Sutherland responses to AACE

From Reconciling understandings of Scripture and Science
Jump to navigationJump to search

See Association of Australian Christadelphian Ecclesias Inc. (i.e. AACE) for the background to these questions. AACE invited ecclesias to provide scripturally-based feedback to the AACE on any (or all) of the questions below.



Sutherland Preamble

As well as inviting all of our members to submit their personal responses to the six questions from the AACE, either directly or through our secretary, our ecclesia has invited all members to contribute their thoughts in a succinct form to this combined response.

In order to be fair to all contributors the Management Committee has decided to pass on the responses from all of our members as received, complete and without comment.

Contributions have been roughly grouped thematically and numbered for convenience, and duplicates have been removed. A double asterisk ** marks where duplicates have been removed.

1. What was God’s purpose in providing us with the creation record in Genesis 1 and 2?

discussion on this question and answers to it ↓


    1. Us? providing us? God's choice to provide it to the world via ancient people, in ancient languages and beliefs, through lost originals copied & recopied, translated and retranslated badly and well – the purpose of this is surely to make us humble.
    2. The question is very badly phrased. "Record" implies video-tape-type historicity, reflecting one method for reading the text. Besides this, the question is for God to answer.

    1. To tell how God achieved his creative work over six days. **
    2. To show God's objective with His creative work
    3. To provide us with an understanding of his power of creation, to show us where we and everything began and what plan he had for the creation.
    4. That out of all creation, only the man Adam was created in the image and likeness of God, he was created from the dust of the ground. **
    5. He was to have dominion over the animal kingdom. **
    6. Set up whole of Bible contrasts e.g. light/dark, good/evil, life/death etc

    1. Purpose of ch 1: a glorious hymn of praise to the Creator with its persistent refrain "and it was so"
    2. It provided a basis for all that would follow throughout the Bible. **
    3. It provided the basis for all that would follow throughout the Bible
    4. Purpose of 2:4-3:24: teaching by powerful allegory about temptation, sin, death, dependence on God for life and forgiveness
    5. God's special relationship with humanity
    6. To show God's design for mankind is to reflect His likeness, to fill the earth with His glory **
    7. Eve was formed from his side and formed a union from which all of the race descended **
    8. Adam was created from the dust of the ground and made to live. **

    1. Leading question. Ch 1 is a magnificent liturgical hymn celebrating all creation to the ultimate rest; ch2-3 is the human condition, and perhaps an allegory of Israel (Is 47:1-7 [typo for ch 43? -BP]). Very different, written differently: miss that and I stop listening.
    2. Please don't conflate the two accounts. In 1:26-27 אדם (adam, humankind, “man”) is big אדם picture, male & female, replenishing the earth (v28, “And it was so”, v30). The individual (adam, man) created in 2:7 was “formed from the dust of the ground”
    3. The Creation poem of Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is from a different tradition to Genesis 2:4 to 3:24, and there are clear differences between the two (eg man first or animals?). Referring to them as "THE creation record" is incorrect.
    4. To teach us from the start that the Bible cannot be read literally.
    5. To carry forward the story of the "creation record" (silly, biased language) of Proverbs 8:22-31, which is from "before the beginning".
    6. Purpose of Genesis 2:4 to 3:24: another very different view of creation of humans, e.g. order of events different etc.
    7. To see meaning/define terms through the creation (e.g. the naming of the animals by their characteristics)

    1. Demonstrate teaching by parable that runs through the whole of Scripture
    2. Purpose of Genesis 2:4 to 3:24: the use of unrealistic elements in the narrative makes it clear that it is the story of each one of us
    3. Both texts have clear internal indications that they are not to be read literally. Read correctly their meaning is rich and glorious. Genesis isn't about getting 10 out of 10 at Sunday School, and doesn't suit dogmatic reading, it's better than that.
    4. If you want to talk about “Creation Records”, get serious and get Ugaritic. Yahweh the Cloud Rider in Ps 68; Rahab in Ps 87:4; 89:10-14; Leviathan in Ps 74:12-23 – and the then-future Leviathan in Isaiah 27:1; the dragon in Ezek 29 and 32; and more.
    5. These are ancient texts, possibly transcribed from an even earlier oral tradition. They were not provided for us. Better to first spend time thinking about what what they meant when first written, and how they may have been used in worship.
    6. “That there are two accounts of creation in Genesis is clear to any open-minded reader.” - W. G. Lambert. The wording of this question betrays ignorance, bias or both. If it is deliberate, it is contemptuous of the ecclesia and therefore of her Lord.

    1. Purpose of ch 1: The complete picture: seeing the earth from empty and waste to populated and filled
    2. To show himself as a creator. To show how man fails. To provide hope. To provide comfort
    3. To give purpose
    4. A creation story to help with "where did we come from?”questions
    5. To understand that God is in control and not us
    6. Purpose of ch 1: To celebrate the blessing of the enforced rest God gave in the Sabbath law
    7. To establish the beginning of a Biblical genealogy

    1. The two texts Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 and Genesis 2:4 to 3:24 have been placed side by side. These serve a purpose for us now as a model for uniting two different traditions (or "fellowships" if you like), respecting and preserving the differences.
    2. Purpose of ch 1: Fittingly put as the first chapter of the Bible establishing God as creator, distinguished from other gods

(further discussion on Q.1↓)

2. What does the Bible say about the nature of man when created?

discussion on this question and answers to it ↓


    1. That he was created after God’s image and likeness. **
    2. He was created after God's image and likeness, and along with the rest of creation was very good, in kind and condition.
    3. Very good like the whole of the rest of creation
    4. Along with the rest of creation man was very good, in kind and condition. **
    5. Death was not at that point part of his experience. **
    6. He was neither mortal (subject to death) nor immortal. **

    1. Nothing. We assume that 'very good' means something other than very good.
    2. 'Dust thou art.' Nothing else needs to be said.
    3. After Robert Roberts (1869), Robert Roberts (1898), L G Sargent (1941-1969), the whole Central/Shield/pseudoCentral debacle, John Carter, Logos and the atonement-for-nature allegation, we don't need this vaguely worded question now, thank you.
    4. Potential and human desire for immortality
    5. To try to be a life giving spirit
    6. Human desire to be like God
    7. Need for relationship with God
    8. Man was created by God perfect in nature without sin

    1. The nature of "man" in Genesis 1: two sexes; ability to reproduce; requiring food; made to resemble God in appearance and role – representatives of God on earth as priests in his temple encompassing all of creation; given power over animals.
    2. Humankind always was and still is made of dust, male and female in the image and likeness of God.
    3. "God was pleased with all he had made, and it was very good" simply means what it says – that God was pleased with what he had made. I do not agree with the interpretation that "very good" refers to the nature of man in any specific way.
    4. Has freewill for actions, words, thoughts
    5. A story with phrases like "that is why...", a talking snake, trees with supernatural properties, flowing rivers, gold and precious stones is a special kind of story in a particular style – it's not just a matter of "what does the bible say".
    6. We are dependent on God for sustenance and life.

    1. “The first man IS of the earth, earthy” - no tense in Gk, but frequently wrested with gratuitous “was” to limit it to the individual אדם called Adam to whom it alludes. In context it applies to Jesus of Nazareth as a member of אדם ie the human race.
    2. We are made from dust, earthbound, like all animate creation.
    3. All Adam (Gen 5:2!) are made of dust (Ps 90:3) or clay (Job 10:8-11), God's pinch-pot (Job 33:6 ESV). Another adam who lived in a house of clay was Eliphaz (Job 4:17-19, BASF IV). This is true of all adam, God knows (Ps 103:13-14). Do see Ps 119:73.
    4. The nature of "man" in Genesis 2:4-25: made from soil/dust/flesh (possibly soil + breath from God = flesh); ability to speak, reason, remember & follow rules; naïve, "naked", gullible; able to die; able to feel lonely; able to appreciate beauty.
    5. Ecclesiastes 3:19. Man and beast have the same breath, as one dies so dies the other, man has no pre-eminence.
    6. Selfish contrasting to God’s selflessness
    7. Not immortal (therefore mortal) but sustained by the tree of life

    1. The Bible says much, much less than the volume of verbiage that controversialists have said and written about it. The simple message is “Dust thou art . . . ” It was true of Abraham (Gen 18:27) and it's true of us.
    2. Almost nothing. On this topic the Bible:Christadelphian word ratio is minuscule. Having received the atonement we should talk about salvation and redemption and stop arguing incoherently about the levers and pulleys of imaginary atonement mechanisms.

(further discussion on Q.2↓)

3. What does the Bible say about the entry of sin and death into the world so far as man is concerned?

discussion on this question and answers to it ↓


    1. The man sinned, the woman was deceived
    2. The man did not correct or refute the woman's deception by the serpent
    3. The man had added to God’s word and God's rule about the fruit of the forbidden tree
    4. Man was tempted by the serpent and disobeyed God which brought sin nature
    5. Adam was given a law to keep in the garden of Eden. **
    6. He disobeyed that law and was sentenced to return to the dust from whence he was taken. **
    7. He disobeyed that law and was sentenced to return to the dust from whence he was taken. Romans 5/12 confirms death also came upon all his descendants as a result of Adam's sin: "in whom all have sinned" (mg).
    8. Perhaps the most neglected Scripture in this respect is 1 Timothy 2:13. “She”, Eve, is archetypal womanhood equated with “they”, the sisters of Timothy's ecclesia. This woman plus the archetypal “Adam” is humankind, called “adam” in Gen 1:26 and 5:2.

    1. The man and the woman were both put out of the garden; no more access to the tree of life
    2. Romans 7:8-11 Sin and death enter often for every “man” i.e. person. This question is loaded.
    3. Death (in humanity) is sometimes described as a direct punishment from God, other times as a natural process (returning to the dust).
    4. . . . every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:14-15

    1. The lesson behind the allegory of Gen 2-3 is that, so far as humankind ("man") is concerned, temptation leads to sin, even when the dire consequence is spelled out.
    2. There are changes in the human experience described in Genesis 3, from not able to discern good/evil, right/wrong to feelings of shame, guilt, blame, embarrasment about nakedness: these are not changes in physical nature.
    3. Between Adam and Moses there were people whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam. Death exercised dominion over them.
    4. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; & ... said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living... Genesis 8:21

    1. They go together (Rom 5). Sin causes death or death causes sin (cf 1 Cor 15:56) depending on the antecedent of ἐφ’ ᾧ in ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, exacerbated by thinking we know it all and can enforce it.
    2. Quick answer please: is it “the sting of sin is death” or “the sting of death is sin”? Which comes first?
    3. Men and women are the only beings in the bible who are described as sinning, although death affects all. Humans are individually and collectively held accountable for their actions and have been given the responsibility to choose the right path.
    4. Gen 2-3 clearly teaches that even in his “very good” state and perfect paradise environment temptation is irresistible. Such is human nature.
    5. Temptation led to deception led to sin
    6. Man sinned. We die because we are mortal.
    7. James 3:13-18. Our basic instinct as mortals, “the wisdom from below”, makes us “earthly, unspiritual, devilish" (RSV) - greedy, low & selfish.

    1. Lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, pride of life has always driven humans
    2. Roman 5/12 confirms death also came upon all his descendants as a result of Adam’s sin: "in whom all have sinned" (mg).
    3. The sentence defiled and became a physical law of his being.
    4. The sentence defiled and became a physical law of his being, which passed to all his posterity.

    1. This question is indirectly asking about Romans 5:12. The context of this passage is to establish that all humans have sinned, even those born before the law was given to Moses. All who die are counted as sinners in this rabbinical-type argument.

    1. Jesus decides this answer
    2. Humans need to act like Christ did in His temptations in the wilderness
    3. The Bible teaches that sin and death are linked: "the sting of death is sin".

(further discussion on Q.3 ↓)

4. Our community has always tolerated a range of views about some of the details of the creation record in Genesis 1 and 2. For example, there are differing approaches such Old Earth creationism and Young Earth creationism. To what extent are alternative interpretations of the record acceptable?

discussion on this question and answers to it ↓


    1. Other Scriptural passages provide additional insights to the creation record (see Proverbs and Job)
    2. There are even 2 accounts of creation in Genesis 1 & 2
    3. It is totally acceptable to have different ideas about the past (OEC, YEC) existing side by side within our community, just as it as acceptable to have different levels of education. None of these differences affect our current moral responsibilities
    4. 'The record' itself is complex and scattered throughout scripture; it is NOT one 'record' only; it leaves alternative interpretations open.
    5. Error is natural, human, and as such acceptable – for example calling the two quite different creation texts in Genesis "the creation record". It should be discussed, perhaps resolved, and we should grow in gracious knowledge of our Lord and Saviour.
    6. No-one should be forced to “believe” a particular view. “Clear teaching” of Scripture is not always obvious.

    1. There are no valid alternative interpretations endorsed by Jesus and other New Testament writers who looked to the creation record as describing literal and historical events. Cp Matt 19:4-5 with Gen 1:27; 2:24. **
    2. It's hard to know what to tolerate or how far too as it appears to read. If it is teaching people to believe in science more the bible!
    3. God can use whatever method He wants to use to achieve His purpose as long as it is consistent with His character
    4. Who can define and also intimately know God's creative process; God controls time as He wants and defined the process to occur as He wanted
    5. Interpretations of Genesis 1 & 2 are not critical for the Gospel (see the BASF paragraph 18; the Kingdom of God and the gospel are defined by the next 12 paragraphs and not one of them quotes from Genesis 1 or 2)

    1. Young Earth Creationism is disgraceful but we should discuss it as long as the pros and cons are calmly and rationally considered. It should not be preached as from “The Christadelphians” though - this is fraudulent, and very embarrassing.
    2. I feel Young Earth Creationists are reading the Bible badly, but they are still welcome in our community.
    3. I was seduced for some years, along with many of my friends, when SDA Flood Geology doctrines came into the ecclesia in the 1960s, but somehow kept to our traditional Old Earth. It has been a disaster, leaving our whole community open to YEC.
    4. Interpretations used to justify or excuse the exploitation of women, animals or the environment should be condemned, along with those that marginalise intersex people (as not male/female in the "image of God") or are racist (eg salvation not for all)

    1. We should reject literal interpretations of Gen 1 that contradict the “creation record” of Job 38:4-7 (stars already existed when the earth was made) but admitting some of us believe them. Preaching should always acknowledge our whole range of views.
    2. Interpretations that damage our ability to collectively act out our moral responsibilities should be condemned in our community.
    3. Pseudoscience (YEC, Flood geology) is incompatible with Ps 111:2-3, 1 Thes 5:21, 1 Jn 4:1, and with the implications of Is 5:12, Eph 4:14, Rev 2:2. Pseudoscientific arguments against evolution are particularly counter-productive.

    1. We should encourage our members to educate themselves in Bible literacy, enabling them to read the Bible for what it is.
    2. Re 'alternative interpretations of the record': the various 'records' themselves express variations, including the vanquishing of the sea monster Ps 74; different order of events; indeterminate time, e.g. Gen 2:6 'a flow WOULD WELL UP from the ground'
    3. Our standard of Bible teaching has been in decline for decades, and we are falling for bombastic literalism. Not enough listening, too much ignorant intolerance. The magazines are not fair-minded in discussing evolution, so it gets a free pass I say.

    1. This is about evolution: why not say so? The fact is, those who argue against evolution in print, on the platform, in social media & by gossip have feared to meet those who believe it in fair and respectful discussion, so now it's acceptable already.
    2. God is the greatest and most perfect of scientists. God uses science to test and try His children. Who can deny God in cosmology? Who can deny God in electricity and in molecular science? Who can deny God is archaeology, geology and medicine?

(further discussion on Q.4 ↓)

5. Which interpretations of the record are incompatible with other passages in the Bible (e.g. Romans 5:12-14, 1 Corinthians 15:45-47)?

discussion on this question and answers to it ↓


    1. Is this a leading question or what. “Brethren who prefer to believe in 'Flood Geology' and a young universe are entitled to do so. But they should not delude themselves that such views are a part of historical Christadelphianism.” (Alan Hayward 1983)
    2. There is no contradiction between these New Testament teachings and any Christadelphian understanding of creation that I am aware of.
    3. That Adam was not the first created man of the entire human race **
    4. That Eve was not formed from his side. **
    5. Any that dismiss Genesis 3:22-24 as the cause for Adam (man and woman) commencing their dying process
    6. Acceptable teaching must come with fair & just consideration of contrary views according to Prov 18:13,”He that answereth a matter before he heareth it” - no interpretation is acceptable without that; all are worth a hearing with it. Remember Nahash.

    1. Any that imply that Adam was not mortal nor immortal but something else
    2. Any that ignore the world that God has created including scientific discoveries of dinosaurs, fossels, genetics
    3. That Adam was created mortal ("capable of death" rather than "subject to death"). **
    4. That Adam was created mortal (“capable of death” rather than “subject to death” resulting from his disobedience).
    5. That other mortal beings were living when Adam was created. **
    6. That there are two creations referred to in Genesis 1 & 2. **
    7. I Cor 15 refers to the first adam of Genesis 2 as made of dust and earthly, as are our natural bodies. We are mortal/perishable as was Adam: this contradicts the idea that death was due to physical inheritable changes resulting from the first sin.

    1. Romans 5 and I Cor 15 are written in the tradition of making new interpretations of scriptures for the purpose of making an argument and the writer would have accepted contradictory interpretations as an acceptable act of worship, as Rabbi's do now.
    2. Any that ignore the world and the universe that God has created including scientific discoveries of dinosaurs, fossils, genetics, electricity, astronomy etc
    3. Interpretations that have a literal serpent in Gen 3, John 8:42-45, Rev 12:7-9 and 2 Cor 11:3-15 are wrong, but at least they're consistent. The Lord in Rev 12 didn't “accept” a literal serpent in Gen 3, but we can accept it for our brethren's sake.
    4. Interpretations that depend on fundamentalist mistranslations (e.g. “a man” in Gen 1:26, “would become” in Gen 3:20, “had formed” in Gen 2:19, “one man” in Acts 17:26, “expanse” for raqia and “whales” for tanninim in Gen 1) should be beneath us.
    5. The two kings imagery in Romans shows that Paul is referring to Genesis to back up his own teachings, not interpreting the text of Genesis or defining what it means.

    1. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. **
    2. Our standard of Biblical literacy is so poor, and our literalism is so endemic, that we need to refrain from judging each other's beliefs against proof texts. This particularly applies to evolution, with all the hysterical propaganda against it.
    3. Interpretations that put other people down for what they believe. As a teenager I learned to be smug about “our” doctrine – now I resent that.
    4. Interpretations that neglect the full range of meanings of אדם are generally incompatible with much scripture in both testaments. (Cf. “When Paul speaks of or alludes to Adam he speaks of humankind as a whole” – James Dunn)
    5. Evident fear of challenges to selective interpretations by particular pioneers; fear of alternative thinking; fear of change
    6. There has been no legitimate or concerted effort by Christadelphian to reconcile Scripture with science; fear of intellectual
    7. Literal readings of Genesis 1 are incompatible with literal readings of Genesis 2, let alone Romans and Corinthians. Incompatibility is not the problem: we need to be better at understanding what reading, translation and interpretation all are.
    8. Romans 5:12-14 is an allusion to the Adam and Eve story interpreted in such a way as to build a consistent argument predicated on sin defined as breaking the law. Those who lived before Moses are counted as sinners because they all died.
    9. Christ as fix-up: incompatible w. 2 Timothy 1:9-10, Titus 1:2, Col 1:12ff, Jn 17:5,24. God foresaw the need for salvation by grace, the Saviour was intended in his purpose before the world began, before time began! the Redeemer before Adam's transgression.

    1. Creation of man and link to sin leads to fulfilment of atonement and resurrection
    2. Someone who interprets Genesis 1 or Genesis 2-3 differently to me may also interpret Romans 5:12-14 and 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 [differently] to me.
    3. I do not understand the question sorry

(further discussion on Q.5 ↓)

6. What are the implications of our interpretation of Bible teaching on creation in terms of the provisions of the 1958 Australian Unity Agreement?

discussion on this question and answers to it ↓


    1. Contrary teachings to key doctrines about creation that distort the Scriptures (as summarised in our Statement of Faith), are not sanctioned by God. **
    2. To preserve our unity, the Fellowship provisions of the Unity Agreement will apply where there is a departure by a member from any element of the One Faith in doctrine or practice. **

    1. None whatever, if we are wise.
    2. Unaware
    3. Who is "our" in the question?
    4. To whom does this "our" refer? If it's the brethren who set up these biased questions, presumably the implication is collapse of the brotherhood. To me it simply means that some slight adjustments might need to be made or understood after 60 years.
    5. Those who comply with the rule not to regard the work of the Lord, and do not consider the operation of his hands to be relevant in this matter (Is 5:11-12) will treat the BASF as a creed, and reason on the CCA as though it were a juridical document.

    1. At worst, long-lasting schism and catastrophic decline in membership.
    2. There is none. We have no authority to decide the implications
    3. Depends on how we treat each other when differing views arise.

    1. Those who are old enough to remember it are wise enough to know that it does not matter. Or should be.
    2. I was too young to know what it was about then, and I'm too old to take it seriously now.
    3. Local (Australian) history of old controversy is not of interest to me (60+) or younger people.
    4. The 1958 unity agreement was written by flawed humans, relating to problems flawed humans had more than 60 years ago.
    5. The BASF and CCA failed to unite us over the decades, and they will not solve the problem we inherit from 1964. God may have finished with us, as he's finished with the dodo. Ecclesiastes 7:11-13 suggests that we might soon be defenceless.
    6. Why are we still arguing over the nature of Adam?

    1. The unity agreement should not be used to constrain biblical scholarship and interpretation, nor to "solve" current problems.
    2. We cannot use such documents as though they were legal precedents, or, worse, treat them as though they are the last word on the Bible.
    3. It would be wrong to use the unity agreement of 1958 to create divisions now.
    4. What relevance does a 61 year old document written to end a feud over words have in 2019? Leave it in the past where it belongs.
    5. “Our" doctrines are the first principles of the One Faith as revealed in the Scriptures (summarised in the BASF and Unity Basis)
    6. I believe the Scriptures without reservation (not human defined commentaries: BASF, Unity Basis etc – they are but summarises or guides to our doctrines)
    7. The Scriptures are not English translations
    8. The Scriptures (words) by their inherent nature require interpretation
    9. The BASF paragraph 18 says that the next 12 paragraphs describe the Kingdom of God; and there are no references to Gen 1&2 in these 12 paragraphs

    1. Fear mongering and misrepresentation of others understanding of Scripture is un-Christ-like and contrary to Commandments of Christ; it is just like the Scribes and the Pharisees
    2. Only Prov 18:13 can save us now. If we really listen and really hear all points of view in answer to all relevant questions, not just these miserable six leading questions - we might attain the wisdom to avoid a wrong decision.

(further discussion on Q.6 ↓)

Additional comments

AACE has invited ecclesias to forward anonymised feedback from individuals as well as ecclesias, so you may be giving our Secretary feedback of your own for forwarding. However if you have anything more that you would like to add in this survey, please type it here.

  1. Any response from this ecclesia that does not accord with our Statement of Faith, or is favourable to an evolutionary view in any respect, does not represent the current view of the ecclesia. Baptismal candidates are examined based on the Statement of Faith, a position which has not been altered. **
  2. I think it is very distressing to be introducing controversy to the Ecclesias when we should be concentrating on all the signs in the world which are an indication of the near return of the Messiah. This dissension can split ecclesias as well as being very stressful to every member; in fact it could even be the cause of some leaving the Faith at a time we should be concentrating on being ready to welcome our Lord to set up God's Kingdom.
  3. Simple fact is we have no authority to decide who is right, or who is and who isn’t accepted into an ecclesia. Only Jesus has that authority.
  4. This foolish dispute among ignorant men (see AACE Discussion Paper 13 for goodness sake) culminating in these six leading questions intended to suppress a genuine search for truth, has rocked my wife's faith in the ecclesia, even in our faith itself. I am more than angry.
  5. What is the purpose of these questions? Is it to find the right answer for political purposes? The truth is more important than the correct answer, or what somebody else insists is the correct answer. Truth is not just about correct information. It is not a syllogism. It has many facets. "Truth" in Jesus is to show us the Father, not get 10 out of 10 in a test on one kind of Biblical literalism.
  6. Remember to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

(further discussion on Additional Comments↓)

Further Discussion

Please preface your discussion with your wiki identification.

Question 1.

What was God’s purpose in providing us with the creation record in Genesis 1 and 2?


Question 2.

What does the Bible say about the nature of man when created?

Question 3.

What does the Bible say about the entry of sin and death into the world so far as man is concerned?

Question 4.

Our community has always tolerated a range of views about some of the details of the creation record in Genesis 1 and 2. For example, there are differing approaches such Old Earth creationism and Young Earth creationism. To what extent are alternative interpretations of the record acceptable?


Question 5.

Which interpretations of the record are incompatible with other passages in the Bible (e.g. Romans 5:12-14, 1 Corinthians 15:45-47)?

Question 6.

What are the implications of our interpretation of Bible teaching on creation in terms of the provisions of the 1958 Australian Unity Agreement?

Additional Comments

AACE has invited ecclesias to forward anonymised feedback from individuals as well as ecclesias, so you may be giving our Secretary feedback of your own for forwarding. However if you have anything more that you would like to add in this survey, please type it here.

Retrieved from "https://bibsci.sutherlandchristadelphians.org/index.php?title=Sutherland_responses_to_AACE&oldid=24487"