Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

So should the word word be taken as literally ONE word?

How about a "word of knowledge" for someone, is it only one word?
How about saying a word during a meeting or at a wedding. Surely this is understood by everyone to be more than ONE word.

Lee ...


Let me ask you in a different way!

Scientifically ...
Do you believe that the Universe (which is EVERYTHING) had a beginning?
If so? ... Then before it began to be ... was there ANYTHING ???
If so? ... What was it? ... Where did it come from? ... Was it Eternal?

Biblically ...
Can God create something from nothing? (Not did He ... could He?)
Did God exist before the Universe came into being?
If so? ... Where did God reside then? (Trick Question!)

I am pretty sure that ALL of us will answer these questions the same way!
But ... you have surprised me many times before ... So?
I'm hoping for bullet-point style (concise) answers!


Bret* 2010

"While the actual phrase 'out of nothing' does not appear in the Bible, this hypothetical method of creation was proposed by Creationists from the following passages in scripture:  

Gn. 1:1 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth' 

Psalms 33:6 By the LORD's decree the heavens were made; by a mere word from his mouth all the stars in the sky were created. 
John 1:3 All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.
Rom. 4:17 .... - the God who makes the dead alive and summons the things that do not yet exist as though they already do.
Heb. 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were set in order at God's command, so that the visible has its origin in the invisible.

While it is clear from the above passages that God created all things, it is not defined at all how the creation took place. The closest of these to defining a process is Ps 139:  'by a mere word from his mouth all the stars in the sky were created.'. That obviously was quite a word since the stars come in different masses, nuclear varieties, and position throughout spacetime. Add to this the mystery of how the sound waves traveled throughout spacetime without air to transmit the pressure waves and you have a real conundrum. I hope you can recognize from yet another metaphorical expression, that this passage does not express how it really came into existance .  Be that as it may, it did not just pop into existance 'ex nihilo', but was carefully and thoughtfully brought into existance by some form of communication of information by God himself with direct causation from God being the point of the metaphor.  

There is no reason to set aside the laws of physics that God created at that point in time by His communication and claim everything came from nothing. Everything came from God's communication of the details of the universe on Day 1. Day2 and on followed from the initial communication, the established physical laws, and God's preplanned interactions with the universe thereafter. 

To me, 'ex nihilo' seems to be a concept that the atheist quantum physicists want to get us to buy into to put God out of a job. If they can convince the world's inhabitants that quantum uncertainty can pop things into existance out of nothing from borrowed energy, then anything can pop into existance given enough time, space, and other dimensions including new universes and multiverses.  These people have a love affair with an infinity without God.   According to their thinking, the conservation of energy and information get thrown out on the universal scale and chaotic eternal inflation becomes the new creation tool, not God. 

It seems to me that we should jointly fight this concept: random chance creating universes and their laws. Please read up on Dr. Andre Linde and his eternal inflation theories that many a physicist believe.

I am opposed to the idea that God 'speaks' animals and plants into existance for two reasons as I have often posted. 1) there aren't any passages of the Bible that infer or state that happening and 2) animals and plants couldn't survive creation this way unless the fixed physical laws were totally abandoned. This creation methodology violates God's promise in Je 33:25 that the physical laws are dependable and not changing.            

Lee

Lee ...

A couple of quick points & questions!
You stated that God is "constantly" intervening in our lives
to keep us on His path for each of us!
I said that (I believe) God "occasionally" intervenes into
our lives ... when it is absolutely necessary!
I would say that 99.9% of the time ... we are guiding the ship!
I'm sure that some people need more intervention than others ...
but on the whole ... it's still extremely rare for God to start
changing the wind direction ... or causing leaks in the hull?
Your thoughts?
Also ...
You're not implying that God created from pre-existing materials
are you? That is what Mormons & the Gnostics believe!
I'm almost positive that this is NOT what you're implying ... right?
You also made an Astronomer's mistake ... when you said that the
Bible is quite "nebulas"... when I'm sure you meant Nebulous!
Please clarify what you mean about "No Pop!"... ???

Bret* 2010

Bro Lee --

Thank you for your well developed and stated treatise regarding your theistic evolutionary beliefs. And thanks for keeping it in bite-size chunks so I can chew on it one at a time. I will start with a response to your 4/30 post.

4/30 post -- God can drive evolution in two ways (at least): 1) deterministic laws with foreknowledge 2) control of the laws of physics at the local and global level. I claim that God, using these capabilities, can make any kind of animal, plant, or person he wants through the natural birth process over time throughout the history of the earth as long as the age of the earth is very old permitting a great number of biological generations. What say you?

You are just as much of a funde as I am ! Of course, God could have done it your way and taken millions of years of biological evolution. Alternatively, He could have done it instanteously in the garden. But scientifically what is the real difference between our two views?

Both begin with an ex nihilo POP - only at different points in time. Your POP is millions of biological generations before, and mine is instanteous. Time is not an issue for God. Either way He did it is a miracle. Your POP just adds a follow-on process -- mine doesn't.

You believe that evolution really happened but is not quite capable on its own -- so it needs help from God. That's a compromising position to be in. Certainly this view is not acceptable to the scientific community. They see you just as much of a funde as me -- only a different brand. They probably also relish your compromise -- a dubious "honor."

Like you I don't believe nature is capable on her own to create Adam out of atoms. The only way it could have happened is for God to have intervened. So which POP happened and when? The only place to find out is the Scriptures. We'll drop in on them in the next post.

Stu

Lee said:
"Lucien, Brother, it seems you go out of your way every post to insult or belittle me, stop it, God is watching you! This time you've associated me with the atheists."

Lee then said:
"So when Lucien, described them as atheists, he was correct based on this modern definition of evolutionist. It is important that the YEs understand that there are a lot more views than just the atheistic one related to evolution."

Lucien said prior to these two statements:
"hence we have creationist[s], and even theistic evolutionists...." [s] added

Thanks Bret for your thoughtful and caring responses. 
Lucien, Brother, it seems you go out of your way every post to insult or belittle me, stop it, God is watching you! This time you've associated me with the atheists.   Please be more considerate like Bret and express your views in a way that explains why you see it the way you do so the rest of us can understand. I will be happy to dialogue with you when you actively engage in a truce.  

 Bret, it's a miracle, but I agree with almost everything you said in both posts. In the first one, I have found that, theistic evolutionists like me have now been labeled evolutionary creationists or concordonists by the community. A hundred years ago it wasn't this way, but today, typically a theistic evolutionist believes that God created the initial conditions so well that He didn't subsequently need to step in and interact further with the creation to get it to meet His expectations. 

No wonder, you, Lucien and Stu fight this view. Anyway, I just want to let everyone know, if you haven't already discovered this from my posts, that the above view of God creating, standing back, and watching what happens is not mine. This popular belief sounds to me more like deistic evolution but is called theistic evolution these days.  In a recent book by Hugh Ross, he summarizes ten different but prevalent views on biological development, one was the YE view, another was the evolutionist (Darwinist) view, there were eight more besides those. The one described as evolutionary creationist and a concordist fits me the closest.   A concordiist believes that the Bible and the book of nature must both agree, people need to study both carefully and adjust their understanding until the two interpretation (Bible & Nature) are concordant.   The term evolutionist, according to Ross, describes someone who believes that biological life developed solely through natural means. So when Lucien, described them as atheists, he was correct based on this modern definition of evolutionist. It is important that the YEs understand that there are a lot more views than just the atheistic one related to evolution.    I strongly endorse reading Hugh Ross's book 'More Than A Theory'. It will give all who read it a lot more clarity into the issues and views on creation.

Also, regarding your first post, the bible is quite nebulous about how He created all the animals and plants. I have no new verses to point out to you that we haven't discussed at length already. Between Genesis 1 with the earth and waters bringing forth plant and animal kinds, the fixed laws that Jeremiah points out, the long days of creation that Peter and other prophets point out and the book of nature. It is all we have to go on, I'm  afraid. It also seems odd that people believe that animals can pop into existance without any Biblical reference that anything like this ever happened. But that is what a lot of creationists believe. Can you show me a passage that supports this kind of creation of animals or plants. If seems the Bible forces us into a standoff on this subject and we must look to nature for answers. It is very clear how plants and animals come into existance if we look to nature: the old fashioned way through birth.  I've got plenty of Biblical and natural data on that!

Let's turn to free destination now. I really like this term, can I use it?  It is your invention.  The verse below cleary tells us that God knows what we will do before we ever know we will do them. This tells me that the future is known by God, every detail, if we are free to choose our own path, and God is constantly correcting things to keep His plan in place according to free destination, He must know all of your future decisions and all of His interactions. In other words the future is predetermined by Him and this must be like instant replay. He already knows who He saved and who He didn't, what steps He took to save some, and not others as He planned from the start. Our lives seem to be a replay of an earlier simulation. How much free destination can there be for us, since the future is precisely known and God has predetermined it.   
      
Psalms 139:16 Your eyes saw me when I was inside the womb. All the days ordained for me were recorded in your scroll before one of them came into existence.

This means all past and future generations were also predetermined. This means also that God could interact in any situation to develop the plants and animals naturally to His choosing. All the time while biological organisms were thinking that they have free will. Any more thoughts?

Lee

I like what you wrote and how you used some analogies.
CS Lewis has a nice anecdote in that evolutionists (and to me this means the atheists, sorry Lee, I admit I am quite black and white on that) cannot have free will because their brain (and whole body for that matter) is dictated by pure chemistry laws.
Obviously we all know that this is an incorrect view, hence we have creationist, and even theistic evolutionists....

LT

It's been a long time coming ... but here it is!
Let's set the Extreme parameters up first ...

a). God has zero control or influence over the Will & Actions of Mankind?
He just turned us loose, sat back and watched, & hoped for the best?
Luckily ... everything worked out O.K. until the end?
He took notes (through foreknowledge)... and gave us the basic plot (The Bible)?

b). God has total control over everything?
We are all nothing more than puppets ... and God is pulling all of the strings?
He created us naive enough to believe we are in control ... but it's an illusion?
God has "foreknowledge" only because He wrote the script and controls the stage?

Now ... for what I like to call "Free-Destined" !!!

c). God has truly given everyone Free Will ... !!!
God has the option to control everything ... if He so chooses!
God has foreknowledge ... so He knows when He needs to step in!
When He does ... He chooses those among us who have FREELY chosen to surrender
their Will over to God's Will ... and then He uses these people to fulfill His purpose!
(Directing ... NOT Dictating!)
God can (and does) use Nature (His Creation) to guide things as well!
He will often (for our own good) impede our Free Will with weather, traffic, and
even illness ... when He deems it necessary to keep the ship righted!
We are still (always) freely choosing what we do ... but God does have (and uses)
the ability to strongly influence our choices!
Even as Christians ... the Holy Spirit that dwells within us ... is only a Guide!
No matter how much we beg God to take over complete control of our lives ...
He NEVER takes away our Free Will ... !!!
I believe that this (Free Will)... is the ONLY "fixed Law" that God will NEVER break !!!


Bret* 2010

Lee ...

Remember ... Stu's out of town this week?
So ... while you're waiting for his response to your stated points ...
I thought that I would let you know that I believe you're RIGHT about
"Theistic Evolution" NOT being an Oxymoron!
I honestly don't believe that The Bible supports this view ... in the least!
But ... I do believe that God "could" have created this (or ANY other) way
if He had chosen to!
I can't find ANY Scripture to support this though ... can you ???
Theistic Atheism fits the definition ... as does my personal favorite
*** Down Escalator *** !!!
But ... You are CORRECT ... on this one!
I'll let Stu respond to your 2nd point ... as etiquette would dictate!

Bret* 2010

Stu,
Continuing my dissection on the second point of disagreement, I strongly disagree with your first statement below unless you mean Darwinism instead of evolution. 

[Stu] 'Adam and Eve did not evolve from a lower form of life. To read this into the biblical account is to undermine the authority of the Bible and the Christian understanding of sin and salvation.'

You will have to explain the second statement more to me.  I think I would likely agree with you if you are talking solely about Darwinian or Deistic evolution each excluding a personal God that is actively involved in the design of the cosmos and it's operation and inhabitants.  However, the theistic evolution that I've described in my previous posts describe an active role for God in biological development of all species, including mankind along the way. With this in mind and acknowledging Him as the Creator, leads me to conclude that your statement does not apply to this special version of theistic evolution. 

If I am wrong about this please tell me why all forms of evolution undermines scripture, even my version where God guides the process. Also, please read my post on Comparing Genesis 1 & 2, if you intend to justify your position on Adam and Eve's allegorical creation described in Ge 2. 

Lee    

Stu, 
Continuing with my dissection of the other points of contention, I would like to address in this post the point that you made about the clarity of how Eve was made.  

[Stu] 'Both Genesis and Jesus teach that Adam and Eve were special creations of God. Yes -- God just popped them into existence. It is particularly clear on how He created Eve.'

I agree with your first statement that humans are created special we are the first species that can comprehend God's creation. I agree with you that if you read this literally, Eve would have been stretched or grown out of some part of Adam near his side, although not popped into existance out of nothing, like you stated. However, there is a severe problem of credibility taking Genesis 2 literally here.  Based on a literal interpretation of both Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 we find that the sequence of creation events are inconsistent. In Genesis1, first water covered the earth, later the earth brought forth plants, later waters brought forth aquatic animals, then the earth brought forth land mammals, then God made male and female humans in His image.  Yet in Genesis 2, man was formed first from the soil, before it ever rained, God made trees and plants grow in the garden using spring water, then made land animals and birds from the soil of the earth, then made a woman for the man. If we claim that these events are all inerrant, then we must conclude  that at least one version is symbolic and seen from a different perspective other than a time history. Otherwise, these passages are self contradictory and would lead to an erosion of the claim of inerrancy of the Bible.

The methodology is Genesis 1 is also inconsistent with Genesis 2. The early earth had oceans on day one.  The waters above and in the deep were not separated; this means it was raining in torrents to me from the surface up through the atmosphere . Genesis 2 tells us that it didn't rain before man was created.   Genesis 1 has the earth and waters bringing forth the plants and animals each after their kind, while Genesis 2 has God sprouting plants in his garden by irrigation with spring water and mists.  Waters brought forth the birds in Genesis 1 but God made them from soil in Genesis 2. The earth brought forth the kinds of land mammals in Genesis 1 but God made them from the soil in Genesis 2. 

Genesis 1 is consistent with an accurate scientific and chronological sequence. It also clearly sequences the events from a 'day' 1 thru 'day' 6 from God's perspective. I cannot look at Genesis 2 from the same physical history perspective without finding logical inconsistenties.   Therefore, I look at Genesis 2 as logically consistent from a spiritual and design perspective. 

As Man was foremost in God's plan before time began, God created the universe and earth, then photosynthetic organisms, and then multicellular life forms to build, supplement and sustain him. Man was thought of first in God's plan although not created chronologically first. Like any well designed item, one looks at primary conceptual product and defines the other products and support items that need to also be produced and to be in place when the product is introduced. 

God needed the cosmos to produce an earth which consisted of star dust that provided the atoms and chemistry needed for man and his environment. Plants were necessary to provide food for man and animals and to provide oxygen for the atmosphere that all animals require. Animals were necessary as food for man as well as clothing, entertainment, and companionship. Much to your amazement and likely your revultion, some even participated as ancestors of mankind in the physical world. However, informationally, evolution was always directed to support and build a man (the ultimate product). 

Eve was made from the information in Adam's genetic code; it was always intended from before Day 1.  That way she would be a close physical match to Adam but female.  Neither Genesis 1 or 2 states anything about popping Eve into existance nor Adam either. God started with dirt for Adam and shaped him into man then breathing life into him while Eve started as a flesh sample that God matured into a women. Nothing about popping into existance here.

It seems to me that a realization that the Bible contains a lot of symbolism, metaphors, and allegory is what is needed to fix this potential discrepancy. This is but one of many examples in the Bible. 
If it wasn't the genetic code of Adam that was used to make Eve, then what was it?  And if God literally used mud to make Adam, then why don't we have more silicon in our bodies and a drastically different chemical composition than other animals? Instead, the genetic sequence is 99% the same as the apes, that means out of 3 billion base pairs, there are about 40 million ones different. Our chemical composition is virtually identical to the ape as well as other mammals with the amino acid set the same.
  
That's what I believe, anyway. If I am wrong about these verses being an allegorical expression of God's design plan, how do you explain the discrepancies between Ge 1& 2? How do you explain the genetic and chemical similarities with other living matter?  

Lee 
The NET translation is below for reference:
Genesis 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and  the earth when they were created - when the LORD God made the earth and heavens.  Genesis 2:5 Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.  Genesis 2:6 Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.  Genesis 2:7 The LORD God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.  ... 2:9 The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)...Genesis 2:19 The LORD God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.... Genesis 2:21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man's side and closed up the place with flesh.    Genesis 2:22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Hi Lee,

i know you were not going to talk to me again, but to respond to my comment by starting with the name Bret is just too funny. Must have been a slip of the tongue.
I will be honoured to still talk to you and once again point out that the things you mention depend on assumptions and what you put in is what you get out.
But I guess deaf man's ears...?


Lucien

Hi Bret,

As we have discussed over many months, it's data that demonstrates plate tectonics, magnetic pole flipping, star ages, cosmic expansion rate, geology, radiometric dating, minerology, and many other measurable quanties that proves the old age of the earth. My belief of an old age for the earth, has nothing to do with evolution. But theistic evolution does need an old earth to work, just like all slow accumulative changing processes like plate tectonics, magnetic pole flipping or uranium decay.

Lee

This is the best critique of creationism (particular the ID brand) I ever heard -- and brilliantly delivered by the best in the business, Ken Miller, professor of Biology at Brown University. It's a lecture Dr. Miller delivered at Case Western Reserve University. He was the key witness for the prosecution at the Dover trial.

We would do well to listen carefully to his critique to understand the scientific arguments against our position -- and for how he sees creationism a threat to science education.

It has helped me focus on what the real issue is which he doesn't even address -- and he gets away with it except for one very astute questioner at the end. I will comment on that in future posts. It is 2-hours long, but perhaps better than any movie you might watch instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU&feature=related

Thanks Stu,
not likely to get to it this weekend, as I have friends over from the Netherlands.

You have yourself a good week out of town this week.
Don't do anything I wouldn't do!!! ;-)


Lucien

Lucien,

I'm delighted to tell you how I arrived at my OE position. Please see the posts I made last year (around p24-27):
July 20
July 27
Aug 2
Aug 10
Aug 17

Stu

Lee said: "as long as the age of the earth is very old permitting a great number of biological generations"

It is not the Bible that makes Lee believe in old age. Bret and I who don't hold to evolution don't see (or require) vast eons of time in Scripture.
It is the alleged evolution that requires it.

Still curious why Stu is reluctant to give up old age.
Stu does not believe in biological evolution, but apparently must believe in old age because of... cosmological evolution? Geological evolution?

Why Stu?
Why do you want to believe in an old age of the earth? What makes you interpret Scripture such, that you must come to millions and billions of years, whereas the article I posted recently tells us that the majority of evidence actually supports a young (compared to millions of years) earth.
(the article mentioned mineral ingress into the oceans, which is only one way of putting an upper limit on the age of the earth)

This is going to be good.

Lee believes that
"-There is no coherent scientific proof that macroevolution ever took place. And it is sheer speculation that it can. "

Lee also believes that

"-Micro-evolution has been demonstrated but there are limits to it. It is necessary for specie adaptation but it fits within the biblical definition of "kinds."

Lee then goes on to "claim that God, using these capabilities, can make any kind of animal, plant, or person he wants through the natural birth process over time throughout the history of the earth as long as the age of the earth is very old permitting a great number of biological generations."

Stu,  There's my naivity showing again, thinking this should be easy. Well, here we go. I'll try to maintain a better blog style as you suggest.   

Here are the ones I agree with you on. 

-Genesis is not myth but history.

-The history of mankind, our relationship to God, our sin condition, the atoning sacrifice of Christ -- in essence our entire biblical faith rests not only on creationism but on the literal specially created persons of Adam and Eve. 

-Biological evolution (ala macro Darwinian mechanisms) is an unproven assumption masquerading as legitimate science. I see it as Satan's deception to remove God from consideration. 

-There is no coherent scientific proof that macroevolution ever took place. And it is sheer speculation that it can. 

-Micro-evolution has been demonstrated but there are limits to it. It is necessary for specie adaptation but it fits within the biblical definition of "kinds."

-I believe that God is omniscient.

-I believe that God predestined us from the beginning but that He also gave us free will. It is a paradox to me how that works -- the Bible teaches both. If everything were predetermined then God would be the "pre-determiner" of evil which I cannot accept. Man is the source of evil by his disobeying a holy and righteous God.

I am actually amazed that we agree on so many poiints.   The ones below are where we disagree and only on some aspects:

-Both Genesis and Jesus teach that Adam and Eve were special creations of God. Yes -- God just popped them into existence. It is particularly clear on how He created Eve.

-Adam and Eve did not evolve from a lower form of life. To read this into the biblical account is to undermine the authority of the Bible and the Christian understanding of sin and salvation.

-Theistic evolution is an oxymoron. Compromising on this point in our Christian colleges undermines the faith of the next generation.

I will start my disection of the little monster with the last point. Theistic evolution is not an oxymoron; Theistic Darwinism would be an oxymoron. Deistic Creationism would be somewhat of an oxymoron depending what was meant by Deistic and Creationism.  If you lump vaguely defined and confused terms together, the term oxymoron may work for some but not others. Let's be clear here what is meant before condemnation is applied. 

If God worked his design through evolution over along period of time, you would be unable to claim theistic evolution as an oxymoron. It is only because you believe that all forms of evolution leaves God out of the picture that enables you to make that claim. If you maintain (and were correct) that evolution cannot be God driven, then your statement would be true.  Unfortunately for your claim, God can drive evolution, so it is invalid. God can drive evolution in two ways (at least): 1) deterministic laws with foreknowledge 2) control of the laws of physics at the local and global level. I claim that God, using these capabilities, can make any kind of animal, plant, or person he wants through the natural birth process over time throughout the history of the earth as long as the age of the earth is very old permitting a great number of biological generations.  What say you? 

Lee

Stu ...

Besides my being slightly less perplexed by the
Predestination + Free Will paradox that you expressed ...
I (also) totally AGREE with everything that you posed
to our Brilliant Brother Lee!
I'll try very hard to hold my tongue as surely the
return shot over the net will likely be a perceived
paradox between "The Fixed Laws" & "Adam's Poof!"... ???
I'll try to explain "My" understanding of Free-Destined
as I have promised too many times in the past ... soon!
I hope you enjoy your time "out of Town"?

Bret* 2010

You may not have desired agreement, but you are going to get it anyway.
With your last post to Lee (starting with "I'm out town the coming week") I cannot find anything I wholeheartedly disagree with.
In fact, I think I agree with everything.
Granted, am precarious on the predetermination thing, but would go along with the rest.


Lucien

I'm out town the coming week so you may not hear from me for a while, but I wanted to give you some of my presuppositions going into our debate on theistic evolution.

Genesis is not myth but history.

Both Genesis and Jesus teach that Adam and Eve were special creations of God. Yes -- God just popped them into existence. It is particularly clear on how He created Eve.

The history of mankind, our relationship to God, our sin condition, the atoning sacrifice of Christ -- in essence our entire biblical faith rests not only on creationism but on the literal specially created persons of Adam and Eve.

Biological evolution (ala macro Darwinian mechanisms)is an unproven assumption masquerading as legitimate science. I see it as Satan's deception to remove God from consideration.

There is no coherent scientific proof that macroevolution ever took place. And it is sheer speculation that it can.

Micro-evolution has been demonstrated but there are limits to it. It is necessary for specie adaptation but it fits within the biblical definition of "kinds."

Adam and Eve did not evolve from a lower form of life. To read this into the biblical account is to undermine the authority of the Bible and the Christian understanding of sin and salvation.

Theistic evolution is an oxymoron. Compromising on this point in our Christian colleges undermines the faith of the next generation.

I believe that God is omniscient.

I believe that God predestined us from the beginning but that He also gave us free will. It is a paradox to me how that works -- the Bible teaches both. If everything were predetermined then God would be the "pre-determiner" of evil which I cannot accept. Man is the source of evil by his disobeying a holy and righteous God.


Lee - for the sake of keeping this lively, can we just take a point or two at a time and keep it short. Otherwise I'm afraid it will just bog down. Please feel free to pick a starting place and we're off and running.

Brother Stu

My hope for this "spirited debate" as Bret has called it (thanks Bret also for your passion for Jesus and His Word)has been for creationists of all stripes within the "broader church" to fight a common enemy. We don't have to agree on the the finer, unclear, or debatable points of special or general revelation. But we come together when the Kingdom of God is challenged.

Jesus gave us the litmus test -- "they will know us by our love." I wonder how "they" would judge these 30 web pages of debate?

Thank you Lucien and Bret for giving me clarity on the finer points of the YE position. I can now better defend it even if I don't agree with it.

God Bless,

Stu

Hi Stu

a correction:

I think the world was perfect BEFORE both falls.
It went wrong when Lucifer fell (AFTER creation week). Not good.
It went even more wrong when Adam fell (AFTER Lucifer's fall). Not good.
Today's world: very bad. New creation (future): very good again.

I hope my view is clear now.


Blessings,
Lucien