Purpose and navigation

This is a place for civil discussion by Christadelphians of 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.

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.

Gen 1-4

Common objections and answers

Comments on Rom 5-8

Some history – statements from the past which contradict mainstream views

Facts – some basic science which demonstrates why Gen 1-3 literalists need to rethink

Fellowship statements and Magazines

What does Genesis 1 mean?

While there is a fair amount of material on Genesis 1 on this blog, much of it is pointing out limitations in some readings rather than addressing the text as it is.  There is some fantastic material (and not so great stuff as well) around.

Bro David Brown has an interesting and well reasoned series of articles on his blog here.  COD maintains the literality of the serpent (along with the special creation of Adam and Eve), however despite some differences there is a lot of value in David’s well reasoned work.

 

 

 

 

 

The first and last Adams

1 Cor 15 is obviously relevant to Paul’s Adam/Christ comparison.  Some of the language is picked up in the BASF.  However we should observe what Paul is saying rather than push the comparison further.

How do you implement the wheat & tares parable?

The parable of the wheat and tares is exclusive to Matt 13:24-30.  It provides a challenging limitation to those who seek to impose their understanding as the basis of fellowship.  Any practice of disfellowship has to encompass the whole gamut of scripture, rather than pick and choose passages which support our preferred model of operations.  As brother I Collyer noted “an industrious rooting out of tares may be a mistaken zeal” ^[1], however the Lord goes further commanding such activity NOT occur.

Lean Not On Your Own Understanding: The Fear of Thinking in Fundamentalism

Source: Lean Not On Your Own Understanding: The Fear of Thinking in Fundamentalism

Presenting the evidence – The Fourth Conversation

For a calm and very accessible introduction to the evidence for evolution I recommend the book “The Fourth Conversation”.  Written by a Christadelphian, this presents the evidence for evolution in a simple easy manner.  The book is available on Kindle, hardcopy, as a pdf or on this blog (where all formats are accessed from).

To quote two paragraphs from the book…

“To be clear, I’m not asking or expecting readers to agree with this position, although to be honest, I do hope that these notes might be useful for those who are on that journey of discovery inspired by their passion for the sciences, and who are grounded by a faith and trust in God. I also hope that it will benefit those who are struggling to understand someone else’s point of view who has already made this journey.”

“As Johannes Kepler said, “Praise and celebrate with me the wisdom and magnitude of the Creator, which I lay open before you by means of a deeper explanation of the structure of the world, by the search for its causes…””

The debate has been ongoing, quite exhaustingly, for a long period in our community.  This publication is a positive and calm contribution to the discussion setting out what the evidence is and positively explain the details which have led many believers to accept God’s miracle may have worked differently to how we previously imagined.

 

LG Sargent rejected Logos attempts to dictate the understanding of Gen 1

LG Sargent LG in the 1966 Christadelphian Magazine (Vol 103, page 458–460), wrote a scathing letter to The Logos magazine editor following criticism of Sargent’s non literal approach to Genesis 1 (eg leaving the time in Gen 1 as an open question).  Sargent was opposed to evolution, but clearly notes our community (historically at least) took on board the plain observations of science.  He also noted Bro Thomas always accepted the earth had long rotated because of science.  Sargent also restates Walker’s earlier observation that there is no evidence (and should be according to most literalists) of a cataclysmic end to life and a reboot some 6,000 years ago.  50 years later again we have South Australian demands on how Genesis and fellowship statements should be read (see here for a response to the IEAC statement).  See below for the full letter from Sargent.

Zombies in Eden

You have to feel sorry for caterpillars.  For all that they change into butterflies or moths, they face some unusual perils in their early life – including being turned into zombies.