AiG's latest newsletter

[rmwilliamsll]

Q: Some Christian leaders claim that creation is just a secondary doctrine and that it’s not that important to the Christian message. What is AiG’s response?

A: AiG has heard these claims for years from Christians who react negatively to our insistence that we must believe in a literal Genesis—that God created in six literal days, just thousands of years ago.

AiG had a letter from the head of a large Christian organization in America. It claimed that creation was a secondary doctrine like the rapture, and it shouldn’t be the cause of division in the church.


Now think about this—what doctrine is the rapture foundational to? None to our knowledge. Yet the creation account in Genesis 1–11 is foundational to every single biblical doctrine of theology. If you don’t accept a literal Genesis, then you have no foundation for sin, marriage, clothing, the gospel—in fact, ultimately all doctrines are dependant on Genesis being literal history.

No, creation isn’t a secondary doctrine—it’s foundational to our faith. This is one instance where we do need to divide over a vital issue!

in essentials--unity
in nonessentials---liberty
in all things---love


if AiG says the church must divide over the issue of 6 24hr day creation week within the last 10K years then it is A SALVATION ISSUE (at least to AiG), despite the YECist protestations we hear here.

That coupled with their campaign to confront what they term "compromising Pastors" who teach OEC, shows that YECism does hold this to be a critical salvation issue.

Despite the fact that OEC in general and most conservative TE hold to a literal historical Adam, which is the doctrine of federal headship where their list of crucial theological issues centers.

so which is it?
divide the church (again) over YECism or not?
i've seen the issue in my own denomination PCA and how the Westminster Presbytery makes it an ordination issue despite the clear teaching of the Creation Report. Militant YECists are not going to allow even OEC in their churches, it appears.

.....

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Editing out a bad day...

 

[PaladinValer]

No surprise to me...

 

[BlackSaab52]

in essentials--unity

in nonessentials---liberty
in all things---love


if AiG says the church must divide over the issue of 6 24hr day creation week within the last 10K years then it is A SALVATION ISSUE (at least to AiG), despite the YECist protestations we hear here.

That coupled with their campaign to confront what they term "compromising Pastors" who teach OEC, shows that YECism does hold this to be a critical salvation issue.

Despite the fact that OEC in general and most conservative TE hold to a literal historical Adam, which is the doctrine of federal headship where their list of crucial theological issues centers.

so which is it?
divide the church (again) over YECism or not?
i've seen the issue in my own denomination PCA and how the Westminster Presbytery makes it an ordination issue despite the clear teaching of the Creation Report. Militant YECists are not going to allow even OEC in their churches, it appears.

.....

I can understand their want for division from TE's who don't believe that Adam and Eve actually existed, even though I probably wouldn't advocate this myself. But other than that how does believing in TE(with a literal A&E) or believing in OEC deny sin, marriage, clothing, and the gospel?

Just curious, rmwilliamsll, since I've been going to a PCA church just recentlyand am interested in becoming a member, is it necessary to be a YEC to be a member of the church, or does the C&E issue only pertain to ministers? Is there any information I can look at to understand how the PCA deals with this issue? Thanks.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I can understand their want for division from TE's who don't believe that Adam and Eve actually existed, even though I probably wouldn't advocate this myself. But other than that how does believing in TE(with a literal A&E) or believing in OEC deny sin, marriage, clothing, and the gospel?

Just curious, rmwilliamsll, since I've been going to a PCA church just recentlyand am interested in becoming a member, is it necessary to be a YEC to be a member of the church, or does the C&E issue only pertain to ministers? Is there any information I can look at to understand how the PCA deals with this issue? Thanks.

you can read more than you want to know at a sunday school class i taught on the history of american presbyterianism.
see: http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/hap2.html
the class on subscription.

to make a very long story, managable, the Westminster Confession is certainly YECist, period. The PCA and OPC both have creation reports (PCA at: http://www.pcanet.org/history/creation/report.html)
which essentially say that OEC with a literal historical Adam, or framework interpretation is acceptable for an elder, both ruling and teaching.
TE in any form is grounds for permanent baring from office.
there has been a trial on the issues in the OPC, see: http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/

the maxim for membership is "that the doors are as wide as Christ opens the doors of salvation" so that it is not an issue for members in PCA or OPC but is in a church like RPCNA where all members subscribe to the confession, not just officers/elders.

 

[shernren]

But when you have a political leaning and a hooked crowd of supporters, it's a lot easier to deal with the other side via outright demonizing rather than open discourse. I admit that is a oversimplification of the situation but to me it seems as if they're using the old military tactics used to train soldiers: you aren't shooting at fellow humans, you're shooting at *shudder! gasp!* The Enemyyyy!!!! ... with this sort of polemic it's easy to forget that TEs repent of sin and get married and wear clothes and preach the gospel (though not on Open Forum ). TEs can stand alongside YECs in church and sing the same song and eat the same bread and drink the same wine (or Ribena ) ... drive the same cars down the same roads whether the fossil fuel powering them is a few thousand or a few million years old.

Trying to fight atheists with "better science" is like trying to kill the Human Torch by burning him alive. "Science" and "rationality" is what atheists do. It's practically their job. What they lack is proper theology and philosophy and a true heart understanding of God and anybody who is serious about the "menace of evilution" should be working in that direction instead of trying to debunk a theory they can barely understand. (That, and countering the Zen-Buddhist ontology of quantum mechanics before it seeps into the public consciousness and sweeps God out altogether.)

 

[_Paladin_]

How could it be a salvation issue? our faith is build on Christ... not some wacky catastrophism theory.