Creation and evolution don’t have to be in conflict. This site explores the doctrine and science of Genesis 1 and God’s creative work. Why? Because as a community we need to accommodate a range of opinions while being true to God’s Word so we don’t cause others to stumble. Following is an explanation of evolutionary creation, or theistic evolution or God directed evolution (whatever label you wish to use).
Navigation – In addition to tags, the pages capture the posts relevant to various subjects with an index/links to relevant posts in a semi-logical order.
Following is a bit of an intro/background/purpose on how the initial author of this page arrived at evolutionary creation, having been an ardent creationist all his life.
“We know that we have crossed over from death to life because we love our fellow Christians. The one who does not love remains in death” 1 John 3:14
Death does not always equal mortality in the NT. You cannot substitute death and mortality at will. That’s one reason why the words are different. Clearly in this instance death refers to the fate or spiritual condition of the individual rather than their pulse rate or them being mortal.
In May 2017 bro Colin Byrnes (a rightly well-regarded individual), published a document called “By One Man”. The document was largely in response to a presentation at the 2016 Australian Conference which demonstrated a wide range of views have been accepted in the community on Genesis 1-3 (note that presentation specifically stayed away from EC as requested by the conference organisers). Continue reading
A recent paper by Mark Allfree and Matt Davies (Is the Firmament of Genesis Chapter 1 Solid?, 2015) maintains that the firmament of Genesis 1 is not described as a solid dome but rather as an empty expanse. The authors also reject any suggestion that the creation account of Genesis 1 is written as a theological polemic against pagan creation myths. Their primary concern is the historicity of Genesis 1 and its consistency with a modern worldview. This article contends that Allfree and Davies begin with a false premise and arrive at the wrong conclusion via a series of misguided arguments. Continue reading
Some creationists have gone into print to try and reject Evolutionary Creation. Their counter argument to the non factual use of the heart is summarised below. Their essential argument is that because SOME uses of heart are obviously metaphorical therefore ALL uses are. The evidence of archaeology/history is ignored. Key components of the argument are shown below: Continue reading
We received the following question from a reader and brother. Rather than lose the question in a mess of other discussions we thought it worth a special response. While the question may have been raised before it pretty much escaped our notice. The question was:
“I have tried to show throughout this book that we must let the Bible speak for itself. We must not twist it, to make it mean what we think it ought to have said. We must let it make its own message clear to us.”
I did ask the question on another post about how an EC would interpret the verses that appear to identify a change in diet, to becoming carnivores, before/after the flood. The language appears quite clear to me. Perhaps this provides an opportunity to answer that question?” Continue reading
We must not cultivate an Adam based faith. Unfortunately the story of Genesis ch.3 is often taught as the literal foundation of the Gospel, recently as nothing less than “the rationale and basis” for Jesus Christ and his Gospel of salvation, and that the existence or need for Jesus Christ would collapse were Eden’s events found to be metaphorical or non-literal. This remarkable assertion is one of the most common hurdles to overcome for many Christadelphians when confronted by scientific challenges to Genesis, yet it is deeply flawed on several counts. Continue reading
We must recognise that the Bible makes us wise for salvation “through faith in Christ Jesus” (not Adam) and that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”32 Genesis is written that we may be spiritually complete; not deceived as a novice on moral issues, but trained in righteousness and equipped for every good work. We must respect this functional intent of the Bible, and respect God’s choice of literary genre. We must not fall for the anachronistic treatment of Genesis as a literal historical record, for Genesis was not written to answer the concerns of modern Westerners