There has recently been a lot of discussion generated by my questions about the creation account.  It has been fascinating and frustrating at the same time.  Some find these things to be an unnecessary discussion and some see it as part of the mission.  Personally, I just like to read the evidence that others have for their views.  I don’t believe any of my main readers are experts in some of these things and I know I am not.

We can all learn something and we definitely need to know why we believe what we do.  These discussions are not just to argue.  They are to help all of us think.  God gave us a brain and unfortunately very few seem to use it for the advancement of the Kingdom.  Instead we seem to trust whatever persons views already line up with our own.  I want to invite all to discuss the issue today.  And I would especially like to hear form any who have a Background or training in these areas.

The last heavy discussions lead to some comments about the age of the earth.

How old do you think the earth is?

What evidence do you have for your answer?

How are you able to justify your dismissal of the other side?

And once again, does it really matter in the light of God’s grace and mercy in the reconciliation of mankind to Himself?

I also love the increase in commentary so if you are tired of reading and discussing these things, comment on some of the other posts that have largely went ignored.

Love you all

Tags: Creation, creation account, Discussion, God, Kingdom, Mercy, mission, Personal, town hall, Tuesday

I have been engrossed with the studies I have been doing about Kingdom advancement, the role of the Church as the people of God, small group and house church movements, the mission our Lord left with us, the way the early church worked out this mission and grew so quickly, and finally the thought that the very way we do church, and where, might actually be hindering the mission.  We have many indicators of this in the fact that even with all of our modern methods, educational institutions, bible translations galore, freedom of worship, comfortable gathering places, and institutional governance, the Church is still not growing in the greatest “Christian nation” on earth.

I was reading on another site a discussion about how the church building might be actually contributing to the fact that we are not very capable in being the Church.  I agree with this to a large degree.  But the conversation led to someone making the statement that without large institutional churches, missionary work and missions trips would not get done.  The talks led to the idea that missions trips might not actually be as Kingdom advancing as some of us think.

The actual way most mission’s trips go, it seems, is that a group from a church will use a substantial sum to reach and stay in some faraway place to work and supposedly minister to the local people.  But the question was raised about whether that money, what it actually takes to go and stay a week or two, would actually go further if it was just sent and used by the locals to get the needs met.  Considering the fact that the money would do a lot more in those local economies, this seems to make a lot of sense.

What do you think?

Has our self-centeredness even entered into the work of missions?

Are mission’s trips actually more about those that go than the ones that are there?

If we started sending the money used to make those trips say, through a missionary, wouldn’t it actually do more good than a couple of weeks of labor?

Couldn’t smaller house churches do just as much with less if this was the way it was handled?

Missions and missionaries are needed.  I am talking about those local groups from a church that spend quite a bit just to get someplace.  Any thoughts?

Love you all

Tags: bible translations, christian nation, Church, Conversation, Discussion, educational institutions, Ending, institutional governance, Kingdom, mission, missionary work, missions trips, role of the church, small group, town hall, Tuesday

Yes.  He did.  And we are here, only by His gracious act of creation.  If you have been following along with the posts and especially the commentary the last couple of weeks you are aware that creation has been discussed and I hope will continue to be.  No one is denying the fact of creation, just how to interpret the narrative we have that portrays it.  This post is not about creation in a wider sense.  It is about the many questions I have read out there in cyberspace asking what God created.

There is the question asking, did God create evil?  Another asks, did God create sin?  What about, did God create time?

Some believe He created evil and sin for example, so that we can experience good and His mercy.  Some believe He had to create time because He does not experience duration or sequence because He is infinite, but because we are finite we had to have time created to experience the same.  Some of these concepts are definitely brain twisters and the most vocal of the believers in these things end most of the discussions with the argument of God being so far beyond, above, mysterious, and such that we should not attempt to even ponder them.  Logic seems to have no place for determining what God is like.

I have other questions.  If we need evil to experience good, then how in the heavens are we going to experience good in eternity?  Isn’t the promise that evil will be gone?  Is evil a noun; is it something with independent existence?  Or is it just what occurs when Gods ways are not followed? The same goes for sin.  Isn’t it really just a turning from the path God set before us, missing the mark, as it is defined?

God is good because he said so.  Good has independent existence because God exists.  But God never, ever, said He was evil.  Isn’t evil really just a measurement, as is sin, of how much we are unlike God or how far we or our actions are from Him.  Did God create large, small, sweet, sour, pretty, ugly and such, or are these just descriptives and measurements of the things He did create?  Evil and sin are not things.  They are what things that are created do.

Time is in the same ballpark.  It is a measurement of sequence and duration.  Again, do we say that God created height, or depth, or diameter?  Or aren’t these just concepts that we use to relate to creation?  To me, time fits this description.  I once thought of God as timeless and above and outside time and it gave me nothing but headaches.  Upon further study, prayer, reflection and discussion I have come to the conclusion that this is a manmade concept and is not only unbiblical, it actually goes against much of the biblical witness.

As I read the love letter to mankind that we call the bible, I see a God that desires relationships with His creations.  I see a God that experiences sequence and duration.  A God that asks things like, how long?  How much?  When?  All of these things point far away from timelessness.  In eternity, if God does not experience time, meaning duration and sequence, then how will we relate to Him then?  It will be no better than it is here.

God is everlasting to everlasting.  God simply always was and always is and always will be.  He is the Alpha and the Omega, which are actually finite terms meaning the beginning and the end.  These do not point to timelessness either.  They actually point us to the fact that we find our beginning and ending only in Him.

Did God create…?

As far as evil, sin, and time go, I say no.  It just does not fit the picture of the Father that Jesus painted for us.  Instead we find that He is good, He is perfect, and He will be there with us and for us.  Hallelujah.

Love you all

Tags: alpha and the omega, Beginning, Bible, Creation, Discussion, Ending, Eternity, Evil, Father, God, Good, hallelujah, Heaven, jesus, King, Mercy, Perfect, relationship, Relationships

“The reason Jesus gave for a man marrying a woman is the historical account of Adam and Eve…Was Jesus wrong? Is there a Biblical historical basis for a man marrying a woman? I lean toward believing the scholars who believe that Genesis was historical and really happened.”

This statement was made in one of the comments the other day here.  There were a few other statements made about literal interpretations of Genesis.  As far as creation is concerned, there are at least four different views about its historicity and probably more.  Some view the creation account in Genesis as informing us about God’s literal six-twenty four hour day’s creation, a real Garden of Eden and a man and a woman named Adam and Eve.  Another group of people see it as literal in the sense of the garden and Adam and Eve but that the days are not literal twenty four hour days and instead might be representing ages or eras.  Another group does not believe much of any of this is literal at all and just points to God as creator and how He intended the relationship with His creation to be and that somewhere we failed.  And finally, some view Genesis as well as a lot of the bible as myth and really has no bearing on anything much.

Which of these, or some other view, do you believe?

Are you tolerant of any of the other views?

What do you think might be the consequences of holding to any of the other views?

Would any of you care to answer the questions in the quote at the beginning of this article?

ADDITIONAL ADDED QUESTION…Does any of this matter as far as our mission goes?

I invite all to participate and hope we can discuss this irenically.  Please stay on topic because I will be asking some more about Genesis in future posts.

Love you all

Tags: adam and eve, Beginning, Believe, Bible, Creation, creation account, garden of eden, genesis, Interpretation, literal interpretations, town hall, Tuesday