Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: OneVike
And ultimately, how can we expect young children to keep their faith in the Scriptures and stay in the fold of Christianity, when their own parents hold to such beliefs as OEC, Theistic Evolution, and the Gap Theory?

While I am a Bible believer, I see nothing in scripture that proves there was not a gap between Gen. 1:2 and Gen. 1:3...Plus, there is scripture that does bolster that idea...

And, that 'idea' does not lead one away from God...On the contrary, it strengthens one's faith in that it resolves the problems, real or perceived, of the actual age of the earth while keeping with the rest of the creation story...

Regardless, the source of one questioning God's word and authority was Satan...Satan convinced Eve to question God's word and it stands to reason that everyone who questions God's word is being led by Satan...

24 posted on 10/11/2009 7:56:46 AM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Iscool

First off, there is no scripture that supports the gap theory, secondly, when children grow up thinking God is not the Creator and man is not the first to sin and thus death did not enter the world through Adam’s sin, you have made Go sand Christ a liar.

Let me ask if you even read the article that specifically answered your assertion? If so, then give me your evidence and I promise to proof it wrong.

26 posted on 10/11/2009 8:02:13 AM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Do you mean things in the bible like the fact that God said there was no sin and spirit death BEFORE the fall of man? IF evolution were true, there would HAVE to be spirit death BEFORE the fall of man- The whoel word of God, and reason for Christ’s birth and death, was to redeam man from the sin ghe brought upon all mankind because he sinned against God when told not to- So no, there isn’t anythign in God’s word that supports theistic evolution

In accepting evolution, liberal theologians reject a number of key Christian beliefs. They reject the traditional date and authorship of many books in the Bible, which in itself represents a drastic undercutting of confidence in Scripture. If we cannot trust the Bible when it makes simple claims about when and by whom it was written, can we trust it when it makes much more important spiritual claims?

In treating the Bible as though it must be cut and patched to convey a ‘true’ picture, liberal theologians are saying it is full of errors. If the Bible is full of errors, it obviously cannot be revelation from God.

Take Genesis, for example. Liberalism rejects the Bible’s own claim that God told Moses what to write (Exodus 24:4; Numbers 33:2; etc.). Instead, it assumes that Genesis is a collection of writings by authors living much later. These hypothetical authors (dubbed J, E, D, and P) were writing merely out of their own experience and convictions. An example can be found in Conrad Hyer’s book, The Meaning of Creation. He attributes the content of Genesis 1 and 2 not to God’s revelation, but to the life experiences and religious purposes of its hypothetical authors, presumably writing hundreds of years after Moses.1

A contemporary of Darwin described the theological impact of evolution in these words:

‘The evolution of man from lower forms of life was in itself a new and startling fact, and one that broke up the old theology. I and my contemporaries, however, accepted it as fact. The first and obvious result of this experience was that we were compelled to regard the Biblical story of the Fall as not historic ... If there is no historic Fall, what becomes of the redemption, the salvation through Christ?’2

The Bible clearly tells us that evil, suffering, and death are real, so we are not escapist. However, evil is not intrinsic to the world. God created a good world. Evil entered by the free choice of individual human beings when Adam and Eve first sinned. So it is not contradictory to say that some day God will wipe out evil and sorrow.

This teaching is both our hope for the future and our basis for fighting evil today. The theistic evolutionist loses all this. By denying the Fall, he loses the Biblical answer to the question, where did evil and suffering come from?

Theistic evolution assumes that evil and death are intrinsic to God’s creation and have been there since the beginning. In other words, that God created them. God Himself is then the source of evil. But then God must be an evil God. To avoid this conclusion theistic evolutionists usually trivialize evil. This imperfect world is just a stepping stone to a better world which will evolve from it. Which brings us to the next point.

If there was no Fall, why do we need redemption? If the problem is not our sin but our animal nature, then we only need to wait for evolution to raise us to the next stage.

I was talking to a young woman recently who summed it up well. The answer is so simple, she said, that we often overlook it. Jesus treated Genesis as though it actually happened, so that settles it. We may not be able to master a lot of complex arguments against theistic evolution, but even a child can grasp this one. Among those who claim to be Christians, Jesus’ own treatment of Genesis closes the question.”

While the bible may be twisted and stretched to view long ages- doing so, one has to outright deny the whole context of God’s word, and compelte passages in order to do so- and even bring into question the whole message of God’s word of redemption

30 posted on 10/11/2009 8:12:19 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Iscool

“While I am a Bible believer, I see nothing in scripture that proves there was not a gap between Gen. 1:2 and Gen. 1:3...Plus, there is scripture that does bolster that idea...”

Nor is there any indication of the amount of time between “In the beginning...” and the earth as described in verse two, which simply says the earth was existing in a water covered state.

Nonetheless, what Scriptures would, as you say, bolster that idea?

131 posted on 10/11/2009 7:41:22 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson