Should you leave your church?

[Cephas]

While I find the Creation doctrine very important, and I believe it helps guide Christians and sober their minds, it wouldn't bother me if my church (and its young-earther Pastor) did not take a stand against OEC. There are much weightier matters assailing the Church--moral relativism, humanism, compromise, etc. etc. I believe it's more important right now and in the medium-long run to instill Christians and the Church with Biblical principles of morality, the fruits of the Spirit, loving people, hating sin, etc. We focus too much on the fine print that we miss the big letters. (HOWEVER! This does not diminish the importance of it. Every single part of the Scripture is important for some reason).

[Faramir]

While I find the Creation doctrine very important, and I believe it helps guide Christians and sober their minds, it wouldn't bother me if my church (and its young-earther Pastor) did not take a stand against OEC. There are much weightier matters assailing the Church--moral relativism, humanism, compromise, etc. etc. I believe it's more important right now and in the medium-long run to instill Christians and the Church with Biblical principles of morality, the fruits of the Spirit, loving people, hating sin, etc. We focus too much on the fine print that we miss the big letters. (HOWEVER! This does not diminish the importance of it. Every single part of the Scripture is important for some reason).

Well said Cephas.

However, I would take it one step further (and if you did and I didn't get it my apologies).

I would say that the Creation issue should never be a divisive issue. I am not saying that we should not take it seriously. Like Cephas said, every part of Scripture is important. But 1) we have much more important matters to deal with and 2) we are called to love one another.

One of the reasons I enjoy TWeb so much is becasue I can discuss differences in doctrine with fellow believers without it turning into a screaming match. In fact, serious disagreements are often discussed in the spirit of Christian love and unity that should accompany all discussion between fellow believers. That is in most forums, not here . Why does the creation "debate" generate so much hostility among brethren?

I enjoy discussing creation issues with fellow Christians, as long as that discussion does not turn divisive. And you may notice that I don't post much here.

In answer to the opening post I would consider leaving my church if my pastor did take a firm stance against OEC. Now, my pastor is YEC, but has said from the pulpit that he considers OECers brothers in Christ and does not have a serious issue with them. (Which is good 'cause I was very OEC at that time).


Just my :2cents:

[Socratism]

They must've not had much science background, especially geology...

Well, you haven't been very convincing on Tweb in Natural Sciences and Biology, at least to the scientifically trained. Sounds like you think quite highly of yourself...

Evolutionists have no sense of humor, even when I over state things so outrageously that they can obviously only be interpreted as satire.

[Tickle Me Goody]

I've been wondering that, too. I never asked since it was always directed to me in a negative way.

Ipse dixit means an assertion made but not proven. (With a few exceptions, Most assertions made on tweb are not proven.)

gg

[Socrates]

As I've said before, I'll give you a Garden with not carniverous activity. But the whole earth was no Garden, Socrates. The Garden was set apart from the rest of creation.

God decreed that both humans and animals were vegetarian in the context of the whole earth. The account of His planting the garden is in the next chapter. Further, even when Adam was cursed and expelled from the garden, his diet was still to be plants. God permitted man to eat meat only after the Flood. All this makes sense only if the original decree was for vegetarianism.

[Socrates]

I would say that the Creation issue should never be a divisive issue.

Paul says that the ones causing the division are the ones bringing doctrines contrary to the apostles' (Romans 16:17). Jude 18-19 likewise says:

Scripture Verse:

... remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, "In the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts."
These are the ones that cause divisions ..."

This seems to be just what the Apostle Peter said in Peter 3:3-6, which in the next verse adds the further information that the mockers are uniformitarians who believe in the constancy of processes right from the beginning because they are willingly ignorant of the global cataclysm, claiming that:

Scripture Verse:

everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation. But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

Fact: old-earth ideas were unknown in the church till conservative commentators became intimidated by the alleged geological evidence for long ages. That's why you won't see a trace of day-age, gap, framework, days of proclamation, theistic evolution or any other dodge before the 19th century.

I am not saying that we should not take it seriously. Like Cephas said, every part of Scripture is important. But 1) we have much more important matters to deal with and

That's the whole point. All the other matters presuppose the final authority of Scripture. The creation controversy is more foundational because it questions whether Scripture should be the final authority about events in earth history, or be subjugated to uniformitarian "science".

2) we are called to love one another.

Indeed, and sometimes this love entails pointing out serious errors.

One of the reasons I enjoy TWeb so much is becasue I can discuss differences in doctrine with fellow believers without it turning into a screaming match. In fact, serious disagreements are often discussed in the spirit of Christian love and unity that should accompany all discussion between fellow believers. That is in most forums, not here . Why does the creation "debate" generate so much hostility among brethren?

Yeah, why do the old-earthers attack YECs as being ignorant of science and gnostic? Oh, I know -- because no matter how polite or well informed we are, we show up their compromise for what it is.

In answer to the opening post I would consider leaving my church if my pastor did take a firm stance against OEC. Now, my pastor is YEC, but has said from the pulpit that he considers OECers brothers in Christ and does not have a serious issue with them.

I also think they are my brothers in Christ. YEC organisations like ICR and AiG have explicitly said so in detail many times. But I still have a serious issue with them for subsuming biblical authority under "science". Even AiG's new book affirming the biblical creation framework and refuting long-age/local flood teaching, Refuting Compromise, explicitly says that OECs like Ross are true Christians:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/rc/intro.asp

Can one believe in millions of years and still be a Christian?
This is a very important question that must be addressed at the outset. Despite what some opponents have claimed, AiG (like most YECs) has always affirmed that one does not need to believe in six-day creation to be saved. The Bible says that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, not by works (Eph. 2:8), and the content of saving faith is belief in the deity of Christ (Rom. 10:9–13, applying a Joel 2:32 reference to YHWH/Jehovah to Christ) and in His death for our sins, His burial, and bodily resurrection from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1–4).

We know that people can be genuine Christians, believing those doctrines, even if they don’t accept creation in six 24-hour days. Van Bebber and Taylor’s rebuttal to Ross explicitly stated, ‘We believe that Dr Ross is saved, and that his expressed desire to live for Christ is genuine.’ Answers in Genesis has stocked the Bebber and Taylor book for years as the definitive critique of Ross without any disclaimer, which is tacit agreement by AiG that we don’t question Ross’s salvation.

In fact, the founding chairman of AiG (Australia), Prof. John Rendle-Short, was a saved theistic evolutionist for 40 years (before AiG came into existence). But like so many other people, including his own father Dr Arthur Rendle Short, an eminent English surgeon and apologist, he struggled with the problem of death and suffering before the Fall, which is the basis for the gospel message (1 Cor. 15:21–22, 45). Fortunately, he wasn’t consistent, and, despite the conflict which we demonstrate in chapter 6, held to the foundational message.

Unfortunately, people like Billy Graham’s former colleague Charles Templeton, who later apostatized, and the heretical Bishop Spong, were consistent, and threw out the gospel along with the foundations. That’s why several AiG articles have concluded that, yes, one can be a Christian and deny a young earth, but it can still have baneful consequences which will be detailed in this book, mainly involving the authority and understandability of scripture, and sin as the ultimate cause of human and animal death and suffering in the world.

© source where applicable

[Socrates]

what is an "ipse dixit" anyway?

I've been wondering that, too. I never asked since it was always directed to me in a negative way.

Ipse dixit is Latin for "He himself said it". It refers to a statement that the person evidently expects to be accepted on his word alone so provides not the slightest supporting evidence.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Ocean life was not given dietary restrictions, therefore it is wrong to assume that the diet pronouncements covered the entire animal population of earth. It is my belief that this was confined, therefore, to the Garden of Eden. Also note that when man was given meat to eat post flood, the mention of animal diet changing is not there.

[Socrates]

Ocean life was not given dietary restrictions, therefore it is wrong to assume that the diet pronouncements covered the entire animal population of earth.

Even so, fish are also called nephesh chayyah. But how on earth does it affect the argument that all the animals at least on land (if you take erets in a more restrictive meaning) were given only green plants.

It is my belief that this was confined, therefore, to the Garden of Eden.

How do you propose to support this belief?

Also note that when man was given meat to eat post flood, the mention of animal diet changing is not there.

Which is why informed YECs realise that animal diets must have changed between the Fall and the Flood. The fact remains that Gen. 9:3 refers to a change in human diets from green plants they were originally given. And this original vegetarianism is in an adjacent verse to giving the animals a vegetarian diet as well.

[Socrates]

Evolutionists have no sense of humor,

Of course not -- it has no survival value :bouncing:

[AV1611]

Considering the fact that you can never leave the church (body of Christ) I found the question strange...but that me just being pedantic

I would not stay in a church where the leadership elevates uniformitarian "science" over Scripture, as all old-earth theories MUST.

I support Gap theory not because of 'science' but because the Holy Bible teaches it.

see: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43777

where I wrote:

In Genesis chapter one “as regards this earth, except the fact of its creation, nothing is said of it beyond what relates to the present form of it” (Darby’s Synopsis). Now let us turn to:

Jeremiah 4
23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. [Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.]
24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.
27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

These verses “clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of divine judgment” (Scofield Reference Bible) and this refers to a period prior to Genesis 1:2. We see such a primal creation hinted at by Peter:

Peter 3
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished [Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.]:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

A more simple reasoning is thus:

Genesis 1
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

So if the Sun was not created until the fourth day (a) from where did the light come from on the first day? (b) How can we even be talking about days as 24 hour periods if the Sun was not created until the fourth ‘day’?

[kofh2u]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[wels member]

If a pastor no longer taught that God made the world in 6 days or believed adam and eve were Gods first created people

I would not leave. there would no need for me to leave because that pastor then would have left me. and more importantly Gods bible truths and the lutheran confession's.


no My faith would still be the same it is the pastor who would be guilty of leaving the Bible which is the Confessional Lutheran faith.
as the book of concord states
article one
] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119, 105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1, 8.

He would no longer be lutheran he would be the one to leave.
And if he had a large following. Then the rest would have to leave with him
even if they took the building over.

they still would not have changed the Lutheran faith but only have left it.

[wels member]

If your pastor and congregation has left your bible believing faith .never feel guitly for it is them that has left you> it does not matter if they take the building with them .

Find others who believe the bible and nothing but the bible and worship with them. That is what confessional Lutherans have to do.If we can't find bible believing lutheran churches we start our own!we dont leave our lutheran faith.
we start our own churches and call bible believing pastors.and let those who have left the faith leave!

[wels member]

what God says about genisis is an historical fact.
God created the earth and every thing in 6 day's and on the 7th day he rested.
and then he set up his sabath on the 7th day. If the days were eons of years
then the Jews would never had a sabath. But since they were natural day's
they were to rest and keep the 7th day holy.

if one rejects what God says about a 6 natural day creation than they would have a hard time
explaning how God could set up the 7th of these days as a sabath that all Jews were to follow and use it as a rest day as God did after the 6 days of his creation.