Gerald – Permit me to offer a few comments. First, I understand your concern for maintaining the authority of the word of God. Does the Bible say, “… The soul that sins shall die?” Of course it does. Does it say, “… Sin is the transgression of God’s law?” Absolutely. The challenge is not the Bible itself, but how to interpret it correctly. Think of it this way – the original author, inspired by God, wrote down those thoughts. Those writings were preserved and passed along. We don’t have any of the originals any longer. Those original documents were written in an ancient, foreign language. They had to be translated into many languages, including English. So there are several steps between the original author and you and I the hearers today. When I hear someone say, “the Bible says…” what I really hear them saying is, “… My interpretation of the Bible says…” Equally committed Christians, people who love the Lord with heart and mind and soul and strength, don’t always agree on the interpretation of Scripture, especially the creation accounts. When you and I get to heaven and we stand before the Lord and he asks, “Why should I let you into heaven?” I don’t think the first thing we ought to say is “I believed in a literal six-day creation.” I think the first thing we ought to say is, “I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord. I believe that he died on the cross to save me from my sins.”
Laypeople normally don’t talk about original sin, the fall and Pauline theology. Laypeople having studied at school /higher education are steeped in evolution often disregarding the agenda of lecturers or simply place Genesis and Evolution into a box to be ignored.
The clergy are steeped in theology - original sin and will struggle wit BioLogos re-interpretation not so much of Genesis as prose but the actual teaching of Paul - original sin - death - atonement. BioLogos is weak in this area as to be expected as they are first scientists.
No, I’m disagreeing with your interpretation of Genesis 1. I agree with the words. I disagree with your interpretation of the words.
Do you believe that “there is no one righteous”?
Do you believe that Job was righteous?
The Bible says both. If you “just read the plain words and meaning” without evaluating things like context, then you have a straight up paradox or contradiction. We all interpret. I don’t agree with your interpretation. And you’re not God.
Yeah, I’m not sure that’s so simple as you make it out to be. I know plenty of “steeped in theology clergy” (and professors and theologians) that don’t have a huge problem with evolution. I think it’s a mistake to presume that depth of theology and science are at odds.
“The majority of Christians worldwide believe that the universe is old…”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe this cranky subset of Christians who are Young Earthers are the majority of Christians in the U.S. and trying very hard to export it to majority Catholic countries, turning Old Earth accepting Catholics into science denying, YEC believing Evangelicals.
What do I think of Jesus? This is probably a result of being taught the Bible is inerrant, but when I realized that YEC wasn’t true, in particular flood geology was wrong, and that Noah’s never happened at all, it didn’t take long to remember that Jesus talked about the flood of Noah as if it actually happened, and I knew it didn’t, so Jesus was wrong too.
2 Timothy 1:20-21. We use the Bible as the standard to interpret the Bible.
The wages of sin is death. Right? God said that the wicked will be destroyed. The wicked are those who choose to make other gods their god. And not God.
When you hear some say the Bible says, they should be saying what the Bible says.
For example. God loves us. And the supporting verse is.
Is there anything that can be misinterpreted with this. No.
Are there verses that can be misinterpreted. Yes. When you do not include any other verses that may contradict what you think that verse is saying.
Like when Jesus says that the “Father is greater than I”. There are some individuals who take this verse and claim that Jesus is not God. And using this verse alone they feel vindicated.
But when you add other verses like John chapter one, where God revealed that Jesus was there in the beginning, and that He was the Word, and that He, the Word was God, Then the true meaning of what Jesus meant is begins to come clear. And when you add the verses as to why Christ says that the Father was greater, where He tells us that He “He became a little lower than the angels”, we see why Jesus said what He said.
Now, let me ask you. Can you find a verse that supports another idea, your idea, for verses like, “the soul that sins, it shall die” or “the wages of sin is death”. Or “he that breaks my law and teaches others to do so, shall be called the least in the Kingdom”.
Or "God is not slack concerning His promises, as some men count slackness. But is longsuffering…not wanting any to perish, (die).
In other words God does not break His promises. He says He will forgive us our sins. And He will. He says He will make us His children, and He will. He says He will return to take us home. And He will.
So when He says that the sinner without Christ will bear the penalty for their sin, we can be sure that God is making idle promises. Those who refuse to allow God to cleanse them, and make their sin, their god, will be found wanting. And they will be cleansed from life, along with all of sin, that marred this Universe.
But please. Provide what you may think is another way to look at these texts. We can look for the supporting verses to see if what you offer, rings true.
And as far as the Sabbath is concerned, it is a commandment from God. We can’t say that anything we did makes us worthy of heaven other than claiming the death of our Savior. But remember why the Savior came to die. It was because of our sin. And breaking any of God’s commandments is sin. So to refuse to honor Gods Sabbath, is a sin.
So remember what James said about belief. That we show it by how we live. And to say we believe and call Jesus Lord, but do not do the things He asks, means we are not allowing Him to be Lord of all in our lives.
Then explain why Jesus said it was ok for David to break the sabbath.
Here’s a link about literary styles in the Bible that may be helpful. Literary Styles in the Bible - YouTube
Where do you see it written that Jesus said it was okay for David to break His sabath?
Mark 2:23-28
Does this verse found in 2 Timothy
4;3 answer your question? Read a minute are you a Christian? The evidence for an old Earth are mainly evolutionists who atheists. They hide, twist and deny the evidence that point to a young earth.
This is a completely baseless comment that shows you aren’t very well informed on this issue. Plenty of evidence for an old earth comes from geology and astrophysics and doesn’t have anything to do with evolution.
Sorry but there are many Christian geologists they would take offense at this. Some of which don’t accept evolution.
Hi Gerald - this comment made me wonder if you’re a Seventh-day Adventist (since they have a particular emphasis on Sabbath-keeping that is nearly unique to them as a denomination). YEC and emphasis on sabbath almost always equals SDA in my experience.
I had a student this last year who was SDA. It was not an easy year for him. Young-earth creation and antievolutionism are major parts of SDA theology - and he could see clearly that the scientific evidence supported neither position.
I’ve often wondered what causes intelligent people to reject evidence that’s, as the old saying goes, “As plain as the nose on your face.” (Mine’s pretty plain, too!) Here’s my suggestion – it’s called “Presuppositionalism.” This is a quote from my book:
Presuppositionalism is a branch of Christian apologetics which claims that the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews. Presuppositionalism originated with Cornelius Van Til, (1895-1987) Christian philosopher and Reformed theologian.
Hugh Ross explains this point of view by saying: “According to some of its advocates, presuppositionalism says all human reasoning and interpretation of scientific evidence must be subordinate to a Biblical interpretation of reality. Some young earth creationists adopt an extreme form of presuppositionalism, asserting that any scientific interpretation of the record of nature can be discounted in light of their young earth interpretation of the words of the Bible."
In an article titled “Evidentialism vs. Presuppositionalism,”[patheos.com, 9/23/11] author Libby Anne says,
Answers in Genesis, a young earth creationist group that runs the creationist museum in Kentucky and has recently embraced presuppositionalism apologetics wholeheartedly, is actually completely open about the fact that it simply rejects evidence that contradicts their interpretation of the Biblical account of creation. It is not about the evidence. It is about the presupposition. And no matter what you say, you are not going to change their minds.
One more thing… my mind was changed, and that’s true of many others. Gerald is absolutely correct in knowing, and arguing his case passionately, that there’s a lot at stake here. The One who changes minds, according to my understanding of the Christian faith, is the Holy Spirit. When it comes to an issue as important as this, it’s crucial that all of the evidence, scriptural and scientific, is laid out for all to see. The rest, as I say, is up to the one who, as Jesus says, “… will lead you into all truth.” (John 16:13)
Fair enough. Are they conservative or liberal in Theology? My next question is how they see and treat scripture - inerrant and infallible? If they hold those conservative views, my next question would be - how do they treat Genesis - prose - poetry - literal or hyperliteral?
Either way, Biologos presents former YEC clergy with a challenge on Paul’s teaching, the fall, death and original sin which is the foundation of the gospel - atonement etc expiation etc.
Thanks for your kind response fmiddel
The folks I deal with as a pastor are primarily conservative in their theology. For most liberals, this bus left the station a long time ago. The folks I know who have changed their minds generally hold to the inerrancy of scripture, along the lines of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which proposes that “when all the facts are known, the bible (in its autographs, that is the original documents) properly interpreted in light of the culture and the means of communication that had developed by the time of its composition, is completely true in all that it affirms, to the degree of precision intended by the author’s purpose, in all matters related to God and his creation.” Much thought by evangelical scholars and others has already gone into the theological implications of an old earth, pro-evolutionary view. Scholars such as Alister McGrath, Peter Enns, John Walton, Denis Lamoureux, Ian Barbour and John Polkinghorne have grappled with these issues and have offered updated proposals. It’s an interesting time in the church.
Phew. There’s a lot of wiggle room in that statement and an easy out- since science is never done we will never know all the facts!