal churches I know of, even in the most wacky ones. So, your "muslim" excuse is nowhere near realistic. Why don't you just accept that speaking in tongues is just not your "cup of tea", like my wife's attitude to it, instead of teaching others to avoid it?

Applying the following to many "dead" denominational liberal and Spirit-less churches, it is easier to cool down a fanatic than to warm up a corpse!

The problem with that is, when a person is in their prayer closet praying privately with God being the only listener, who else is there to test whether the tongues is genuine or not? Paul said to the Corinthians that even when they were praying in tongues during the service when they would be better prophesying, they were will giving thanks well. So, he viewed their tongues, tested them and approved of them. It was the fact that too many were praying too loudly in tongues and that they should tone down and allow prophesying to become the main vehicle for building up the people.

So she was sweeter than the donuts??

I was converted in the most lit up, noisiest, AOG church in the country, and all the time I was a member there and in other Pentecostal churches, I never saw any confusion at all. Everything was run in order, and every part of the service was in its proper place. Anyone who was of the lunatic fringe were effectively dealt with, told to sit down and be quiet if they got out of hand, which was relatively rare. In fact, in the Sunday morning services I attended at that AOG church, it was not too different to attending a Baptist church. I have been in conferences where the glory and power of God fell on the people and many were off their seats and on their knees getting right with God. There was not confusion there, just the strong conviction that they were in the presence of a holy God.

I have either been a member, or associated with Pentecostal churches over the last 50 years and I have never seen the chaos as you are describing. In fact, all the services I have attended have been run decently and in order. Every Pentecostal I know and have mixed with know the difference between praying privately and quietly in tongues, and actually speaking it out with the intention of having it interpreted. Most Pentecostal pastors I know have taught the correct use of tongues in services and have been very careful to ensure that everything is done decently and in order. I don't know how extensive your experience has been in Pentecostal churches, or whether your information comes second or third hand, but it is quite different from anything I have ever observed.

So, because the gift of tongues doesn't fit into your role in the church, does that mean that you should teach that no one should have the gift? So, what if the role of a person is that of an intercessor and the ability to pray in tongues is the best gift for that role, would you teach that the person should not have that ability because Paul preferred prophecy over tongues in church services? What would you say to the Lord in the Judgment if He asked you why you put a brother off receiving the ability to pray in tongues, when He was leading him into an intercessory role, and as the result of your teaching, he couldn't pray as effectively in the Spirit as he should have and those he could have prayed for suffered as a result? Do you think the Lord may require the blood of those who might have suffered and died at your hands, because you gave wrong teaching to a brother and blocked him from being an effective intercessor for those people?

The Hebrew word "yom" used throughout the Old Testament, means "day". In every place where there is a number or the words "evening" or "morning" attached to it, it means a 24 hour day. But when the expression "the day of the Lord" is used, there is no such addition, so that doesn't mean a literal 24 hour day. If creation was not six literal 24 hour days, then the Hebrew word "yom" would not have been used. Also, the reason for the creation taking 6 days with a rest day on the 7th, was that God was setting up our working week, where he says "for six days you shall labour and on the seventh rest". If each day of creation was millions of years, then the "six days you shall labour and the seventh rest" would be meaningless, because no one will work for a million year "day". Also, the order in which the Bible says the components of the world were created is totally different from the theory of evolution. The Bible says that the earth existed before the stars, while evolution says the opposite. The Bible says that earth had a livable atmosphere before the plants and trees were created, while evolution says that the plants and trees created the atmosphere. The Bible says that birds were created before fish, while evolution says that birds evolved from fish. The Bible says that reptiles were created before fish, while evolution says that reptile evolved from fish. Evolution says that the plants survived through pollination by insects, while the Bible says that the plants were created well before insects, and if the plants were there millions of years before insects were created, how did they survive? Evolution requires animals and other organisms to interbreed and die so they can evolve. The Bible says that God's creation was "very good", in that it was perfect, and death was not part of that perfection. It says that death came only through Adam's disobedience. This is why believing in theistic evolution in which the world was formed over millions of years, actually contradicts the Bible, and therefore is a denial of it, and so doing destroys the gospel of Jesus Christ, because if one doesn't believe in a literal six day creation and in the order the Bible states, then why believe the rest of the Bible, because everything else, including the gospel of Christ loses its meaning, and Christianity becomes just a religion of self-improvement.

I went looking for a solid statement of Paul to support that, and found just one phrase at the end of 1 Corinthians 12, "Now eagerly desire the greater gifts". The context was that we are all members of the body and not all have the same gift or ministry. The Holy Spirit distributes the gifts around the members of the body as He wills, and He bestows appropriate gifts according to the role persons have in the body. Therefore we have prophetic people, pastoral, teachers, those expert in counselling, others in hospitality, others great at administration. This means that not everyone can be the church treasurer, or the Bible teacher, or the pastor. Paul goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 14, that although everyone can prophesy, for the sake of order in the service, limit the prophecies to two or three; in the same way, not every has the gift of tongues to speak out with the intention that it be interpreted, and not every has the gift of interpretation. Therefore, what Paul is saying is that we should desire the greatest gifts that would most sit our particular role in the church. And it does not always remain the same. In one church, I manifested the gift of prophecy, tongues, and interpretation. Then I moved to another church where those gifts were not appropriate, and so I received the gift of helps and administration and became an elder and treasurer. I have manifested the world of knowledge just once in all my years in leadership and that was in my 20s at a youth camp. I have never manifested the gifts of healing, miracles, or discernment of spirits, because those were not part of my particular role in the church. I was put on the preaching roster, and so I received the gift of teaching in order to fulfil that role. Now, having moved cities, I am in a very small church where my total support is just being there on Sunday mornings and helping with the morning tea dishes. I am not downcast that I have not stayed at the cutting edge of prophecy, teaching, administration, etc., and many would see my present role as a demotion. But I don't see it that way, because Paul said that he was content with any situation he found himself in. Love does not consist in pushing oneself into roles that he is not invited to fulfil. Jesus demonstrated that with His story about the guy who took the best seat at a banquet, and told to take a lower seat because someone more important needed his good seat. He said that it is best to take a lower status seat and have someone say, "Come up higher, brother." I think that is the same with desiring roles and gifts in the church. It is much better for someone in leadership to invite us to become part of the preaching team, be the treasurer, encourage our prophetic gift, become a deacon or elder, or even the pastor of the church, rather than, through self-ambition, push ourselves into roles that don't suit us, and cause others to groan at our incompetence or error. So, that is what that small phrase says to me.

I just believe what is actually stated in Genesis. I don't try and read anything into it. Nothing I could say would change your mind on this, and you would find an argument against it whatever I submitted in order to refute what you wrote. The reason is that you believe what you want to believe. You understand perfectly well the traditional Christian belief in a literal Genesis that is the basis of the Gospel of Christ, but you don't want to believe it. You choose to believe in a mythical, or allegorical Genesis and you will defend it to the max.