Doctrines relating to the C/E Controversy

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you asking us to discuss a particular doctrine as it would relate to the YE/OE debate? If so, perhaps you could start us off with one that you think would be compromised by an OE position.Or maybe I'm not understanding you here.

 

oh lol, I had just woken up when I read your post. That will teach me to hop on the computer first thing out of bed.

I know the biggest doctrinal problem YEC's have with an old earth is that death would have had to come before Adam. Therefore, if animals died, Christ's redemptive work on the cross is nullified or something to that effect.Am I correct?

 

Jesus said He is the Truth (among other things). We also know He is the Creator Himself. Therefore one of the primary doctrines must be that what He said is the truth -- including how it relates to creation.

 

Hmmm. Does truth follow our doctrines or do our doctrines follow truth?

 

don't you know?

 

Back in the 1960's I used to go to a Baptist church where everybody believed in Creation, and it was considered to be one of the foundational doctrines of Christianity. Most other churches were like that, and the Gospel was preached on the basis that:

1. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
2. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(and we know where to find all this in the Bible, together with the other verses that follow them in evangelistic campaigns).

Nowadays we don't hear the message so clearly. Instead we get something like "We have messed up our lives and Jesus can help us to get it sorted out". It seems almost like we have sinned against ourselves, not against God, and it's no longer a life and death issue.

At the same time, I find that many Christians are not prepared to say that death came as a result of Adam's sin. They have compromised with evolution, so that there were millions of years of death and destruction, and survival of the fittest, and Adam was simply the first character to appear in the Bible. Death did not come as a consequence of the sin of Adam, because it was in the world already, and therefore eternal life cannot come as a result of the righteousness of the second Adam, Jesus Christ, and his work of atonement on the cross.

We still hear about the crucifixion and resurrection, but it doesn't seem to have the same impact any more. If we don't know the meaning of sin, then we don't know the meaning of grace, and Jesus is reduced to a therapeutic counsellor who helps us to fix up our messed up lives.

I've been a believer in Jesus for about 40 years and I've noticed a slow change that would be almost imperceptible over a period of just a few years, but the change is definitely there, and what we hear today is different from what it used to be. I'd like to know if there are others who feel the same, and would you relate it to the creation/evolution issue?

Mike

 

It's perfectly reasonable to consider that when the scripture teaches that by man came death the scripture is referring to human death, not other creature's death.

 

You raise a good point. If one assumes that the fall was the cause of all non-human death, then must one presume that Christ's redemption applies to non-humans? Interesting.

 

I've seen it too, Mike. Yeast is a good picture of it -- false doctrines that just sort of seep in and saturate and affect the entire congregation. The seminaries are largely responsible for not depending on God more than man.

And yes, evolution has had a great deal to do with it, I think. First, it teaches to believe man and not God. Second, it teaches that the Bible cannot be read in a straightforward way, but must be 'interpreted' to be in line with whatever people are thinking today.

I don't know if you saw Elena's post in another thread, but it had something to do with taking the crucifixion and resurrection on faith, so she didn't need evidence. However, even with all the evidence for creation, she and so many like her refuse to take God's Word as a matter of faith on that. And yet there is NO real physical evidence for the Resurrection the way there is for creation!

It's a strange position for so many to be in. To me it seems like judging God. In order to say they are not doing that, they back up to "well, the Bible is really only the memories of people who lived a long time ago" and such, implying that it can be quite faulty and we need to apply our modern, far distant intelligence to decide what they were 'really' saying.

The result is the inability, in the long run, to even call sin sin. Repentance is not a big thing in churches now, although it is absolutely imperative for one who wants Christ in his or her life.

But, after all, if we descended from some ape-like ancestor, there are all kinds of 'genetic' reasons for what we do, and so that is not 'really' sin.

Up in either Baptist Discussion or Theology, there was recently posted the link to an incredibly good article by a Roman Catholic theologian called something like "the Culture of Vice". It was definitely worth the read. It covers, in the moral sphere, a good deal of what you are talking about here in terms of changes coming.

I do think the evolutionary paradigm has more to do with what we have seen in terms of the attempted destruction of Christianity than most people realize. Science is trying to take over the position of God, telling us what is true and what is not -- and people are falling for that lie by the millions.

I keep wondering how much longer God is going to put up with this.

 

Paul,

The Bible teaches that God created the world and he saw that it was good. He blessed the animals on the fifth day (Gen. 1:22) and blessed humans on the sixth day (Gen. 1:28), but there was no equivalent blessing for the plants because they were given to both humans and animals as food. The death of plants was part of the created order, but not the death of humans or animals. When Adam and Eve sinned, they initiated a process of decay that affected the whole creation. Animals and humans would both die, and there were destructive mutations in plants so that thorns and thistles began to grow. The first recorded death of an animal was a direct consequence of sin, because skins were needed as a covering for Adam and Eve.

Animals are affected by the sins of humans, but they are not aware of good and evil as we are. Humans have a special status, being made in the image of God, but we are fallen, having taken upon ourselves the knowledge of good and evil, and provision has been made for our salvation, to restore us to our former state.

Mike

 

Looks like ole Paul had a premonition of the 21st century, eh wot!?

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools--

 

Paul,

The Bible teaches that God created the world and he saw that it was good. He blessed the animals on the fifth day (Gen. 1:22) and blessed humans on the sixth day (Gen. 1:28), but there was no equivalent blessing for the plants because they were given to both humans and animals as food. The death of plants was part of the created order, but not the death of humans or animals. When Adam and Eve sinned, they initiated a process of decay that affected the whole creation. Animals and humans would both die, and there were destructive mutations in plants so that thorns and thistles began to grow. The first recorded death of an animal was a direct consequence of sin, because skins were needed as a covering for Adam and Eve.

Animals are affected by the sins of humans, but they are not aware of good and evil as we are. Humans have a special status, being made in the image of God, but we are fallen, having taken upon ourselves the knowledge of good and evil, and provision has been made for our salvation, to restore us to our former state.

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Well, Tyronosaurus Rex did not use those teeth except to kill and be killed, and they died out long before man came on the scene - that's what the evidence shows.

 

Paul,

There are dinosaurs in the Bible. See Job 40 and 41 where you will find Behemoth and Leviathan.

Mike

 

Interesting interpretation, one that I don't agree with, but interesting none the less.

 

Paul,

There are dinosaurs in the Bible. See Job 40 and 41 where you will find Behemoth and Leviathan.

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]And you know these must be dinosaurs because ???

In view of the fact that these are revealed to Job in a vision from God, how can you be so sure they even reside on our planet?

 

Why would God want to confuse Job with asking him where he was when He (God) laid the foundations of the earth and then mention some creatures from another “earth”?

Why did God mention the fact that He made the behemoth in the same fashion as He made Job? Why would God ask Job how he could draw out a leviathan with a hook, if it’s from another “earth”?

You’re a prime example of how someone will read the Bible looking for errors; you cannot understand rightly the Bible, for your mind is already made up; therefore you’re simply making excuses Paul…

Col 2:8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

How true…

 

The Behemoth was a hippo (in Hebrew, behmowth means "water ox", which is what they called the hippo). This was covered in a thread a while back.

The Leviathan was a crocodile (in Hebrew, the croc was called livyathan, which the KJV and others translate as "leviathan")

Both hippos and crocodiles were common animals in the region of the time.

 

Why would God want to confuse Job with asking him where he was when He (God) laid the foundations of the earth and then mention some creatures from another “earth”

</font>[/QUOTE]Who are you to read into my response or the scriptures anything about how confusing this vision was to Job? If this was a vision from God, as the Bible says it was, then it was precisely as enlightening and/or confusing as God wanted it to be for Job.

The question was rhetorical, God didn't really expect Job to do it.

I'm the one who leaves the possibilities open and you're the one who thinks he has the only right answer and you say I'm the one who's mind is made up. That's an interesting way you have with words there!