Poll concerning Creation(ism)

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by ReformedBaptist, Jun 9, 2008.

?

What position is closest to your own your church?

  1. Literal, 6-day creation - young earth/universe.

    68 vote(s)
    76.4%
  2. Gap Theory

    5 vote(s)
    5.6%
  3. Progressive Creationism

    9 vote(s)
    10.1%
  4. Theistic Evolution

    8 vote(s)
    9.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,844
    Likes Received:
    22
    I am posting this poll to just get a sense of what the Baptists on this board believe and/or their churches believe/teach regarding the various creation beliefs.

    I am going to assume you have at least a cursory understanding of the various positions.
     
  2. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,344
    Likes Received:
    86
    Can you add an "other" category?

    just curious because I don't fall into these camps. :)
     
  3. blackbird

    blackbird
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    Then what "camp" are you lookin' for, preachinjesus???

    For me???? The only camp that has a campfire goin'----is the Young earth----7 literal day God spoken creation---thats the only camp anyone will be able to warm up around the fire!!!

    See what I mean????
     
  4. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    May you don't, but the question was not, "Which these camps do you fall into?" but "Which position is closest to your own?" So (as I see it) the only thing that would prevent you from choosing one of the four poll options is if you hold a position which is equally close to, or equally distant from, the four given.
     
  5. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,844
    Likes Received:
    22
    Thanks David. The purpose behind using the word closest was to give some liberty and keep the poll simple.
     
  6. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    should be a no-brainer for fundamental, bible-believing traditionalists.
    however, as the song goes, 'the times, they are a-changin'.
    even so.
    come, Lord Jesus.
     
  7. mparkerfd20

    mparkerfd20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question has some grammatical errors so I wasn't exactly sure how to answer it. I answered it according to the general belief of the members of the congregation that I attend. I think they are mostly Progressive Creationism. I, myself, am literal 6-day creation, young universe.
     
  8. dan e.

    dan e.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, there are lots of options with this question. I guess there always will be with people. :saint:

    However, I believe my church lies closer to young earth than the other categories. I lean towards young earth as well.

    The reason I say I "lean towards" as opposed to being adament about it, is that I don't ever want to miss the forest for the trees. :jesus:
     
  9. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,844
    Likes Received:
    22
    Grammatical errors is what happens when you do 3 things at once. :laugh:
     
  10. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    God's word is true. That's all I know. It says He created everything in 6 days, so He did.
     
  11. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    5,863
    Likes Received:
    0
    I voted for myself, not for my church. I don't really know where my church would stand. I work with the youth, and probably 80% of them aren't even Christian.

    I chose "progressive" because I'd consider it closest to day-age theory.
     
  12. Jon-Marc

    Jon-Marc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree, but unfortunately some people want to say that since it says in 2 Peter 3:8 that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day", that those 6 days are not literal. I don't know why it's so difficult for people to believe that an omnipotent God can create everything in 6 days. I believe He didn't need that long but chose to do it in 6 days.
     
  13. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I know that some say that and I think that the 2 Peter verse is speaking of something else entirely, mainly the patience of God.

    But in Genesis, after each day of creation, it says "and the evening and the morning were the (whatever) day". This surely indicates a 24 hour day.
     
  14. dan e.

    dan e.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's a wee bit of a cheap shot. Just because someone may not believe it was six literal 24 hour days doesn't entail that they also think God couldn't create in six days.

    Be careful about focusing so much on this one point...I think people go overboard when they start judging the state of one's spiritual life because they don't believe it was exactly 6 days. Hardly the point of Genesis.
     
  15. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,344
    Likes Received:
    86
    Well perhaps an honest "We can't know" might be good as well. We have no "evidence" cosmologically for any side. There are other views out there that are just as credible as those listed. The very nature of the text in Hebrew is so different in the two creation accounts that we must pause to exercise faith and not dogmatism imho.

    My position is that if God desired to create the world in 6 literal days He can do it. (Whether He did or not isn't for us to split hairs over...the biblical suggests that is case, let's give a generous read to the biblical record.) That said I also believe the world is tens of thousands, if not millions, of years old. Why do we believe that the Fall happened on Monday morning or Wednesday afternoon the next week? The text gives us no indication about how long Adam was alone or how long he and Eve were together in the Garden. Being that the Garden of Eden (I do believe it a literal place at one time) was a state of perfection it is possible that they existed in the Garden in a perfected state for eons without aging a moment. My position is that during this time a created order existed outside of the Garden that could have lasted tens of thousands, if not millions, of years that held to natural (micro) evolutionary processes. Then add on the 1800 or so years between Eden and Noah and you've got a big ball rolling. I just can't believe, given much of what I've seen post-cosmology that the earth and creation are less than 10,000 years old.

    Besides there is something to be said for the Eden only creationism scheme as proposed by a couple of conservative evangelical authors. I just don't think we can be dogmatic about this issue. Let's be generous towards one another. :)
     
  16. lbaker

    lbaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    0
    I voted Theistic Evolution as that is probably the closest to where I'm at now. The church I go to probably leans heavily toward the six 24 hour day option in 4004 BC.
     
  17. Bob Dudley

    Bob Dudley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course the world was made in 6 literal days. After all, that IS what it says in Genesis. Moses believed it was 6 literal days and Adam (who probably wrote the book that Moses edited to get that part of Genesis) believed in 6 literal days. Jesus and Paul believed in a literal Adam and Eve and (by extension) believed in a literal 6 days of creation. The geologic record seems to indicate a 6 literal days of creation and a global flood.

    I guess what I don't get is why people have such a hard time taking the Bible at face value. Especially since the Bible says 6 literal days and all the scinetific evidence fits a young earth model much better than an evolutionary model.
     
  18. dan e.

    dan e.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Bible says a lot of things that we don't take literal.

    Within the very nature of writing contains different literary types and genres, which can portray meanings in different ways. We don't read everything in the Bible at "face value", as you put it. If you do....then there are more problems here than what you think about the length of time creation took.

    The point is, specifically with this issue, that some people see differences considering the type of literature, among other variables, that cause them to understand how it could mean something different than 6 literal days.

    Don't sound so flabbergasted that someone takes into account all the variables of a peice of literature. This is a secondary issue.
     
  19. Bob Dudley

    Bob Dudley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is absolutely not a secondary issue. If you can prove that there was no Adam and Eve that all humanity comes from, then you can prove there is no such thing as original sin and the punishment for sin.

    If you can prove the world is millions (rather than thousands) of years old then you can prove that death is not a result of Adam's sin. After all, death was around for a long time before "Adam" and "Eve." You are on the way to tearing down the entire Bible.

    And, the type of literature is literal history - not very hard to understand. Jersus took The first several chapters of Genesis as literal history, Paul took it as literal history, Peter took it as literal history, James took it as literal history. Scientists for thousands of years took it as literal history.

    I teach a class in Creation Science at Washington Bible College. Why not come down this fall and sit in on a class or two then see what you think about a literal interpretaion of this part of the Bible.

    Or, perhaps, take a tour through the Creation Museum in Kentucky (right ouside Cincinnati, OH).
     
  20. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    5,863
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe in an historical Adam and an historical Eve.

    The death issue isn't so simple. The very nature of food itself requires the "death" of certain things. Death for humans came through the fall, to be sure, but death in nature already existed.

    When Adam plucked fruit from the other trees to feed himself, he was plucking fruit from a living organism. Apart from the tree, the fruit could not continue to thrive. To digest the food, the materials had to be broken down.
     

Share This Page

Loading...