The very good creation included conflict/violence

People have a rose coloured view of what very good in Gen 1:30 means – thanks in no small part to Catholic father Augustine. But God’s words show the order of Genesis 1 included a forceful putting down of opposition and rule by humanity over the beasts. not only meat eating but conflict. Not what most literal creationists following a form of Augustine’s The Fall theology think.

Admitting to an Adam based faith – wow

“Theistic evolution would encourage us to read the early chapters of Genesis ‘in a figurative, non-literal way’ and to have a Christ based faith, not an Adam based faith. This is simply not how the rest of Scripture views early Genesis.” Bro Bernard Burt. We are happy to plead guilty to a Christ based faith every day of the week. Thank you.

J Carter on Adam’s nature

In taking the fruit in Eden Adam yielded to his own nature. If I said this literalist campaigners/heresy hunters would be up in arms. Yet John Carter – the crafter of the creedal additions heresy hunters rely on wrote it. Literalists make claims about Adam for which they have no Scriptural support, this leads to all sorts of contradictory statements. Here is Carter’s comments (made in the context of debate about the serpent be literal or not – can you imagine this discussion getting a free run today!?)

Proof texting to prove beer trumps wine

If you ignore enough context and spit out quotes rapid fire you can make your assumptions/extrapolations sound like simple fundamentals.  The German reformer Luther was not the first to observe this – but his complaint is the most colourful…

1 Corinthians 15 – Paul on Adam’s body

Literal creationists spend more time talking about Adam’s nature than the Bible does. What does the Bible say? Probably the longest description of Adam is in 1 Corinthians 15:43-49. Paul is talking about our pre and post resurrection bodies. He calls up Adam (Gen 2:7) as evidence of our temporary nature, our mortality. That’s inconvenient that Adam pre fall is included in a description of bodies needing resurrection and changing. With a simple highlighter you can pick out the key qualities of the two bodies Paul describes.

Dogmatism – The Believer Magazine

The Believer Magazine was an alternative Australian Christadelphian magazine in the 1970s which opposed the dogmatic assertions of Scriptural uncertainties by a South Australian power bloc and their threats of fellowship action against individuals and ecclesias.  History repeats.  Old man Adam was part of the debate.  Below is from Vol 2 page 2 in 1973.  Here’s part of the Editorial:

The Atonement – John Bell Shield Magazine 1919

We have no opinion on John Bell – one time editor of The Shield Magazine and oft protaganist with [edit: we previously said “fellow Australian” but CC Walker was English – poor fellow ;)].  Bro Bell copped a fair whack recently at an Enfield Bible class which piqued interest.  Without judgement or endorsement but in the interest of letting others speak in their own words (plus its interesting history) below is a collection of a series of articles John Bell wrote in response to critics on The Atonement.

True principles & uncertain details – an Enfield Bible class

As part of their ongoing agitation against the evident facts which contradict their reading of Genesis, the Enfield ecclesia in SA recently ran two bible classes. The first was based around Robert Roberts 1898 Christadelphian Magazine article “True Principles and Uncertain Details” – a great article worth reading. While Robert’s article was covered, the class was also setting up a belting of evolutionary creation.

Adam, Very good and Rom 7:18

Ask for evidence of a change in Adam’s nature and literalists often bluster.  Obviously there were big changes in Adam’s circumstances, experience and relationships as a result of sin.  However we should stick to what Scripture clearly says.  In a recent interaction, one literalist insisted Adam’s fundamental nature changed because while once Adam was very good, Paul says there was no good thing in his flesh.  Is this a reasonable argument?  Spoiler – no.

Bro Thomas – a heretic?

“There was no miracle wrought in executing the sentence under which Adam and Eve placed themselves . . . We dissent from our correspondent’s ‘notion’ that all creation became corrupt (by which we understand him to mean constitutionally impregnated with corruptibility) at the fall. We believe that the change consequent upon that calamity was moral, not physical. The natural system was the same the day before the fall as the day after.” [1]