Origins and Essentials, Part 1
Note: This is a part 1 of a lengthy episode that we split up into two episodes for listening convenience. Therefore, the ending of this recording may feel a bit abrupt to you, but will be continued in part 2 which will post in a few days.
There are many Christians who believe that the opening of the book of Genesis (specifically the first 11 chapters) must be interpreted literally or else it is virtually impossible to believe anything else in scripture literally. Some would even go so far, then, to say that it is essential to believe Genesis 1-11 literally in order to be saved.
Ray and Steve use this particular example of the opening to the book of Genesis to discuss the larger issue of what beliefs should or should not be considered as absolutely essential. If a belief really is essential, Ray and Steve argue that it should, or even must, be included in any “gospel presentation”. Usually this is not the case.
Come along for the ride, and then look for part 2 to show up soon.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 52:22 — 47.9MB) | Embed
December 31st, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Ya know, it’s funny. We trust God for salvation, for grace, for forgiveness, but we don’t trust Him to overlook an occasional mistaken belief.
This discussion reminded me of a friend’s father. His church said that he was going to hell because he had divorced and remarried, no way around it. She asked him why he still went there, then. He said that even if he was going to hell, at least he was going to the right church.
December 31st, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Paula,
So true! Why is it that we think God is so uptight about us having it all “nailed-down”? It’s okay for us to be hateful with people, selfish, or unloving, but you sure better make sure you have your doctrinal duckies in a row!
The story about your friend’s father really is hard to believe. I want to laugh and scream at the same time! Since when did “being right” become the all-important thing? Thanks Paula!
January 1st, 2011 at 2:32 am
Every action, or belief, requires a foundation in order to act upon it. Even the simple act of putting a slice of bread in the toaster requires the foundational truth that it can toast the bread. I would argue that there is a foundation but agree with you that chapters 1-11 are NOT the foundation. The foundation is simply verse 1 – In the beginning, GOD! Whether or not our belief about what God has done, i.e. the creation account, the flood, or Jonah, without the belief there is a God who is above us there would be no need for a savior at all. I would also argue that this is a basic belief of everyone, including those who would verbally deny the existence of God. Isn’t that what Romans says about nature revealing God? This is why tracks centering on the person of Christ are so effective. People already believe in their hearts there is a God to whom we are accountable. People already believe they are sinful, or at least there is sin in the world. So, what they need to here is NOT the works of God throughout history but the redemptive work of Christ. A person must ACT upon the foundational truth that God exist before they can be saved. If a person does then all they need is to know Christ and Him crucified.
January 1st, 2011 at 10:43 am
Very well said, Mayo, and welcome to the podcast! 🙂 I absolutely love your last two sentences, and that pretty much sums up what we’re trying to say here. Great perspective. Thanks for chiming in. (Your comment only went to moderation as the first comment you submitted. Future comments will post immediately.)
January 20th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
The definition of glory was said to be the “weight of someone’s presence.” And a comment made along the lines of how do we think we can affect God’s glory.
I agree we cannot make a dent into the true character of God, but can we affect the weight of God’s presence to those who are around us? This is how I understand the meaning of the creationist comment who you quoted.
You also commented about using the apostles as an example of how to share Christ’s message. There was also a comment about how they did not use creation in their message. What about Paul’s discourse in Acts 17?
Just some thoughts that hit me on what you said. I appreciate what you guys talk about. I have been dealing with a similar conversation internally over the past several years myself. I haven’t gotten to the point of leaving the church, but I do question what I’ve been doing and thinking over all these years.
Keep up the challenging conversation.
Jeff
January 20th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Jeff, thanks for the comment. Just a bit of clarification about what I said about the apostles. My point was that the apostles did not preach a specific version of creation — six literal days, day-age theory, gap theory, theistic evolution, etc. There is no doubt in my mind that the apostles believed and taught that God created the world. And our discussion was not meant to cast any doubt on our belief that God created the world.
You asked about Acts 17, and yes, Paul mentions creation. However, again, I would point out that he does not get specific about the timeframe or the means used by God in doing so. Hard-line creationists such as the one we were discussing go way beyond that in insisting on a particular interpretation of the details given in Genesis 1-11.
That was the only point I was trying to make about that. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up, though! 🙂
January 25th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
I just finished enjoying both parts of this topic. I’d have to agree that the modern church focusses far too much on doctrinal correctness. So much so that they can’t even recognize their beliefs for an interpretation. They claim it’s literally true when in reality they pick and choose only parts to take literally. For instance, I see none of them taking Luke 18:22 literally.
Anyway, I wonder if the insistence on believing creationism is so focused on because science has proven it to be totally false. What better stark dividing line between the world and their mythology can they find?
January 26th, 2011 at 10:31 am
[S]cience has proven [creationism] to be totally false.
Wow, that is news to me. I was unaware that science had the capability, data, or knowledge to make such a definite statement on the origin of the universe and all its occupants. Care to offer any documentation that would demonstrate how/when this was done?
January 26th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Allow me to specify… Science has disproven young-earth creationism. I agree that it cannot make definite statements about the ultimate origin of everything if such an origin even exists.
January 27th, 2011 at 9:33 am
A very important distinction, and thank you for that clarification, Sid. I think it’s important–especially when discussing topics that can be emotionally charged for some people–to be careful that we don’t overstate our cases.
January 27th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Absolutely. I did not mean to be so careless in my language. Thanks for pointing it out.