The only thing that concerns me about the Ark recreation and the young earth theory is that a few of the people that I know and go to church with that fully believe it, are so adamant about it that one in particular throws out sayings such as: "if you don't believe that the Creation event happened in 6 literal days, what other parts of the Bible do you not believe?" It's that type of "my way" thinking that drives wedges between believers. IMO, there is no place for that in Christianity. There's already a dump truck full of wedges that get driven between believers of different denominations, we don't need more. Like you, my faith isn't based on the Creation event, it's based on the Cross.
Fur, I want you to hear me saying this with a humorous tone of voice (I'm not jabbing at you), but that's what I call "Rodney King Christianity"....can't we all just get along? It isn't a matter of getting along, or I think what I want to say is I will subordinate getting along to being doctrinally sound. Guys, there are some things that are mysteries, and some things that aren't. The creation account is NOT a mystery, it isn't even remotely a debatable topic, and that's why this is such a big deal. There has never been a reason FROM SCRIPTURE for any man to even think it meant something other than a literal single day. This debate is ALWAYS and ONLY an attack on scripture, and (if I make no other point ever again on this site) you do not know God or His gospel without scripture. If it's common to twist the portion of scripture regarding the creation, then what makes you think you don't believe a twisted understanding of "the gospel"? Things that are mysteries are things that aren't in scripture. For example, what does Jesus look like? Should we do contemporary or traditional music? See where I'm going? It's not about the dogma of my opinion, it's very much like Martin Luther risking his very life to correct the theology of the mainstream church in that day. Actual scriptural accounts aren't matters of opinion, they are matters of theology, and (like I've been saying) a lack of theology will be the indictment of our generation. If it takes me (lovingly) disagreeing with others to defend scripture, then I must do so. Doctrine does divide, it's intent is to do so (like a two edged sword). Scripture is as clear about the literal 6-day creation as it is that we no longer need a mediator priest.
You know, oddly, I am far more tolerant of someone who is confident about wrong theology than I am someone who doesn't believe it matters. And I really bristle at the "there are just some things we can't know" remark. This usually comes from that person who just isn't interested in theology. There are innumerable answers in scripture, but we are so theology-averse today that we wouldn't know otherwise.
With that same humorous voice, I would argue that there is far, far more scriptural evidence for the idea that Jesus died for the sins of the world than there is for 24 hr days in Genesis 1. And yet you believe that Christ died only for the elect. I very seriously doubt that you reached that idea by simply reading the Bible - it was taught to you by another person. That's because it is entirely a man-made system that falls apart when held to the Light of the Word.
Sola scriptura? Get back to me after reading 1John 2:2.
Boom.
Alright, I said I would avoid this fray, but I can't control my compulsion
First, just some philosophical points about cherry-picking singular verses, then I'll (as briefly as I can) explain how that verse in no way denies the election of saints.
I am adamantly against the practice of pulling out singular verses as some "end all / be all" to any given debate. My primary opinion about Arminian theology is that it is nothing but eisegesis to begin with (you imputing YOUR preheld bias into the meaning), and you are basically certain to do that when using singular verses. Who was the audience? What was the topic? What was the authoritorial intent of the larger passage? Was it for all people at all times, or a specific group? Was it even referencing the topic you're using as ammunition for? Nothing concerns me more than the incessant "Oh yeah, what about XXX verse???" I know your motive is pure, to use scripture to defend your belief, but it's so dangerous to be uncontextual like that. I never use single verses, you'll almost always hear me speak in terms of "overall narratives" or "broader passages". You just can't form your whole doctrine from one verse!
Now, about 1 John 2:2 - Let's remember, the foremost battle that "most" of scripture always dealt with was that the Gentiles now have access to God. God wasn't just the God of the Jews. That Jesus' atoning work was for "every tribe, and tongue, and nation" (not for
everybody in every tribe, tongue, and nation). That's the "overall narrative" I spoke about above. I could stop there, point is made. This is always a problem of lazy (or nasty) hermeneutics. But look at all of John's writings, his "shtick" seemed to predominantly be the nature of Christ's work being for all people groups (not just the Jews). And that's specifically what was being talked about in the broader passage surrounding 1 John 2:2. This is certainly how John's audience would have understood it. Now I don't want to be argumentative, I understand that when you read that verse alone, your view is logical (I don't disagree). But if you start waaaay before that and read waaaay past it, your view doesn't fit what's even being taught there. That's the "broader passage" I spoke about. If your view of a single verse is seemingly out of place compared the meta-narrative of all scripture, and surely from the more immediate surrounding passage, please reconsider and study that view.
One more "foremost battle" that most of scripture dealt with was Jesus' constant contrast between Christianity and Judaism. Remember, it wasn't the unchurched who demanded Jesus' death (they frankly didn't know or care), it was the church!!! And what they really didn't like wasn't Jesus' claim to be God (that's what they said, but it was a smokescreen), it was because Jesus removed their control and autonomy from their religion. The basest notion of sin is "self", it's the purest form of sin. I am my own god, I do the work, I am good, I am etc. Yes, Jesus is my savior, but I always attend church, I read my bible for an hour each morning, I am a deacon, I cut the grass at church, I don't cuss or drink, I, I, I. I owe Jesus, I perform, I accept Him or not, I. Jesus + my white-knuckle grip on obedience. This was the constant battle of the new Testament (heck, read Galatians!!!). And this Arminian notion of "I have free will" is nothing more than that age-old practice of Judaism. It stirs man's deepest idol to take away his "will" to accept or refuse Christ. THAT is your beef with my view, you certainly don't have a theological point.
