Just one example, how many more out there?

[Vance]

Here is just one example from the Creation and Evolution forum of the potential danger of dogmatic YEC teaching:

"No offense but it is a little disturbing reading the creationist’s logic in this forum. It is really turning me off from even considering giving Christianity a chance."

At least he is asking out loud, so we can assure him that the message of Scripture is true, regardless of how God created. But how many more non-Christians are in the exact same situation, but just never ask? This is the very definition of a "stumbling-block".

 

[mhess13]

whatever, the Bible is either true or it isn't. I for one am not ashamed that believing the Bible causes me to stand against mainstream "science". Christ, his virgin birth, sinless life, miracles and resurrection are far more of a stumbling block than how God created the earth. The gospel (and it's absolutes) is an offense, period.
I'll stand by the word. It's either true and completely true, or it's not. There's no middle ground

 

[Vance]

Odd that I never have anyone raise issues with any of the miracles you mention when I am witnessing. It is comments like the one raised by this non-Christian I seem to run across with regularity.

 

[mhess13]

Odd that I never have anyone raise issues with any of the miracles you mention when I am witnessing. It is comments like the one raised by this non-Christian I seem to run across with regularity.

I've never had anyone get hung up over an institence upon believing in evolution. Jesus being the only way, why did God command women and children be killed in the OT, what happens to people that have never heard the gospel, how do we know the resurrection is true, I'm a good person a loving God would never deny me entrance to heaven, a loving god wouldn't create hell, etc. These are hang ups that I've come across. (and usually the hang ups are just excuses--the Lord is dealing with them and they are coming up with anything to fight it...)

Maybe the people you are talking to are just using that stuff you mentioned as an excuse. Giving your life to God demands a change in your lifestyle. Maybe they are using any excuse to hang on to their pet sins.

 

[bdfoster]

I think there are two big dangers of dogmatic YEC teaching. First is the one you brought up, Vance, driving the scientifically literate away from the gospel. The other IMO is the danger to YECs themselves. It seems to me that most, if not all YECs, put much faith in their narrow interpretation of scripture. Eventually they may become convinced of the evidence in favor of an old earth and/or evolution Their interpretation of scripture may be completely undermined, and their faith with it. How many YECs have linked belief in the creation account with belief in the ressurrection account? What will happen to these folks' faith if they abandon a what they now feel is belief in creation? Any particular interpretation of scripture is a very shaky foundation for faith.

 

[Vance]

Which is exactly the point of the other thread I started, using the hypothetical about finding out tomorrow that evolution is absolutely true . . . Dangerous indeed.

 

[SBG]

Paul says, if anyone preaches to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospels, let him be anathema.

source: Augustine "Contra litteras Petiliani"

Clement of Rome argued persuasively against an old earth, the earth spontaneous producing, and local flood. All on the basis of what the Scripture says. Clement of Rome was Paul's associated.

Do you care what Paul believed and taught given to him by God?

 

[Vance]

I don't see anywhere in Scripture where Paul taught a young earth. Beyond that, I have no assurance that ANY particular teaching of the early Church fathers is based on what any Apostle said. I do respect them and some of their approach to Scripture, but I would definitely not consider them in any way authoritative. Especially on matters of how the natural world works. It is unfair to them, or to ourselves, to guess what they would say now that we know what we know. While I think Augustine would almost assuredly be a TE, I really don't care one way or the other what he actually concluded. It is his approach to Scripture which is what is important, not his conclusions.

 

[SBG]

I don't see anywhere in Scripture where Paul taught a young earth. Beyond that, I have no assurance that ANY particular teaching of the early Church fathers is based on what any Apostle said. I do respect them and some of their approach to Scripture, but I would definitely not consider them in any way authoritative. Especially on matters of how the natural world works. It is unfair to them, or to ourselves, to guess what they would say now that we know what we know. While I think Augustine would almost assuredly be a TE, I really don't care one way or the other what he actually concluded. It is his approach to Scripture which is what is important, not his conclusions.

Acts 17. First, understand what the Greeks believed in this day and you will understand why Paul started as he did. Second, Clement of Rome was an associate of Paul. Clement of Rome states in his books about a young earth, global flood, creation, as the views of the Apostles.

If you wish to treat the Church Fathers as you have treated this UFO book, by not reading it and assuming what they say out of ignorance, then you have no solid position of understanding what the early Church Fathers believed and were taught by the Apostles.

I can see by this post here you do not care nor give an ear to what the early Church Fathers taught that was taught to them by the Apostles. This tells me for certain that you are NOT interested in good theology and you are NOT interested in sound doctrine.

Do you believe in the Trinity?

 

[Vance]

Oh, you are right, I don't think the early church leaders were infallible and I do NOT assume that anything they taught was what any apostle taught. It was not the early father's writings that God inspired to become part of the Canon. And why not? The canon was developed after many of them wrote, so why not include Ignatius, or Clement or any of the others in the Canon? God chose those who He wanted to be the basis for doctrine and the early fathers after Paul were not among them.

I am looking up at my bookshelf right now and I can count four books on the teachings of the early fathers and the early Church. I read what they have to say, but I don't use them as any greater source of doctrine than later Christian writers and thinkers. But more importantly, I look to Scripture. And there is nothing there about the age of the earth or the literal reading of Genesis.

 

[SBG]

Fact is, you think modern scientists who don't believe in God are more of an authority than the those the Apostles taught when concerning Genesis.

 

[Vance]

Fact is, you think modern scientists who don't believe in God are more of an authority than the those the Apostles taught when concerning Genesis.

First, I think modern scientist definitely ARE more of an authority of how the natural world works and how it worked in the past. On theological or doctrinal issues, I find scientists tend to not have much to say at all. As for the early fathers, I have no assurance at all that any of the early church leaders speak for the apostles on Genesis. They are not Scripture. The fact that even before we get out of Acts we see that even among the Apostles there is doctrinal wrangling, I have very little faith that those who followed the Apostles were infallible in their teachings on doctrine or exegesis.

As I have said, I would side with Billy Graham as soon as Clement or Ignatius or Tertullian.

 

[Scholar in training]

...How many of these threads do you make? I could've sworn that I've seen three or four by now.

 

[Vance]

This quote just came up yesterday or the day before, so I could not have made this post before that time.

 

[wrldstrman]

I myself belive that without God theres really no point in even existing..Even if you live over a hundred years and have a good life what was the point really..As time passes there would be no knowlege you ever existed.Even people that did great things in there time are eventually forgotton about..Once you know God you just know and you dont have to be convinced of things...The planets here,your here it was created some way..so there was a creation...I belive God created the earth and only God knows how long its been here..Your going to belive what you want to belive if you want to put your trust in your fellow man which makes mistakes thats up to you..I choose to put my faith in God and I take his word for things and dont waste my precious time try to prove anything he said wrong.I myself cant understand just by going outside and looking around at order of all things that everything wasnt put in perfect balance by God our creator...My advise would be read the bible and listen to Gods words and decide on your own.

 

[SBG]

Read the Bible and listen to God's Words, excellent point.

 

[Vance]

Read the Bible and listen to God's Words, excellent point.

I agree completely.

 

[SBG]

Then it shouldn't be too hard to understand when it says "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is."

 

[Vance]

Then it shouldn't be too hard to understand when it says "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is."

No, for me that isn't hard to understand, nor the rest of the Creation stories. To me, it seems dramatically clear that it is a figurative story about what happened. But, following Augustine's lead of being humble, and not cling dogmatically to a given reading of Genesis, I am willing to say that whichever way you want to read it, the basic and important truths are still the same.

 

[SBG]

You are very much dogmatic about evolution. I don't see how you think you aren't. BTW, that was Exodus 20:11. Do you think that is allegorical as well?