Does Creationism Corrupt the Gospel?

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Peter101, Apr 24, 2003.

  1. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is designed to be a mirror image of the thread started by Bob Ryan, entitled Evolution Corrupts the Gospel. In question form, it is milder than that of Ryan's thread, and I intentionally made it milder, to see if the moderator would let it remain or delete it. If he deletes it, it will show that he makes no pretense of being objective and that he or she has assumed that he knows best for the readers of this forum. That type of paternalism is not needed in my opinion. I think some arguments can be made that creationism is damaging to the christian religion. In fact, I have seen that stated in a number of other places. This will be a starting point for discussion on that topic. Of course I may well be banned for speaking freely or perhaps this topic will be deleted, but it that happens it will just be a lesson as to the nature of moderation here.
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Well lets make this easy for you.

    Step one.

    #1. Try to make a case for your proposal.


    Step 2.


    Failing to even "propose" a way that BELIEVING the Bible "corrupts the Bible Gospel" - your post is just a silly attempt to get back at the obvious point that "Evolutionism corrupts the Gospel"


    Bob
     
  3. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    How the earth was created, be it a six day span, or a muti-epoch span, has no bering on the Gospel, since the Gospel hinges on the inhierited sin of Adam. Adam's sin would not have been different if the earth was recent or the earth was ancient.

    In other words, it's my view that neither creation nor evolution corrupt the Gospel.
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Your simply not thinking it through.

    Christ came and PERFECTLY kept the LAW. He did not SIN. He redeems mankind from SIN and offers forgiveness. Christ redeems the sinner so that we may once again live in a sinless state RESTORED - REDEEMED - back to fellowship with God.

    God's Law RELIES on the accuracy of the LITERAL day saying in Exodus 20 "SIX days you shall labor... FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD CREATED... and RESTED the seventh-day".

    Paul says "IT WAS NOT MAN that was FIRST deceived but WOMAN was first deceived". Paul is appealing to the DETAILS of Gen 1-3.

    Paul declared in Romans 5 that "THROUGH ONE MAN's ACT of sin - sin entered the world and ALL came under the domain of death".

    AGAIN - appealing to the literal DETAIL of Gen 1-3.

    Christ states that the SINGLE marriage of Gen 2 is the basis for marriage today.

    The DETAILS of the Gen 1-3 "account" form the BASIS for God's Word, His Law, the Fall of man from a perfect sinless state, the NEED for redemption and forgiveness, the BASIS for marriage and family, the PURPOSE in redemption.

    All this has been stated in a prior post.


    Still hoping an evolutionist will respond.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe that creationism damages the christian religion, but perhaps it cannot accurately be said to corrupt the religion. By damage, I mean the following. The evidence for an ancient earth is so solid, so numerous and so convincing, that well educated people, who are aware of the evidence, will consider those who deny it as being not very competent and not having a solid foundation to speak or discuss important issues,
    including religion. Many people think, quite correctly in my judgment, that those who believe in a young earth are as poorly informed as those who believe in a flat earth. Apparently, there are a few people who still believe that, at least until a few years ago. Perhaps the President of the flat earth society in California has passed on by now, but he was alive as recently as 10 years ago. Oddly enough, I think there is some danger that this post will be deleted because the moderator may be annoyed that I would equate YEC beliefs with belief in a flat earth. Yet I am speaking the truth, whether you want to hear it or not. So, the important question is whether the young earth faction wants to be seen as simply "out to lunch" or whether they want to be seen as a reasonably well educated part of society. It is their choice. If you believe in a young earth, not more than 10,000 years old, and you are willing to accept being perceived as hopelessly out of touch with the world of science, then you may want to continue to ignore the vast amount of evidence that would enlighten you, if you would only examine it.
     
  6. dpenguin

    dpenguin
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/dawn.gif>

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    0
    God created the earth with "apparent age" - just as He didn't create Adam as a tiny baby, but as an adult, so He didn't create the earth appearing young, but rather appearing old. The earth itself has actually been scientifically proven to BE less than 10,000 years old.
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    See?!! PROOF!!

    Your argument is NOT "Creationism corrupts the Gospel" as your thread states. That was just a way of trying to respond to the harder challenge that "EVOLUTIONISM DOES Corrupt the Gospel".

    What you "really said" above is that "CREATIONISM undermines the acceptance of Christianity by atheist evolutionists".

    I think you can probably make a case for that. But it is not the same topic as the title of this thread. For the title of this thread you would "NEED" to show "THE GOSPEL" and show some part of it that is "NOT TRUE" if you accept God's Word on Creation.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;The earth itself has actually been scientifically proven to BE less than 10,000 years old.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    I have read some of those claims, and I think you would agree that they are rejected by mainstream science. They won't stand up to examination.
     
  9. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;See?!! PROOF!!&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    For evidence of an old earth, see the link that is given in the new thread on this topic. The link provides enough evidence to keep busy thousands of creationists for many years in the attempt to show errors in it.
     
  10. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    I’ll change the question a bit, if you don’t mind.

    Does the insistence of a six day/24 hour creationism hurt the proclamation of the gospel? My answer, YES! And this I can state without reservation.

    I became a believer as a teen. But even then, if the additional baggage of “6 Day Creationism” was added to the gospel I never would have considered the message. I was searching for TRUTH.

    Later, after the message of life was internalized and I began to understand a little bit more of what Christ did for me, only then could I began to search out these side issues.

    Everyone who believes in the Almighty God of the Bible is a creationist.
    The militant Young Earth Creationists have hijacked the term ‘creationist’ so that a vast majority of people think that to be a creationist one has to believe in a 6/24 hour creation.
    This insistence on the young earth form of creationism has caused many to dismiss Christianity, as less than truthful and not a viable option.

    When Paul spoke to the Athenian Greeks on Mars Hill, He spoke to them using their own terms. He was understanding and used their beliefs to persuade and influence them. Militant Young Earth Creationism employ an alternative scientific method and an “in your face” method of persuasion that can alienate many and cause divisions in the fold. Militant creationist 'Old Earthers' show the same "in your face" attitude when they spam their science on the YEC's. While the internal debates rage as to whether the earth is young or old, our mission field scatters.

    Remember, EVERYONE in this forum is witnesses of Christ, even by the words we write here! Show brotherly love to each other, even in our disagreements. If we don't the words will be moderated by BIG BROTHER. [​IMG] [​IMG]

    It is still my belief that the fundamentals of the gospel do not include a certain belief about the age of the earth.

    Rob (Edited for grammar)
    I just re-read my post; for a moderate Calvinist, I sound very Arminian. [​IMG]

    [ April 25, 2003, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Deacon ]
     
  11. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Creationism cannot possibly hurt the Gospel! It is a presentation of the belief that God knows how to communicate clearly start to finish and that people as unlearned as simple fishermen can know the truth as given in the Bible. Creationism presents the message that we can believe God's Word is true, start to finish.

    Can a person be a Christian without being a YEC? Yes, of course, for it is Jesus who saves. But, also knowing that the Holy Spirit will lead us all into the truth, I personally think that all Christians will end up YEC!
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul says "IT WAS NOT MAN that was FIRST deceived but WOMAN was first deceived". Paul is appealing to the DETAILS of Gen 1-3... Paul declared in Romans 5 that "THROUGH ONE MAN's ACT of sin - sin entered the world and ALL came under the domain of death"... Christ states that the SINGLE marriage of Gen 2 is the basis for marriage today.
    The first man, as well as the first marriage, is post-creation. The Gospel relates to the sin of Adam, but by the time Adam came about, the process by which God created (be it in days ot epochs) had passed.
     
  13. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul says "IT WAS NOT MAN that was FIRST deceived but WOMAN was first deceived". Paul is appealing to the DETAILS of Gen 1-3

    Actually, Paul is referring here to only the details of Gen3 in thie verse.
     
  14. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    But, also knowing that the Holy Spirit will lead us all into the truth, I personally think that all Christians will end up YEC!

    I used to be a YEC, and am no longer. Interestingly, as my faith increased, my belief in a YEC decreased.

    But I agree with you that whether one is YEC, OEC, pro-evolution, or anything in between, it has no bering on salvation. Only Jesus saves. Additionally, differences in interpretation of Genesis should never preclude folks from fellowshipping together. There are still 65 (71) other books that are worthy of study and fellowship.
     
  15. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    BobRyan, you keep talking about DETAILS, Details are important, it’s the LITERAL part where our interpretation can cause problems.

    I’m just going to deal with one aspect of your statement where you write:
    In Exodus the emphasis is on a pattern, not equivalence. It is a unit for unit comparison between the creation days and our days. It doesn’t necessarily mean that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six `days,' any more than the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth) proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days (Lev. 23:39-43) The seven days of our calendar week simply follow the pattern established by God. God's `work week' gives us a human-like picture we can grasp. "The high priests of Israel served at a sanctuary that is `a copy and shadow of what is in heaven' (Hebrews 8:5 NAS).

    The literal six days are not the important aspect, it is the intent that gives it meaning.

    Rob
     
  16. JamesJ

    JamesJ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    0
    But when we read that the grass and plants and trees were created on the third day and the sun was created on the fourth day, that causes a problem if the days are not days as we know them and are now experiencing them. No means of photosynthesis for the vegetation to grow naturally.
     
  17. RichardC

    RichardC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen writes:
    If a conflict arises between a scientific claim and a religious belief we hold, there are two things we can do about it: (1) reexamine the scientific claim and see if it needs to be revised; and (2) reexamine the religious belief and see if it needs to be revised. Better yet, do both (1) and (2).

    From the evidence of your postings, Helen, you don’t seem much interested in (2).

    You and Barry Setterfield seem to have expended a great deal of time and energy in examining the scientific claims of common descent and an old earth. But so far I haven’t seen any evidence that you have invested more than a tiny fraction of that time and energy in reexamining your belief that God intends us to understand Genesis as a literal account of events – that Genesis so understood is “God’s story” of creation - and in considering alternative views of the Bible, concerning which there is a large published literature.

    Why not? Why is this belief of yours off limits to critical examination and reconsideration?

    You say God knows how to communicate clearly: how do you know that Genesis is a communication from God, rather than the response of an ancient people to their experience of God? (And if bald literalism is God’s preferred method of communication, why did Jesus speak in parables and cryptic sayings? And Ruth, Jonah, Job, Ecclesiastes, and Revelation are to be taken literally as well?)

    So far I have only gotten arguments from authority in response to my question: the Bible says so, or St. So-and-So said so. But then we have to ask how we know that what the authority says is true.

    Most Christians today do not share your view of Genesis, yet you confidently proclaim your view of Genesis as if it needed no support or justification and no reasonable Christian could disagree with it. I don’t know what virtue you are displaying here, but it isn’t humility.

    I grant that scientists can be arrogant at times, and that’s unfortunate. But a certain humility is built into science: its conclusions are always subject to disconfirmation by the evidence. Does being a YEC mean never having to defend one’s views on the Bible?

    Richard
     
  18. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Richard, with all respect for your post, I would suggest that you really don't know where either of us have been in our Bible studies, do you?

    I taught for almost thirty years. I started out an evolutionist. A theistic evolutionist. And I was perfectly happy with long ages and evolution. I ended up changing from that dual position over a number of years of intensive reading, prayer, questioning, thinking, talking. It is very, VERY difficult to change from what you were very comfortable believing.

    I changed away from evolution (which is all it could be called at first) due to evidence against evolution. My extremely gradual acceptance of young age creation came about due to a combination of intensive Bible study and in part because of a course in population genetics. One thing led to another and I became aware that it was probably not possible for life to have been in existence for very long and that the intended meaning of Genesis was 24-hour days. As I said, this was a very difficult transition for me to make and took place, in the main, between the ages of 25 and 30. It actually took longer than five years, but the main course of it was about five years.

    My husband, Barry, 12,000 miles away and completely unknown to me then traveled something of the same course, as you can read in his short bio here:
    http://www.setterfield.org/bio.html

    He had also started out not questioning either evolution or long ages. His change was primarily due to evidence in his fields of study.

    So no, we do not have to question the Bible now. We already spent too many years doing that.

    We have also examined some areas of science rather closely: the areas I am primarily interested in are in the life sciences, while his center around physics, geology, and astronomy. We have both found enormous fudging in all of these areas in mainstream presentations aimed for the public. We have found evidence of information purposely ignored or subverted which challenges the reigning paradigm. This does not tend to give either of us a lot of faith in mainstream science! Instead we are both interested in reading from primary materials ourselves whenever possible and digging to find out everything we can rather than the surface material presented to the public.

    And we have found some very different stories emerging.

    If you would not mind reading a little, we encourage you to read just a fraction of what Barry and I have written that is currently up on his website in the religion section:
    http://www.setterfield.org/Scripture.htm

    I might also add that we are the ones doing the Bible study above, here on Baptist Board "Read Through the Bible". If you check the Genesis section, I think you will find we have worked fairly extensively studying and presenting it...

    I'll see if Barry wants to write up something on the problems with the gap and day/age theories we can put up on his webpage, so you and others will know we have considered those alternatives quite carefully.

    In short, your accusations regarding what we have and have not done are being made in a reasonable degree of ignorance, and much of the evidence is right here on Baptist Board regarding our work, both individually and corporately.

    Now, about Genesis being a communication from God. There is some pretty reasonable evidence, starting with Wiseman's material in the 1930's, which was based on archeological evidence, that Genesis was never a matter of oral tradition, but was written down from the start by eyewitnesses, including Adam himself. I'll see if we can get something up on that on the website in the future, too. We have quite a bit in a somewhat disorganized Word doc which you are welcome to see if you would like (I'll need your email address; just PM me), but it does need a reasonable amount of re-working to make it as smooth and presentable as I would like to see it before it goes up.

    However there is also internal evidence regarding the veracity of Genesis: every time any event in Genesis is referenced by either our Lord or by one of the other authors of the Bible, it is referred to as actual, straightforward history. So at what point are YOU going to take bits and pieces of all the various books apart and say, "This is right; this is wrong..." and have only your own ideas or current 'scientific' understandings and interpretations to go by?

    Jesus spoke in parables and his words in those parables are clearly marked as parables by the gospel writers (with the possible exception of the story in Luke about the rich man and Lazarus, which may be something real). Allegory, parable, and poetry in the Hebrew itself have entirely different grammatical structures than narrative does. Genesis is all written in narrative Hebrew grammatical structure. It is presented as straightforward history, and, as I said before, should be accepted or rejected on its own terms, not upon terms thrust upon it.

    Please keep in mind that you are the one using the term 'literal.' I did not say the Bible should be taken literally, actually, but straightforwardly. There are sections that are poetic, allegorical, and such, but these are clearly marked by style if not by actual words identifying them as such. In line with that, Ruth, Jonah, and Job are all real histories. Ecclesiastes is Solomon writing about what it all looks like 'under the sun', from the point of view of man's wisdom instead of God's wisdom. Revelation uses symbols clearly explained in the other parts of the Bible, but, as with all prophetic material, it becomes clearer the closer we are to the event and can only be really clear after we have seen the fulfillment of it.

    You asked how we can know what the Bible says is true. As far as I am concerned, it is self-validating: every bit of science, history, and prophecy which can be checked has proven accurate. There are scientific facts spoken of in Job and even in the Psalms which we had no way of confirming until the twentieth century, and would most certainly have been unknown in all or part to anyone before now.

    Something has to be a plumb line against which we can test the veracity of all else. From my own experience both with life and with God, I accept the Bible as that plumb line. It truly is God's holy Word.

    You say most Christians today do not share my view of Genesis. I have some sad news for you, my friend. Most Christians have not even read the Bible, if by "Christian" you are considering those attending various churches. On the other hand, of those Christians who are truly born-again and following Christ with their lives and hearts, I am willing to say that of the ones I have met, about 90% are young earth creationists by faith if not by an addition of science.

    If I am not showing humility to match what you would like, I apologize. I am reasonably sure of my facts and have presented them that way.

    I just mentioned to Barry, as he walked into the room that I had just been accused of not being humble. He sort of laughed and just said, "Oh grief! You'll never win with them anyway!" But I would ask you to please not confuse my willingness to stand up for the truth that I know with personal pride. I am nothing without Christ and I am extremely aware of that fact as well. I know what I was without Him.
     
  19. mdkluge

    mdkluge
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Creationism, as a belief that God created the world in six days some few thousands of years ago, the historicity of Adam & Eve, Noah's flood, etc. is certainly not a corruption of the Gospel. Throughout its history the Christian churches have accomodated diverse views on the world's origin. One can be a good Christian, neither heretic nor schismatic, and believe all of those things.

    Where creationism corrupts the gospel is where creationists insist upon creationist beliefs as part of the doctrinal orthodoxy of the church. In this they needlessly and sinfully bind Christian consciences to believe what is not necessary to be believed.

    While there is manifest consensus within the scientific community in favor of evolution and against at least young-earth creationism, there is patently no consensus among theologians either way. Therefore it is silly and harmful for theologians or churches to pronounce, as a matter of faith, that either creationism or its negation must be believed or professed.

    Note that I would condemn equally a teaching that evolution or some none other non-creationistic teaching was part of the Christian faith as I do those who teach that creationism is such. However, I know of no church that requires its members to disavow creationism, or in any way denies creationists full Christian fellowship.

    Were it so that one could say the same of some churches espousing creationism! By their demands they are corruptors of the gospel, not as heretics, but as schismatics. They needlessly and sinfully divide the church, and that is how they corrupt the gospel.
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    It is axiomatic to say that CREATIONISM CAN NOT POSSIBLY CORRUPT the Gospel.

    But your point that EVOLUTIONISM ALSO does not corrupt the Gospel has not been demonstrated either on this thread OR on the thread "Evolutionism Corrupts the Gospel".

    Instead of "assuming your point" - try to prove it.

    Show it in THE DETAILS.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     

Share This Page

Loading...