Does evolutionary creationism fit within a conservative evangelical perspective?

Willtor said:

That's not what I meant -- not whether the people who turned away were judged harshly -- rather, are the teachers judged more harshly, as was said of TE teachers? My guess is that more people turn away from (or avoid) the gospel because of YEC-ism, which is why I ask.

Click to expand...

I knew exactly what you meant.

The only ones who would be judged are the ones who turned away because of truth they didn't have the faith to handle.

I tried to explain why that would be. Maybe I wasn't clear.

Another more simple answer might explain.

Two T.V. preachers have a choice to make in their "ministries".

One chooses is to preach, at least sometimes, about repentance and the judgment to come for the sake of those who are listening and in need of salvation. His ministry attracts some followers. But He struggles somewhat.

The other preacher teaches a very popular message and one that is widely accepted by the world. He teaches a "God loves everyone and wants to be your friend" message. He attracts millions of followers, sells books by the bundle and is quite successful.

Regardless of the "numbers" apparent to our observation - the former preacher is storing up for himself rewards in glory - the other is storing up judgment at the Judgment Seat of Christ (assuming he is really saved of course).

I will bring in the other aspect of judgment because you seem to not understand that there will likely be some kind of judgement for those who were only attracted to the message of "love" and were repulsed by the message of repentance.

The judgment of the two preachers will not be based on numbers of followers. It will be based on their fidelity to truth. To the extent that the compromise message may have caused stumbling by those who heard it - there will be an even more strict judgment than if no one really was lost because of the lack of repentance in his message.

That turned out to be just as long as the other example didn't it?

But please tell me that you know that the stricter judgment that teachers will incur is not based on how many hearers are comfortable with their message but on it's accuracy according to the Word of God.

T.E.'s surely must know about the relationship of the failure of the "first Adam" to sin and death in this present age. Tell me that you understand that the efficacy of the overcoming life of the "Adam" that is Jesus is tied directly to the failure of the first Adam.

If you can't manage the faith to believe what the Bible says and you simply must believe in T.E. at least don't teach it to others here or anywhere else.

If you cause stumbling - there likely will be some kind of price to pay.

Marvin Knox said:

I knew exactly what you meant.

The only ones who would be judged are the ones who turned away because of truth they didn't have the faith to handle.

I tried to explain why that would be. Maybe I wasn't clear.

Another more simple answer might explain.

Two T.V. preachers have a choice to make in their "ministries".

One chooses is to preach, at least sometimes, about repentance and the judgment to come for the sake of those who are listening and in need of salvation. His ministry attracts some followers. But He struggles somewhat.

The other preacher teaches a very popular message and one that is widely accepted by the world. He teaches a "God loves everyone and wants to be your friend" message. He attracts millions of followers, sells books by the bundle and is quite successful.

Regardless of the "numbers" apparent to our observation - the former preacher is storing up for himself rewards in glory - the other is storing up judgment at the Judgment Seat of Christ (assuming he is really saved of course).

I will bring in the other aspect of judgment because you seem to not understand that there will likely be some kind of judgement for those who were only attracted to the message of "love" and were repulsed by the message of repentance.

The judgment of the two preachers will not be based on numbers of followers. It will be based on their fidelity to truth. To the extent that the compromise message may have caused stumbling by those who heard it - there will be an even more strict judgment than if no one really was lost because of the lack of repentance in his message.

That turned out to be just as long as the other example didn't it?

But please tell me that you know that the stricter judgment that teachers will incur is not based on how many hearers are comfortable with their message but on it's accuracy according to the Word of God.

Click to expand...

So if TE is right, and YEC is turning people away, then it is the YEC teachers who are judged more harshly? I don't mean to say that I think you YECs are less sincere in your beliefs than we TEs are. Just, I think you're turning people away from the gospel who would not otherwise do so, because you artificially inflate the burden that a believer has to carry.

Marvin Knox said:

T.E.'s surely must know about the relationship of the failure of the "first Adam" to sin and death in this present age. Tell me that you understand that the efficacy of the overcoming life of the "Adam" that is Jesus is tied directly to the failure of the first Adam.

If you can't manage the faith to believe what the Bible says and you simply must believe in T.E. at least don't teach it to others here or anywhere else.

If you cause stumbling - there likely will be some kind of price to pay.

Click to expand...

It's the reverse, though. It is the YECs who turn people away from faith in Christ when they find the added burden of combating science too heavy, not TEs. It sounds to me like that warning more aptly applies to you. You are adding to the Bible and creating extra hurdles for people to jump through, likely causing some to stumble.

Willtor said:

So if TE is right, and YEC is turning people away, then it is the YEC teachers who are judged more harshly? I don't mean to say that I think you YECs are less sincere in your beliefs than we TEs are. Just, I think you're turning people away from the gospel who would not otherwise do so, because you artificially inflate the burden that a believer has to carry.



It's the reverse, though. It is the YECs who turn people away from faith in Christ when they find the added burden of combating science too heavy, not TEs. It sounds to me like that warning more aptly applies to you. You are adding to the Bible and creating extra hurdles for people to jump through, likely causing some to stumble.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear - I am giving you the benefit of the doubt when you tell me that YEC is turning many more away. I don't know that we have enough data on that to say that. Your limited experience may show that. The experience from colleges may indicate that. But I'm thinking that there is no way you can tally enough data to say with certainty across the board.

But that's OK. We can go with your opinions for now.

I consider TE to be a compromise that lines up better with what young people have been taught for a generation. YEC is not.

If TE were to attract more and YEC were to attract less - TE teachers would suffer more loss on judgment day none the less for teaching wrong.

I'm not sure that what would likely be a liberal church setting for TE teaching would gain more "true" believers than a more conservative TEC church. When you talk about turning people away from the faith - I don't see how the position that lacks "faith" in the clear teaching of scripture can lead anyone to "faith".

But the formula IMO for teachers is very simple. Teach falsehood and suffer loss. Teach truth and gain "well-done ".

And by the way - a great many intelligent believers are unconvinced by evolutionary theory. If you are convinced - fine.

As I've said many times though - I'd keep your compromise teaching out of Sunday school and off line also. But you do what you've gotta do.

You don't answer to me of course - only Christ. Good luck with your choice whatever it may be in the future. I don't even want to know how it turns out for you on that day.

Marvin Knox said:

Just to be clear - I am giving you the benefit of the doubt when you tell me that YEC is turning many more away. I don't know that we have enough data on that to say that. Your limited experience may show that. The experience from colleges may indicate that. But I'm thinking that there is no way you can tally enough data to say with certainty across the board.

But that's OK. We can go with your opinions for now.

I consider TE to be a compromise that lines up better with what young people have been taught for a generation. YEC is not.

If TE were to attract more and YEC were to attract less - TE teachers would suffer more loss on judgment day none the less for teaching wrong.

I'm not sure that what would likely be a liberal church setting for TE teaching would gain more "true" believers than a more conservative TEC church. When you talk about turning people away from the faith - I don't see how the position that lacks "faith" in the clear teaching of scripture can lead anyone to "faith".

But the formula IMO for teachers is very simple. Teach falsehood and suffer loss. Teach truth and gain "well-done ".

And by the way - a great many intelligent believers are unconvinced by evolutionary theory. If you are convinced - fine.

As I've said many times though - I'd keep your compromise teaching out of Sunday school and off line also. But you do what you've gotta do.

You don't answer to me of course - only Christ. Good luck with your choice whatever it may be in the future. I don't even want to know how it turns out for you on that day.

Click to expand...

I have the same concern for you, though. The current YEC interpretation of Genesis was invented, not to illuminate the text, but to combat modern science. Therefore, YEC is not merely a harmful teaching inasmuch as it turns people away from faith, but it is also harmful to faith, itself.

I don't have any experience with liberalism, so I don't see how that relates to anything. I'll just have to take your word on that, for the sake of argument. Mostly, I'm concerned with what is real and true. And YEC fails both Scriptural and the scientific metrics. Therefore, it seems unhealthy both for evangelism and discipleship.

Willtor said:

I have the same concern for you, though. The current YEC interpretation of Genesis was invented, not to illuminate the text, but to combat modern science. Therefore, YEC is not merely a harmful teaching inasmuch as it turns people away from faith, but it is also harmful to faith, itself.

I don't have any experience with liberalism, so I don't see how that relates to anything. I'll just have to take your word on that, for the sake of argument. Mostly, I'm concerned with what is real and true. And YEC fails both Scriptural and the scientific metrics. Therefore, it seems unhealthy both for evangelism and discipleship.

Click to expand...

I do not believe that YEC interpretation of Genesis was "invented" to "combat modern science." It is the plain reading of the text. It has been believed by the majority of Christians for most of the Church age.

IMO the bringing of the world's theories in Genesis rather than simply believing God is what is harmful to faith itself.

As I define it liberalism is the bringing of the worlds opinions into the standard eventually making that standard of no importance. The standard in this case is the plain sense of the narrative.

I don't believe that YEC fails both Scriptural and the scientific metrics. Many more gifted scientific types than me believe as I do. I'll let you debate it out with them.

I disagree that the plain sense of scripture is unhealthy both for evangelism and discipleship. Just the opposite is true as I view it.

We have reached that point in this thread and on the other thread that we must agree to disagree.

I have appreciated the conversation. I have also appreciated your decent manner of discussion - unlike I have encountered in other areas of the forum.

Hope to see you on the other side. We'll split a slice of manna and compare notes.

Marvin Knox said:

I do not believe that YEC interpretation of Genesis was "invented" to "combat modern science." It is the plain reading of the text. It has been believed by the majority of Christians for most of the Church age.

IMO the bringing of the world's theories in Genesis rather than simply believing God is what is harmful to faith itself.

As I define it liberalism is the bringing of the worlds opinions into the standard eventually making that standard of no importance. The standard in this case is the plain sense of the narrative.

I don't believe that YEC fails both Scriptural and the scientific metrics. Many more gifted scientific types than me believe as I do. I'll let you debate it out with them.

I disagree that the plain sense of scripture is unhealthy both for evangelism and discipleship. Just the opposite is true as I view it.

We have reached that point in this thread and on the other thread that we must agree to disagree.

I have appreciated the conversation. I have also appreciated your decent manner of discussion - unlike I have encountered in other areas of the forum.

Hope to see you on the other side. We'll split a slice of manna and compare notes.

Click to expand...

The current YEC interpretation was invented in the early 20th century. Prior to that the popular literal interpretation of Genesis was very different and much more true to the text. I don't hold a literal interpretation of Genesis, so I don't hold to the older one, either, but I always feel saddened to see the newer one with such popularity, even though it does such a poor job of illuminating the narrative.

If you're interested in learning about where the newer interpretation came from, check out Rev. George McCready Price, who invented it, and Henry Morris, who made it popular.

If you're interested in the older literal interpretation that's been believed by much of the Church for centuries, there's an amazing book called, The Hexaemeron (free), by St. Basil. I guarantee you will be moved. As with the current literal interpretation, it is not compatible with science, but if that isn't important, this is _definitely_ the superior interpretation. St. Basil was not writing to combat science -- he was trying to understand the text -- and his interpretation is sublime.

If you're done with the conversation, that's cool, too. PM me if you want more references or want to talk about the ancient church.

Willtor said:

If you're interested in learning about where the newer interpretation came from, check out Rev. George McCready Price, who invented it, and Henry Morris, who made it popular.

Click to expand...

Morris had genius insights. Why he went with some 10,000 years is a mystery to me.

SkyWriting said:

Morris had genius insights. Why he went with some 10,000 years is a mystery to me.

Click to expand...

It's based on the pre-scientific understanding of the age of the earth. This is something Bible commentators have done for a long time: you identify an event that you know the date of, and begin counting years backwards.

By Morris' time, there was a general knowledge that the genealogies might skip over people, so he put the bound further back. But that's what it was for him: a bound, not an exact date (as it had been for earlier commentators).

Willtor said:

It's based on the pre-scientific understanding of the age of the earth. This is something Bible commentators have done for a long time: you identify an event that you know the date of, and begin counting years backwards.

By Morris' time, there was a general knowledge that the genealogies might skip over people, so he put the bound further back. But that's what it was for him: a bound, not an exact date (as it had been for earlier commentators).

Click to expand...

Blog writers do lots of things as well.

But no person described in scripture
nor any writers of "letters" correcting
the early churches, nor any writers
of the psalms....ever.....dated an
event and counted backwards to
the date of Creation.

If that was a VALID exercise, would
we not find some mention of some
person or group attempting it in scripture?

SkyWriting said:

Blog writers do lots of things as well.

Click to expand...

Well, letters and books from Church Fathers are a little different from blogs.

SkyWriting said:

But no person described in scripture
nor any writers of "letters" correcting
the early churches, nor any writers
of the psalms....ever.....dated an
event and counted backwards to
the date of Creation.

If that was a VALID exercise, would
we not find some mention of some
person or group attempting it in scripture?

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. Not all things that are valid are mentioned in Scripture.

Don't misunderstand -- I also think that the counting backwards relies on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the text. But arguing from incredulity is not constructive.

Jadis40 said:

The universe (the heavens) was here before the earth was. If what you're saying is true, then the earth would be older than the universe, but that's not what has been discovered. The universe is 13.8 billion years old, and the earth is a fraction of that at 4.5 billion years.

Click to expand...

The first firmament, which God called Heaven Gen 1:8 was made BEFORE Adam's Earth, on the 2nd Day. The second firmament, which was made on the 3rd Day is the present Cosmos. Gen 2:4 It was made some 13.8 Billion years ago and our Earth was NOT formed from the dust of the First Stars until some 4.53 Billion years ago.

IOW, Adam's world (kosmos) was made Billions of years BEFORE our Earth was formed. In fact, Adam was some 10 Billion years old when Planet Earth's FIRST life appeared in the Water on the 5th Day Gen 1:21 which was some 3.77 Billion years ago, in man's time. The secret is to know what a Day is to God. Amen?