A question for both TE's and YEC's

[pressingon]

As I’ve thought about our differences as TE’s and YEC’s today, a question occurred to me that I’d like to see individuals from both sides answer:

"Why do you argue so adamantly against the opposing viewpoint?"

(Please don't simply respond with, "They're wrong." Put some thought into your answer, open up a bit, and share your motives. I'm not looking for a discourse on the fallacies of the opposing viewpoint!)

As I thought about this, it occurred to me that both sides may answer this the same way. I’ll withhold posting what I'd hope to see individuals post (expect is probably too optimistic a wording choice) until I see what you all come up with, and chime in later. My hope is that we’ll find commonality in what drives us, despite our differences in what we see as truth regarding the nature of God's creation.

God bless....

Note regarding responses:
Please realize that responses to this question will likely be highly personal in nature (as we're talking about motives here in why we debate). I can't expect debate not to occur in this thread (as much as I'd like that to be the case), so when you respond to something another writes, please be sensitive to the fact that you may be attacking an individual's deeply held convictions. I guess what I'm saying is this... if you want to debate this stuff, above all, be Christ-like!

 

[herev]

"Why do you argue so adamantly against the opposing viewpoint?"

I can't speak for the rest, but I don't argue against their viewpoint--only in my desire to believe in mine (TE) without them judging me as a heretic, unfaithful, or unChristian, or a Bible hater--or whatever else they throw at me--but again, that's just me

 

[Vance]

Unlike Herev, I do argue against their viewpoint since YEC'ism is a danger to the effective preaching of the true message of Christ. In short, I believe that more souls have been lost due to the YEC teaching ABOUT evolution and and an ancient earth than have ever been lost because of the scientific theory itself. Rather than retype why I think this is, I will just paste in this argument from elsewhere:

I know it is not wholly kosher to post long quotes from other sources, but this is not too long, and it happens to say what I would say very well. It is by Dr. Hugh Ross (a real Phd in Astrophysics), a Christian Creationist (anti-evolution, but "old earth"), and is something all Christians interested in this topic should read. It is actually an introduction to a book called "A New Look at an Old Earth". I don't agree with everything Hugh Ross believes, or everything included in the book, but what Ross writes here is very good. I added a couple of small notes in brackets which I think clarifies what he is saying.

"James, the brother of Jesus, in addressing the council at Jerusalem declared, "It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God (Acts 15:19)." The apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans said, "Make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way (Romans 14:13)." Don Stoner challenges us in the following pages to remove a great impediment to the furtherance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Instead of focusing on the now overwhelming evidence for the God of the Bible and on the complete accuracy of His Word [Ross believes that the scientific evidence of an old universe actually provides strong support for God's Creation], many within Christendom would have us discount this potent new evidence, all for the sake of clinging to the rather peripheral (to the Gospel) dogma of a recently-created universe.

This digression [into YEC'ism] has effectively inoculated a large segment of secular society against taking seriously the call to faith in Christ. It also has divided the Christian community into hostile camps that focus more energy on attacking each other than on reaching nonbelievers. Worse yet, the nation's courts have come to perceive age as the central issue for the creation/evolution debate. Thus, a pretext has been provided - the lack of credibility for a thousands-of-years-old universe - for removing the Bible and the concept of creation from public education.

As Mr. Stoner emphasizes, science is man's attempt to interpret the facts of nature, while theology is man's attempt to interpret the words of the Bible. God created the universe and also is responsible for the words of the Bible. Since He is incapable of lying or deceit, there can be no contradiction between the words of the Bible and the facts of nature. Any conflict between science and theology must be attributable to human misinterpretation. Such conflicts should be welcomed, not feared or battled, for they point the way to further research and study that could resolve the apparent discrepancies.

Historically such resolutions have not only born the fruit of bringing warring parties to peace and fellowship but also provided new tools for winning souls for Christ. It is in this spirit that this book is written, and it is in this spirit that I hope this book will be read."

Of course, I would apply this same approach to the concept of evolution as well. I honestly believe that it is not the teaching of evolution or an ancient earth which is a threat to Christian Faith. I believe that the great threat to Christian Faith is the preaching of YEC'ism: that evolution and an old earth are wholly inconsistent with Holy Scripture. When children are indoctrinated with this idea, then come to see the evidence supporting the age of the earth, for example, they begin to doubt the Scripture. When the adult who accepts evolution is presented with Christianity as something which rejects evolution, he is unlikely to believe.

Evolution and an old earth are only a threat to Christianity to the extent this "either/or" doctrine is promulgated.

 

[gluadys]

"Why do you argue so adamantly against the opposing viewpoint?"

1. I do honestly believe the evidence that evolution is a real process which has really occurred is overwhelming. And I believe the proper attitude of Christians toward truth should be one of welcome.

2. I find it is a consistent observation that those who do not welcome scientific truth are also unwelcoming of Christians who do receive that truth. This applies to both individuals and churches. I realize that part of the motivation is a sense of being threatened. But there is a "circling of the wagons" mentality, a closing in on one's own community and walling oneself off from others which I believe is deeply unhealthy.

3. Although I would not charge it against every creationist, I believe it is very difficult to maintain that position without elevating the scripture to a status of divinity. When one must reject the testimony of the senses and of logic applied to observation, scripture and scripture alone (or more accurately--one's approved interpretation of scripture) becomes the only possible spiritual authority. The voice of the living God is not looked for nor heard except in the literally-interpreted words of scripture.

Instead of God being free to reveal himself to us, God is restricted to speaking through the words of scripture---and even then through a particular interpretation of these words.

The fundamental relationship of God's Word and the word of scripture is reversed. Instead of grounding one's belief in scripture in prior faith in God, one's belief in God is grounded in one's prior faith in scripture.

So I find creationism a theologically dangerous position out of step with historic Christian orthodoxy.

PS As a Canadian, I do not need to deal with the political ramifications of a strong creationist presence in the community or the question of how to teach evolution in public schools. If I were American, the attempt to water down and undermine the teaching of sound science in public schools would be another reason to be adamantly opposed to the creationist/ID viewpoint.

 

[mhess13]

I am sooooooooooo strongly opposed to any theory of origins besides YEC because all others place death before sin. This undermines the gospel and takes away our greatest apologetic to the question, "why is there death and suffering in the world if God is good?"
I can explain to a non-believer that man and his SIN brought death pain and suffering into the world. Long ages and evolution have death as a part of God's original plan and creation. How can that be a good God?

 

[Vance]

Well, a viewpoint on origins can't be incorrect just because it removes one apologetic.

The real question is how the majority of Christians who DO believe in physical death from the beginning of creation still remain Christian? Are we all just ignoring that little detail?

No, physical death and suffering in this world are unrelated to the issue of redemption from sin. If God's redemptive gift was meant to be a redemption from physical death and suffering while on this earth, then all who accepted that gift would then be free from that death and suffering, but they are not. Is this because God's gift of redemption was not effective? Was it not sufficient? Of course not. To say that the pain and suffering and death we see in the world, being suffered by the redeemed and unredeemed in equal measure, is the result of our sin, is to also say that God's redemptive sacrifice was insufficient to prevent these calamities for the redeemed once they accepted the gift of salvation.

If we still experience death, pain and suffering, even after being washed in the sacrificial blood of the Lamb, and if we are assured that this gift was effective and sufficient for its purpose, then that purpose must something else *besides* freedom from death and suffering. And that something else is freedom from *Spiritual Death*, which is the loss of communion with God. It is this spiritual death which was suffered as a result of Man's sinful nature, and it is the regaining of Spiritual Life, communion with God, that is reinstated when we accept the atonement of God's sacrificial gift.

This is why when Adam was told that if he ate of the fruit (ie give in to his sinful nature), then he would surely die "on that day". He did not physically die on that day, so we know that it was not physical death that was at issue. He did die spiritually on that day, however, and lost his communion with God. We all have this same sinful nature and without the redemptive gift, we will remain out of communion, spiritually dead.

After all, everyone will have physical eternal life. The only question is whether that eternal physical life will be spent in spiritual life or spiritual death.

 

[herev]

Hello Mhess13:

I am sooooooooooo strongly opposed to any theory of origins besides YEC because all others place death before sin.

And yet, this too, is a matter of interpretation. I cannot see anywhere in the Bible that it is required that to believe physical death was not around before the fall. Our bodies were created to die, otherwise there would have been no need for the Tree of life to prevent death. The situation in the Garden was the exception, not the rule--of course, this is as I interpret it

.

This undermines the gospel and takes away our greatest apologetic to the question, "why is there death and suffering in the world if God is good?"

It doesn't change anything as I see it. Death and suffering (as a TE who believes in a literal Adam and Eve speaking here) were still against what God had in store for us if we had never experienced the fall.

Now others will argue from a different place as TE's, but since I DO believe in the literal Adam and Eve, my viewpoint is that God had prepared something special for them that was not what the rest of the world was like--hence the tree of life in the Garden. But after they used their free will to sin

, they were no longer excempt from death or suffering.

I can explain to a non-believer that man and his SIN brought death pain and suffering into the world.

Me, too, I just did!!

Long ages and evolution have death as a part of God's original plan and creation.

Yes, but for me, only outside the Garden.

How can that be a good God?

But, God is good whether we understand Him or not, whether we agree with Him or not, whether we like it or not. God is good, whether your interpretation is right or mine, or other TE's as they see it. We don't have to understand God or agree with God--to agree that scripturally, God IS good.

 

[bevets]

Unlike Herev, I do argue against their viewpoint since YEC'ism is a danger to the effective preaching of the true message of Christ. In short, I believe that more souls have been lost due to the YEC teaching ABOUT evolution and and an ancient earth than have ever been lost because of the scientific theory itself. Rather than retype why I think this is, I will just paste in this argument from elsewhere:

"James, the brother of Jesus, in addressing the council at Jerusalem declared, "It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God (Acts 15:19)." The apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans said, "Make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way (Romans 14:13)." Don Stoner challenges us in the following pages to remove a great impediment to the furtherance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This digression [into YEC'ism] has effectively inoculated a large segment of secular society against taking seriously the call to faith in Christ. It also has divided the Christian community into hostile camps that focus more energy on attacking each other than on reaching nonbelievers.

I believe that the great threat to Christian Faith is the preaching of YEC'ism: that evolution and an old earth are wholly inconsistent with Holy Scripture. When children are indoctrinated with this idea, then come to see the evidence supporting the age of the earth, for example, they begin to doubt the Scripture. When the adult who accepts evolution is presented with Christianity as something which rejects evolution, he is unlikely to believe.

Youve been very busy: 23 posts so far today. I am disappointed that you have not found the time to respond to the same discussion you started on this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9087227#post9087227

 

[pressingon]

*BUMP*

Anyone else care to share their views on the original question?

I'd like some more input from others on both sides of the issue before I share my viewpoint. I really believe there's something we can all learn from this....

 

[seebs]

I don't really argue against the opposing view; just against many of the arguments for it which I believe have serious problems. I know some YECs whose viewpoints and arguments, while I am not persuaded of them or by them, are certainly consistent and reasonable. I don't argue with them.

I do defend evolutionary theory against false claims or bad arguments, because I do not believe that bad arguments should be used. Truth does not come from falsehood.

 

[Remus]

"Why do you argue so adamantly against the opposing viewpoint?"

I wouldn't say that I adamantly argue, so my post may not be of interest. Personally, I try to refrain from making dogmattic assertions and attempt to keep an open mind, though it is hard to do sometimes. Generally, the reason that I post is at times I feel the need to justify my position. Perhaps a shortcoming of mine.

 

[TwinCrier]

I agree with what seebs posted, except that I am YEC. I don't argue as much as defend. I know in my heart the Genesis account is true, and I feel I have a responsibility to defend God's word. I myself would undoubtedly still believe in evolution had someone not defended this theory against me, so I'm just passing it on. Someone changed my mind, maybe I can change another mind as well.

 

[Vance]

My reason for posting is here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t885971

 

[adam149]

Why do we do it? I can speak only for myself. I am compelled from without to speak out against evolution and creative process (as opposed to creative acts such as Genesis 1) with a burning fire that does not come of myself. I cannot explain it any other way, but Jeremiah says it perfectly:

His word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot (Jer. 20:9).

I also do it because of the clear apologetic mandate we have recieved from God:

"Casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. (2. Cor 10:5)"

"In whom [God] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Col. 2:3)"

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear. (1 Pet. 3:15)"

"Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? (1 Cor. 1:20)"

" ‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the Lord. (Isa. 1:18)"

" ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’

Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.’ (Matt. 22:36-38)"

"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Rom. 12:2)"

"… earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 1:3)"

"The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

"Jesus replied, ‘You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. (Matt. 22:29)"

I find that all origins positions other than the historical YECism of the church from its formation do violence to the Scriptures. I also find that all of the Apostles and even Jesus Himself support the position of YEC and take it as literal history. Hence my belief in it. Jesus was and is the Christ, the Messiah, the Savior, Judge, Ruler, and Creator of the universe, and I would far prefer taking His word over the words of fallen, fallible, errent human beings, even fellow Christians. I take Sola Scriptura.

As I’ve thought about our differences as TE’s and YEC’s today, a question occurred to me that I’d like to see individuals from both sides answer:

"Why do you argue so adamantly against the opposing viewpoint?"

(Please don't simply respond with, "They're wrong." Put some thought into your answer, open up a bit, and share your motives. I'm not looking for a discourse on the fallacies of the opposing viewpoint!)

As I thought about this, it occurred to me that both sides may answer this the same way. I’ll withhold posting what I'd hope to see individuals post (expect is probably too optimistic a wording choice) until I see what you all come up with, and chime in later. My hope is that we’ll find commonality in what drives us, despite our differences in what we see as truth regarding the nature of God's creation.

God bless....

Note regarding responses:
Please realize that responses to this question will likely be highly personal in nature (as we're talking about motives here in why we debate). I can't expect debate not to occur in this thread (as much as I'd like that to be the case), so when you respond to something another writes, please be sensitive to the fact that you may be attacking an individual's deeply held convictions. I guess what I'm saying is this... if you want to debate this stuff, above all, be Christ-like!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I find that all origins positions other than the historical YECism of the church from its formation do violence to the Scriptures. I also find that all of the Apostles and even Jesus Himself support the position of YEC and take it as literal history. Hence my belief in it. Jesus was and is the Christ, the Messiah, the Savior, Judge, Ruler, and Creator of the universe, and I would far prefer taking His word over the words of fallen, fallible, errent human beings, even fellow Christians. I take Sola Scriptura.

we do not treat deafness with spit wetted clay.
we do not believe that the sun travels around a fixed earth.
we do not believe that the stars are fixed in a solid crystal firmament.
we do not believe that mental illness is demon possession.
we do not believe that slavery is ordinated of God and that human beings ought to own one another.

but our forefathers in the church did. and they supported it just as strongly as you do YEC from the Scriptures.

(in fact my current studies are on the southern american defense of slavery and the hermeneutic behind it, a fascinating study)


on the other hand.
in the current theology of the Church i can find:
those who baptise children and those who say doing so is anti-Scriptural.
those who dunk and those who plunge.

at least 3 major interpretations of the lord's supper.
major divisions of arminian and reformed.

it seems to me that the evidence is that Scripture is mangled by someone, at least one of these various sides, but supported intensely as you support YECism.

so from appearances alone it seems that the infallible inerrant Bible is just as mangled and mis-interpreted by sinful mankind as is the book of nature.

the bottom line is that the Church can not agree on topics much closer to the theme of Scripture-salvation. What makes you think that YEC is any different than: heliocentricism, slavery,baptism, lord's supper, ordo salutis etc etc. where believing committed Scripture Christians differ. Why must your opponents in this debate be so demonized?

.....