I'd like to know 2 things on a Biblical basis.1. Must a saved Christian believe every "correct" doctrine mentioned in the Bible?2. Is it Biblical that saved Christian will be protected from believing lies about Himself?If there is 1 thing i know about (my?) CC leader is that he makes assumptions on certain phrases and words. I don't know exactly what he means, but i feel like i'm missing it.
Jesus wrote: And he said to him, 'Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.' But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, but he answered his father, 'Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!' (Luk 15:27-30)
Sonick92 wrote: More controversy over my former CC leader because he now says that evolution destroys the Gospel message. Apparently the "method" of creation is included in the "Gospel message", so if you deny that method of creation then it is grounds for denying the Gospel.In all the videos i have seen and church services from Nazarene, Lutheran and non-denominational Protestant. I've never heard the method of creation being apart of the Gospel message. The only part i hear about creation is the 1st sin as a history of mankind from Eve to Noah's family to today. How does being in a right relationship with God include the method of creation? I don't deny a 1st sin, so i don't see where this is going.
More controversy over my former CC leader Did you get a new one?Does he realise he's adding requirements for salvation? If I were you I'd press him on these things. As emailestthoume pointed out WLC doesn't believe evolution is true for scientific reasons and I'm of the same opinion, but I wouldn't say that if someone did believe evolution (at least a theistic version) is true that they couldn't be saved. If you have problems with a scientific theory, come at it from a scientific standpoint not from a section of scripture that is open to alternative interpretations. As for a Adam being a literal man, that's a thread for another day.
Sonick92 wrote: He doesn't really have the background knowledge of the claims of his position, because that interpretation lines in with the spiritual nature used in the Bible. He thinks the spiritual nature of things described in the Bible must be mimicked in every way to the physical world.I can't really understand how he thinks because i've told him my thoughts on Joshua 10 describing how "the sun stood still". The people of the time only saw the sun move and Joshua's army prayed for it to stand still because they wanted sunlight to be out longer than normal. In relative to everything the sun does move, but we revolve around the sun, so in our modern understanding. The sun didn't stand still, so he responds by asking"When scripture says the sun stood still; you think it didn't stand still?" ...... The army wanted the sun to stay out longer than normal, so they prayed in a way that makes sense to them.I'm just flabbergasted at the thought that somehow the message of salvation includes "HOW" God created, so in his mind. The person can struggle with the concept, but in the end must believe in a fast creation because Genesis is in no way vague for him. If i were to take out the domino effect of sin, maybe? If i were to say Adam and Eve were the 1st modern "homo-sapiens". I don't see a problem, but where this guy makes these assumptions is really beyond me.Even AiG's Ken Ham & Jason Lisle in a debate with Walter Kaiser & Hugh Ross has said that you can be dishonest when it comes to creation, but it doesn't prevent you being a Christian.