[_ Old Earth _] Praying...

[LittleNipper]

So who exactly isn't listening to the Holy Spirit? Name denominations whose members largely do so, and how you know that that is so.

Those denominations which have as their guide those that strain at a gnats, and yet swallow camels. Jesus Christ said so in HIS Word. Read Matthew 23.

 

[jwu]

...and which these are? Names please!

 

[LittleNipper]

...and which these are? Names please!

I don't get hung up on denominations but look at the individual community church within denomination. Do they shine a light or hide it under a bushel. Does each preach the Gospel of the LORD JESUS CHRIST or is it a social club. Is it looking to please society or save souls. I would advise you to read Revelations Chapter 1 verse 11 through to the end of Chapter 3. We are presented with 7 churches and with various reasons CHRIST is unhappy with them. If a church/denomination fits those descriptions, then it would seem to be in trouble..... The HOLY SPIRIT speaks to us through GOD's HOLY WORD.

 

[jwu]

Why do you keep avoiding answering that question? Are you afraid to put your cards on the table?

 

[LittleNipper]

Why do you keep avoiding answering that question? Are you afraid to put your cards on the table?

People are not saved because they belong to one particular denomination. People are saved when they accept JESUS CHRIST as their personal SAVIOR. That means that as a saved individual, one BECOMES an adopted child of GOD and a brother or sister of the LORD JESUS CHRIST. Denominational membership is really meaningless and of no eternal value. ALSO, one church of a particular denomination maybe VERY on fire for the LORD, and another church within that very same denomination maybe cold or moving into the area of heresy. So my cards are on the table. I might add that I do not consider the Mormon church Christian. I also do not consider the JW's as Christian for the above reason. Besides questionable considerations of CHRIST, they are of the belief that membership with them alone is very important.

 

[Barbarian]

I never said evolutionists were athiests or anything of the sort. But being an evolutionist Christian or Evolutionist Creationism person thingy(lol sorry). Believing in evolution and God at the same time or well that they "co-exist" is not possible.

It is, if you are a Christian. Often, people tell you they are Christians, when in fact, they are actually pushing YE creationism, which is a doctrine invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists, and is directly contradicted by Genesis. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism, is inconsistent with God's word; He says the earth brought forth living things.

If I were you, I would ask my "leaders" two questions:

1. Do you accept Jesus as Lord and God?
2. Do you affirm the truths in the Nicene Creed?

If they hesitate, or tell you that either of those are unnecessary, they are serving a different master than Jesus. This is often the case with the creationist cults.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
YE creationism, which is a doctrine invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists

And ancient Hebrews, like Moses, David, King Solomon, ...

No. They accepted Genesis, which says that the earth brought forth living things; a statement that directly refutes the YE claim of "life ex nihilo." Almost all evangelicals were OE creationists prior to the Adventists' successful attempt to get their new doctrine accepted by fundamentalists.

Your funny!! You're joking, right...

It's true. The basic texts defining evangelical Christianity in the US, The Fundamentals were not YE in their theology. The creationism presented at the Scopes trial was OE creationism. YE is a very modern doctrine, the result of visions by a Seventh-Day Adventist "prophetess."

During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired. Following one of her trance-like "visions" White claimed actually to have witnessed the Creation, which occurred in a literal week. She also taught that Noah’s flood had sculpted the surface of the earth, burying the plants and animals found in the fossil record, and that the Christian Sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday rather than Sunday, as a memorial of a six-day creation.

Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks. Convinced that theories of organic evolution rested primarily on the notion of geological ages, Price aimed his strongest artillery at the geological foundation rather than at the biological superstructure. For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.
http://www.meta-library.net/history/floodgeo-frame.html

Few YE creationists know the real source of their beliefs on creation.

 

[Guest]

...and which these are? Names please!

How about the Catholic "church". My bet is that your Catholic...by reading your rhetoric.

The Catholic "church":



* The Catholic Church teaching and tradition are equal to the Scripture even though traditions are often inconsistent and contradictory.
* An infant is saved through the sacrament of baptism, which removes "original sin."
* God forgives sin through the Church, specifically the judicial act of the priest following confession and contrition.
* The atonement of Christ is not sufficient - the sacrament of the Eucharist converts the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ through a process called "transubstantiation. The bread and wine are worshipped as God.
* Only a priest can administer these sacraments.
* Mary is the sinless Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven and co-Redeemer, sitting at the right hand of God mediating for us. People worship and pray to Mary as well as saints.
* The Roman Pontiff is the head of the church and the representative and authority of God on the earth.
* The Pope is infallible and the infallible interpreter of Scripture.
* From an eschatological or "last days" point of view, the Roman Catholic Church sees itself exercising dominion over the earth. The Vatican is a country with embassies in most countries throughout the world.
* Indulgences, purgatory, praying to the dead, etc.

...salvation comes through the Roman church

...There is a one-time salvation through infant baptism, which is imparted by the church

...salvation is literally imparted by the priests as a member partakes in the mass.

...Worship of Mary


Blah, blah, blah...all, with no basis in the word. The Catholic "church' is nothing but Babylonian Paganism.

Sir, your being lied to, and probably have been since you were a young child.

 

[Barbarian]

You can always tell those who worship creationism, instead of God. They constantly attack whatever Christian groups they are not personally part of.

There are some creationist Catholics, who likewise condemn their Protestant fellows for various theological reasons.

All of them who do this are serving a master, but it isn't Jesus.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

........ This is often the case with the creationist cults.

 

[Guest]

You can always tell those who worship creationism, instead of God.

How about upholding God's word, versus worshiping creation.

 

[Veritas]

Barbarian, I'm not so sure young earth creationsim is a modern idea. I think its been around for a while (since it was first written down I would assume). In Genesis, Moses is talking about days, remember. I'd be willing to bet ideas have waxed and waned throughout time on that one

Maybe George Price popularized Young Earth creationism to some, But I know that debate at least goes back to St. Augustine. He basically came to the conclusion that Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, I'm not so sure young earth creationsim is a modern idea.

Yep, it's very recent. Invented in the 20th century, by the Adventists. They called it "Flood Geology." Henry Morris took it and renamed it "Creation science." And by the 1980s, many evangelicals had accepted the Adventist doctrine. But early in the century, it was quite different. Most creationists were traditional OE creationists.

I think its been around for a while (since it was first written down I would assume).

1930s, I think.

In Genesis, Moses is talking about days, remember. I'd be willing to bet ideas have waxed and waned throughout time on that one

The early Christians like Augustine freely admitted that it wasn't literal.

Maybe George Price popularized Young Earth creationism to some, But I know that debate at least goes back to St. Augustine. He basically came to the conclusion that Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason.

Yes. And his view was the orthodox one. Both Catholics and Protestants accepted that view.

 

[Veritas]

Barbarian wrote:
Yep, it's very recent. Invented in the 20th century, by the Adventists. They called it "Flood Geology." Henry Morris took it and renamed it "Creation science." And by the 1980s, many evangelicals had accepted the Adventist doctrine. But early in the century, it was quite different. Most creationists were traditional OE creationists.

Well, I can see a strong backlash developing because of Darwins theories and other developing theories in the 18th and 19th centuries. It probably jostled Old Earth creationists

But, how old could those old earth creationists really think the world was?. Not very, I would suppose.

It was only the 1700s when James Hutton, the first modern geologist, proposed that the Earth may be older. Enough time basically to allow for mountains to be eroded and for sediment to form new rocks etc.

The early Christians like Augustine freely admitted that it wasn't literal.

Yes. And his (Augustine's) view was the orthodox one. Both Catholics and Protestants accepted that view.

And Augustine only thought the six-day structure of creation was allegorical. The rest of genesis, including the creation of Adam and Eve, and the Flood, he thought was literal.

But also, and I did a little research on this, there was a defense of creation beliefs and a relatively young earth made by Theophilus of Antioch (an early Christian) in 170

his words...

"There are not myriads of myriads of years, even though Plato said such a period had elapsed between the deluge and his own time, . . . The world is not uncreated nor is there spontaneous production of everything, as Pythagoras and the others have babbled; instead the world is created and is providentially governed by the God who made everything. And the whole period of time and the years can be demonstrated to those who wish to learn the truth. . . . The total number of years from the creation of the world is 5,695.29 ... If some period has escaped our notice, says 50 or 100 or even 200 years, at any rate it is not myriads, or thousands of years as it was for Plato . . . and the rest of those who wrote falsehoods. It may be that we do not know the exact total of all the years simply because the additional months and days are not recorded in the sacred books."

So... what do you think my Christian brother?

 

[Barbarian]

Well, I can see a strong backlash developing because of Darwins theories and other developing theories in the 18th and 19th centuries. It probably jostled Old Earth creationists

In general, because many thought God had produced man apart from nature, in spite of Genesis. Indeed, He had produced something never seen before. "In the words of C.S. Lewis (parphrase of Screwtape the Devil's analysis of humans) "Creatures of blood and slime, who can speak freely to beings before which we can only cringe!" We are from the earth like other animals, but God also gives us an immortal soul.

But, how old could those old earth creationists really think the world was?. Not very, I would suppose.

In the Scopes trial, it seems millions of years was acceptable to them. But that was before the Seventh-Day Adventists convinced some of them of YE.

It was only the 1700s when James Hutton, the first modern geologist, proposed that the Earth may be older. Enough time basically to allow for mountains to be eroded and for sediment to form new rocks etc.

In fact, the early Christians, although they didn't take Genesis literally, seem to have thought of the Earth as being thousands of years old. But as new evidence from Hutton and others accumulated, few of them had any trouble accomodating to it, because Scripture doesn't say how old the Earth is.

Yes. And his (Augustine's) view was the orthodox one. Both Catholics and Protestants accepted that view.

And Augustine only thought the six-day structure of creation was allegorical. The rest of genesis, including the creation of Adam and Eve, and the Flood, he thought was literal.

Many theist who accept evolution, also accept a literal Adam and Eve. Augustine himself wrote that if our interpretation of scripture clearly contradicted observed facts, we must conlude that our interpretation is wrong.

But also, and I did a little research on this, there was a defense of creation beliefs and a relatively young earth made by Theophilus of Antioch (an early Christian) in 170

his words...

"There are not myriads of myriads of years, even though Plato said such a period had elapsed between the deluge and his own time, . . . The world is not uncreated nor is there spontaneous production of everything, as Pythagoras and the others have babbled; instead the world is created and is providentially governed by the God who made everything. And the whole period of time and the years can be demonstrated to those who wish to learn the truth. . . . The total number of years from the creation of the world is 5,695.29 ... If some period has escaped our notice, says 50 or 100 or even 200 years, at any rate it is not myriads, or thousands of years as it was for Plato . . . and the rest of those who wrote falsehoods. It may be that we do not know the exact total of all the years simply because the additional months and days are not recorded in the sacred books."

I don't think Augustine wouild have argued with him, because he had no data on which to base his estimate. As it became clear to Christians in the 18th century that such estimates were wrong, they merely revised their thinking. This is why at the beginning of the 20th, most creationists were OE.

So... what do you think my Christian brother?

The Earth is demonstrably billions of years old. This is consistent with Scripture.

 

[Veritas]

Barbarian wrote:
The Earth is demonstrably billions of years old. This is consistent with Scripture.

Ok, well, thanks for talking to me a bit about your theory of the Young Earth origins... I had never heard that before. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, by the way, by calling you a brother in Christ. I think alot of times the YE deal is a percieved barrier for people to come to Christ. You'd be a breath of fresh air for them I would think. I pray that the Lord will work through you for them.

Usually, I avoid this discussion ie. evolution/old earth/science vs. creation/young earth/creation science. Personally, I don't think it REALLY matters either way, as far as salvation is concerned, or I should say I hope not. Our acceptance of the saving grace of Jesus is what matters.

On one hand, I can see how Moses' choice of the word day may be allegorical. He was living in the distant past without much or any scientific knowledge himself, writing about events that he never witnessed.

On the other hand, All things are indeed possible with God, and "day" could mean just that.

Personally, I think "science" is great, but I always doubt it. Isn't that the point of it anyways? It is no place to put your faith ;)

Maybe I should go back a little more to the topic, somewhat that is...

Seth, I think the dangerous part about evolution is not so much the science but the philosophy that goes with it if our Lord is taken out of the picture. I think jwu, and Barbarian both believe the Bible is the innerrant word of God and have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior... Right guys?

But a purely evolutionistic (I'm not sure if this is the right word) philosophy strips us of our specialness. And like you said, I too, think dangerous ideas can come about because of this; like the idea that people's lives don't really matter.

Implications of some scientific discoveries are indeed humbling... we are on a tiny speck of rock going around an indiscriminate star among one hundred thousand million stars in our galaxy, and our galaxy itself is only one of millions upon millions of galaxies in an infinite universe.

But, we are special, you and I! And we do matter very much to God! And that is a glorious thing! Something to rejoice about!

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The Earth is demonstrably billions of years old. This is consistent with Scripture.

Ok, well, thanks for talking to me a bit about your theory of the Young Earth origins...

Actually, I didn't do the research. See "The Creationists" by Ron Numbers.

I had never heard that before. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, by the way, by calling you a brother in Christ.

Some people do that, but I try to take statements like that as sincere whenever I can. I rather thought you meant it sincerely.

I think alot of times the YE deal is a percieved barrier for people to come to Christ. You'd be a breath of fresh air for them I would think. I pray that the Lord will work through you for them.

That is my ministry. I want people to know that YE is not a requirement to be a fully functioning Christian.

Usually, I avoid this discussion ie. evolution/old earth/science vs. creation/young earth/creation science. Personally, I don't think it REALLY matters either way, as far as salvation is concerned, or I should say I hope not.

Jesus, in several statements about what must be done to be saved, makes it pretty clear that there's no "list" of requirements, no formal rules. It's the heart that counts.

Our acceptance of the saving grace of Jesus is what matters.

Yes.

On one hand, I can see how Moses' choice of the word day may be allegorical. He was living in the distant past without much or any scientific knowledge himself, writing about events that he never witnessed.

On the other hand, All things are indeed possible with God, and "day" could mean just that.

I go with Augustine's method on that. God could do it any way He wanted. But if the evidence shows it didn't happen in a particular way, we aren't obligated to believe it anyway.

Personally, I think "science" is great, but I always doubt it. Isn't that the point of it anyways?

Absolutely. Scientists try to confirm the null hypothesis.

It is no place to put your faith

Right.

Maybe I should go back a little more to the topic, somewhat that is...

Seth, I think the dangerous part about evolution is not so much the science but the philosophy that goes with it if our Lord is taken out of the picture. I think jwu, and Barbarian both believe the Bible is the innerrant word of God and have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior... Right guys?

I take Him as my Lord and Savior. I don't know whether or not the Bible is inerrant, but it is as inerrant as fallible humans can make it.

But a purely evolutionistic (I'm not sure if this is the right word) philosophy strips us of our specialness. And like you said, I too, think dangerous ideas can come about because of this; like the idea that people's lives don't really matter.

So can a purely chemical, or a purely physical, or a purely metallurgical philosophy. We are not merely natural beings. Any concept of humans that involves only the physical, is wrong.

Implications of some scientific discoveries are indeed humbling... we are on a tiny speck of rock going around an indiscriminate star among one hundred thousand million stars in our galaxy, and our galaxy itself is only one of millions upon millions of galaxies in an infinite universe.

But, we are special, you and I! And we do matter very much to God! And that is a glorious thing! Something to rejoice about!

Our physical insignificance is a passing thing. Our immortal souls are what count.

 

[Barbarian]

Thumper, BTW, is a troll, a particularly nasty atheist, trying to make Christians look bad. I've seen him perform on other boards, always doing a broad parody of an atheistic view of what Christians are like.

He makes a nice foil for creationist arguments, but I'd appreciate it if no one confused him with a Christian.