New guy here

[FranciscanJ]

Hi there everybody, I am a one-time hardcore YEC that recently switched my perspective to Theistic evoluton.

I once wrote a creationist paper for my English 101 and even gave a "debunking" speech against evolution for my speech class. Even visited ICR for sources since its not too far away. I've argued for creation science (whenever it came up) while witnessing to people for about 10 years.

Years later I no longer cared much for the debate but then just a few months ago I tried to do battle in a forum posting war about evolution (I am new to this posting biz) and got pummelled to say the least.

Now I'm no scientist but I realized there where answers to all the terrible creationist arguments. Not only that, but I realized how feeble creation science is and how it has almost no credibility and few Phd's.

I began researching if any church fathers, early Christians, had different views of Genesis. I came up on an ASA article called "The Contemporary Relevance of Saint Augustine". It changed my life. That was this summer. I've been researching ever since.

But its kind of messing with my mind still. I was used to having all the answers. I was used to Creation Science being a big part of why I believe the bible. So, I'm still a Christian, but a somewhat confused one. But maybe I just need to realize I don't have all the answers and I never really did.

My girlfriend is a med student who became a Christian about 2 years ago. She always believed in evolution but never formulated any sort of theology. Its funny because it really annoyed me then that she thought evolution was true, and I wonder if it was an act of God that caused my transition for her sake. I can see now how creation science would only have weakened her faith.

So anyway, I don't know any other theistic evolutionists so I'm going to have some questions for you guys because I'm still in a confused, transitory phase. But two things I know for sure: I am still a Christian and I'll never embrace creation science again. I hope to learn much here. Thanks for listening.

 

[FranciscanJ]

1. Do churches that typically embrace theistic evolution show patterns of decline? I know the Anglican Church is declining (though I doubt this is because of theistic evolution, I'm just asking what you guys think since my brain gets teased by such questions)
What about Orthodox? Catholic? Liberal Protestant? Why do the YEC churches seem to show such tremendous growth?

2. Does theistic evolution lead one to take other scriptures more lightly, perhaps more liberally?

3. How does this line up with innerrancy doctrine?
Should one think outside the box on this?

4. Did all church fathers take Noah's Ark literally?
Should we care? Does it matter?

5. I know creation science is the worst reason to believe the bible, so what are better reasons? I believe because of the miracles I've seen and the miracles done in my life and the lives of others. But this is a bit experiential I know.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts

 

[shernren]

Hi there, I'm glad that you came across this place. Don't feel shy to ask anything. I understand where you come from - I had much the same journey of faith myself, right down to "seeing the light" in an online forum (here at CF), so I can understand how unsettling this is. Even now I occasionally wonder if atheism really isn't the next logical step. But I cope through God's grace.

Anyway, to answer your questions:

1. YECism normally comes with the package of modern Christian fads - Prayer of Jabez, Left Behind, Purpose Driven Life, AiG fits right in. I don't want to speculate against my fellow Christian brethren, and I'm sure that it's perfectly possible to be a great Christian even while believing in all these things. But I'd say that the masses follow along with these things because these things tickle us precisely where it itches - we want to be told that we have a purpose and that Christianity is some sort of ten-step Fulfill Your Purpose On Earth (or your money back!) programme. YECism fits in because it sets up a view that "I'm not just a monkey who got lucky!", hence it can be very attractive to those who seek purpose.

It takes a bit more thinking to understand what purpose life could have in an evolutionary framework - but not impossible.

2&3. It depends. (TEs can be notoriously difficult to pin down ) The biggest paradigm change that comes from accepting TEism is often that scientific evidence (and "hard scientific evidence" at that) is admissible in interpreting the Bible, as well as contextual evidence.

Generally, this means that one becomes more permissive of the idea that the Bible might not be scientifically impeccable - that in terms of physical descriptions it was limited to what little the Jews knew of the physical world at that time. For example, the Jews did not know electricity, and hence lightning (in Job, say) was never described as an electrostatic discharge.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the Bible as a whole becomes "non-historical". For example, we have good historical evidence that Jesus actually existed, and that He died and rose again. It's just that this level of "proof" is no longer vital for the entire Bible. It sometimes helps to realize that the Word of God is ultimately Jesus - the Bible reveals who God is mainly by pointing to Jesus.

But essentially, God was giving the Bible to a desert tribe who barely knew how to smelt metal, and had no idea about atoms, gravity, or electricity. I'd say it's not surprising that God told them about Himself without correcting their science, even occasionally living with their scientific errors - as long as they got a good idea of who God Himself was, wrong though their science was. When you look at it that way, the idea that the Bible teaches us science isn't important any more.

4. I have no idea about the church fathers' position. But there are various positions you can take. The most literal position is that there was a literal flood, but a local one, and it wiped out all the land life in that local region. The most liberal position is that early humans always faced floods (for staying on flood plains), and one of those huge floods got exaggerated and then stuck into the Bible as a pretty good description of what God's like when He gets mad. You'll probably find yourself somewhere in between.

What matters is that sin is real, God's wrath is real, and that one day God will return and fully show His real wrath against our real sin.

5. Well experiential is good, but any other religion can make you feel good - if Christ did not really rise from the dead then we are all fools.
On the other hand, it doesn't make any difference if Christ really rose from the dead, unless I can access some of the power here and now.

Experiential is good, the whole reason it's difficult to (properly) convert people over the 'Net is because it's difficult to share lives over the 'Net. But you're right that it has to be something more. That something more is the historicity of Jesus Himself, of the Gospels, of Acts of the Apostles. The veracity of Christianity essentially boils down to the veracity of Christ, and there at least history is on our side, I should think.

 

[FranciscanJ]

Thanks Shernren, your answers a lot of sense and I appreciate your honesty. I'll definately have more questions as they come.

 

[jereth]

Hi FranciscanJ,

I, like you, was once a "hardcore YEC" who switched to Theistic Evolution. In fact, I think quite a few of the TEs here were once YECs in the past.

Please don't feel alarmed about being in a "confused, transitory phase". We are all on a road of learning and discovery, and none of us have all the answers. What matters is that Jesus Christ is Lord -- and nothing can change that!

1. Do churches that typically embrace theistic evolution show patterns of decline? I know the Anglican Church is declining (though I doubt this is because of theistic evolution, I'm just asking what you guys think since my brain gets teased by such questions)
What about Orthodox? Catholic? Liberal Protestant? Why do the YEC churches seem to show such tremendous growth?

An interesting question. IMHO, the decline of the established churches is caused by a complex range of factors, which are probably mainly sociological and cultural in nature. Whole theses have been written on the topic. You can't simplistically blame it on any one thing, like theistic evolution. I think that AiG/ICR are simply engaged in a fear campaign when they claim that TEism is sinking the church -- it is a claim, nothing more.

Also, I would question whether all growing churches are YEC. I think that what makes churches grow is the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In Australia, where I live, very few churches are YEC and yet many churches are growing. I think you'll find that the same applies on the continents of Asia and Africa, where churches are growing exponentially yet the whole origins debate is largely a non-issue.

2. Does theistic evolution lead one to take other scriptures more lightly, perhaps more liberally?

My answer would be "no". It is true that Christians who tend to take Scripture more liberally also tend to agree with theistic evolution, but the causal link doesn't work in reverse. There are many TEs who are very theologically conservative, myself included.

Now, it is definitely true that TEs approach the Scriptures with a different hermeneutic (= interpretive) method compared to YECs. We generally attempt to read the text with reference to its historical and cultural context. However...

3. How does this line up with innerrancy doctrine?
Should one think outside the box on this?

...many if not most TEs still believe that the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant in the matters which they address. In other words, we believe that Scripture tells us the inerrant truth about God, Jesus and salvation. Of course, Scripture never claims to be inerrant about non-theological matters, such as science. It would be wrong to read the Scriptures and expect to receive inerrant scientific data.

4. Did all church fathers take Noah's Ark literally?
Should we care? Does it matter?

I don't know the answer to this. It probably doesn't matter.

5. I know creation science is the worst reason to believe the bible, so what are better reasons? I believe because of the miracles I've seen and the miracles done in my life and the lives of others. But this is a bit experiential I know.

In my opinion, the best reason to believe the Bible is because they testify to Jesus Christ (see Luke 24:44-47).

Bear in mind, creation science is only about 40 years old -- yet people have believed in the Scriptures for 2000 years!

 

[Willtor]

Welcome to CF.

1. Do churches that typically embrace theistic evolution show patterns of decline? I know the Anglican Church is declining (though I doubt this is because of theistic evolution, I'm just asking what you guys think since my brain gets teased by such questions)
What about Orthodox? Catholic? Liberal Protestant? Why do the YEC churches seem to show such tremendous growth?

I haven't looked into Church attendance growth and decline, so I don't know very much about such things. I live in the U.S., and I suppose that it is a truism that as being explicitly non-Christian becomes more socially acceptable, Church attendance overall will decline. Presumably, most people who think differently have historically attended liberal Churches as they felt more comfortable. Not that there is anything particularly liberal about TEism, per se, but it seems unlikely that there would be very many liberal YECs.

I'll bet one could draw up some statistics to show a correlation between TEism and Church decline, then, if this is the overall trend in the country, but I think it would be very difficult to show cause and effect.

As for Church growth (at least in the U.S.), I don't know anything about that.

2. Does theistic evolution lead one to take other scriptures more lightly, perhaps more liberally?

Not to my knowledge. Again, there may be a correlation, but I'm fairly confident that it would be impossible to show that TEism has caused such a thing. I don't think any of the TE's here in OT, whether liberal or conservative (or none of the above), take the Scriptures lightly.

3. How does this line up with innerrancy doctrine?
Should one think outside the box on this?

I know of two ways to consider inerrancy: 1. inerrant with respect to what is gotten out of a sentence or passage by the reader, and 2. inerrant with respect to what was put into it by its author. This goes for any written document.

Some of us (most of us?) TEs in OT take the Scriptures as inerrant in the second sense. Thus, there is some perpetual vigilance in trying to understand what is intended. I don't know where the edges of the box are, or whether this sort of thinking is inside or out.

4. Did all church fathers take Noah's Ark literally?
Should we care? Does it matter?

Certainly, everybody took it figuratively, but determining who took it literally, as well, is much more difficult. By way of anthropology, my guess is that everybody thought it was literal, as most cultures have some sort of flood account.

Should we care? Does it matter? Personally, I have some passing interest in investigating the flood from a factual perspective. But I don't see the theological value in requiring that it is an historical event, in a make-or-break sense. Certainly, it isn't on the same plane as the Resurrection. If the Resurrection isn't historical, Christianity "misplaces" the mechanism of salvation and (somewhat redundantly) the foundation of the reality of grace in the world. The same can hardly be said about an historical flood.

5. I know creation science is the worst reason to believe the bible, so what are better reasons? I believe because of the miracles I've seen and the miracles done in my life and the lives of others. But this is a bit experiential I know.

I posted a thread about why TEs believe. As I allude, I suspect most TEs, here, are convinced by the saving nature of the gospel as they experience it. There aren't many responses, though, so I don't really know what other people think.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts

Looking forward to hearing yours.

 

[FranciscanJ]

Even now I occasionally wonder if atheism really isn't the next logical step. But I cope through God's grace.

Yes, this is a place I found myself at sometimes. It can be a real mind-blowing experience to change doctrine on something you've always argued for. But seeing myself as an atheist was for one a truly revolting, meaningless existence (almost anything is better than to me). Atheist- what a disgusting waste of a life.

But doubt wasn't really anything new. I became an agnostic/atheist during my teenage years for social benefits and to free myself of guilt as a result of girls, partying, & sex before marriage. It was liberating all right, and completely psychological choice complete with social benefits and no accountability (now there's a thread: Psychological and social reasons for why people become atheists--there are many).

Of course doubt is nothing new to the believer. 90% sure by reason and reach further through faith. Something like that. Really, if I had as much faith as a mustard seed...

The real issue was that I had to come to the realization that evolution vs. theism is a false dichotomy that YEC doctrine had hammered into my brain. Evolution is no more against theism than my natural birth, growth, and fathering children is anti-theism. Such natural processes really should be a non-issue.

For example, the Jews did not know electricity, and hence lightning (in Job, say) was never described as an electrostatic discharge.

This is interesting too. I always knew reading Job that the science could not be taken to the letter. I took the limit of their science into account and never considered it to disprove anything about what we know regarding electricity or anything else. Same with where the sun stood still for Joshua. As a kid reading this I was awed by the miracle and never thought it had anything to do with the sun orbiting, but rather what they saw that day at the battle. All I know is what was written that they saw, so it was and is a non-issue to me.

Experiential is good, the whole reason it's difficult to (properly) convert people over the 'Net is because it's difficult to share lives over the 'Net.

Yeah, it seems that the net is a great place to learn and share with Christians as well as make our faith reasonable to outsiders (not to mention help our brothers & sisters be more reasonable). But as far as converts over the net--yeah like zero chance on the apologetic forum (debates are like boxing matches--play nice then punch your opponent in the face when they start singing kumbaya), not impossible when that rare real seeker comes along though I think.

 

[FranciscanJ]

Hi FranciscanJ,

I, like you, was once a "hardcore YEC" who switched to Theistic Evolution. In fact, I think quite a few of the TEs here were once YECs in the past.

Please don't feel alarmed about being in a "confused, transitory phase". We are all on a road of learning and discovery, and none of us have all the answers. What matters is that Jesus Christ is Lord -- and nothing can change that!

Hi Jareth,
I like this idea. When it comes down to it, it seems that I always was aware of this. A preacher once told me, "I'm too old to have all the answers now". I like this. The younger we are, the more we have a tendency to think we know everything. But the more we learn, grow, and experience, the more we realize how little we know.

And in the end of my attainment of so much elite "intellectual caviar" may I continue to realize that there really is just one thing that matters: Jesus Christ is Lord! Yesterday, today, and forever.

Also, I would question whether all growing churches are YEC. I think that what makes churches grow is the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In Australia, where I live, very few churches are YEC and yet many churches are growing. I think you'll find that the same applies on the continents of Asia and Africa, where churches are growing exponentially yet the whole origins debate is largely a non-issue.

Yes, a non-issue as it should be. I often feel that if I had never embraced YEC I wonder just how obsessed with this subject I would be. Its as if I feel the need to obsess over it to unlearn YEC ways of thinking.

My answer would be "no". It is true that Christians who tend to take Scripture more liberally also tend to agree with theistic evolution, but the causal link doesn't work in reverse. There are many TEs who are very theologically conservative, myself included.

This is good news. I consider myself theologically conservative, but I'm still learning where I stand now as a result of leaving YEC. I think conservative makes sense, though I'm open to listening to other interpretations of God's Word from people with differing views.

Bear in mind, creation science is only about 40 years old -- yet people have believed in the Scriptures for 2000 years!

Ha! If I had only known. This reminds me, the reason I left YEC is that I was first shown the evidence of evolution (though my sad stubbornness remained) followed by the fact that church fathers interpreted Genesis differently than YEC in many ways and according to the science of their day.
This was even more convincing than scientific evidence for me.

I'm guessing that a lot of YEC's are like I was and will be more likely to leave YEC if they are shown that our interpretations of scripture aren't a novel thing that only happened as a result of modern science (though it enhances our understanding) but actually originate from a tradition of great Christian thinkers that predate Darwin. In other words, we're not sell-outs. This is very important to a YEC mindset.

Thanks info Jareth, you guys are helping me round out my thinking. Much appreciated.

Iron sharpens Iron

 

[jereth]

And in the end of my attainment of so much elite "intellectual caviar" may I continue to realize that there really is just one thing that matters: Jesus Christ is Lord! Yesterday, today, and forever.

Amen!

Yes, a non-issue as it should be. I often feel that if I had never embraced YEC I wonder just how obsessed with this subject I would be. Its as if I feel the need to obsess over it to unlearn YEC ways of thinking.

I think I am similar. One of the reasons origins theology so interests me is that I was once such a strong believer in YECism.

I don't think origins can ever be a non-issue in the scientific and industrialised West. Especially where the church has so often declared its teaching as somehow opposed to or incompatible with science. Even more so in the US, where creation-evolution-ID has become a politically significant issue. But it is instructive to see how in the developing world, the church is far less concerned with the origins debate.

This is good news. I consider myself theologically conservative, but I'm still learning where I stand now as a result of leaving YEC. I think conservative makes sense, though I'm open to listening to other interpretations of God's Word from people with differing views.

Perhaps it may be helpful if I define exactly what "theologically conservative" means to me. I call myself conservative because I believe in such concepts as the substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, a literal second coming, the virgin birth, and the infallibility of Scripture. This is as opposed to theological liberals who deny some or all of these things.

Being a theistic evolutionist has very little bearing on any of these central Christian tenets, although sadly many YECs keep claiming that it does. Again, it is little more than a smear campaign with no real substance.

Ha! If I had only known. This reminds me, the reason I left YEC is that I was first shown the evidence of evolution (though my sad stubbornness remained) followed by the fact that church fathers interpreted Genesis differently than YEC in many ways and according to the science of their day.
This was even more convincing than scientific evidence for me.

Same goes for me -- I "converted" from YEC to OEC and then to TE because of theological and exegetical reasons, not for scientific reasons. The key factor was my close study of the text of Genesis 1-3 and realising that the YEC interpretation is flawed in many ways. This then led to a realisation of many other theological errors made by YECism.

In other words, we're not sell-outs. This is very important to a YEC mindset.

Sadly, groups like AiG will continue to propogate the mistruth that OECs and TEs are sell-outs, and this will keep many YECs from genuinely investigating the issues for themselves.

Thanks info Jareth, you guys are helping me round out my thinking. Much appreciated.

No problems, mate! I've also benefitted immensely from the discussions here. So many people have so much to offer!

 

[Melethiel]

2. Does theistic evolution lead one to take other scriptures more lightly, perhaps more liberally?

While some people might, the two don't have to go together. I accept TE, and am extremely theologically conservative.

1. Do churches that typically embrace theistic evolution show patterns of decline? I know the Anglican Church is declining (though I doubt this is because of theistic evolution, I'm just asking what you guys think since my brain gets teased by such questions)
What about Orthodox? Catholic? Liberal Protestant? Why do the YEC churches seem to show such tremendous growth?

Because YEC churches often focus specifically on "Church Growth", and pander to the "seekers". This usually results in making church entertaining, which is of course going to draw a crowd. (Note this is a generalization, not all YEC churches are like this.)

 

[gluadys]

1. Do churches that typically embrace theistic evolution show patterns of decline? I know the Anglican Church is declining (though I doubt this is because of theistic evolution, I'm just asking what you guys think since my brain gets teased by such questions)
What about Orthodox? Catholic? Liberal Protestant? Why do the YEC churches seem to show such tremendous growth?

Actually, there are very few denominations that have explicitly embraced theistic evolution. Most "liberal churches" simply don't put the origins issue on their agenda. At least that is the case in Canada, and I believe most of the world. The situation in the US has pushed some denominations into making explicit statements of support.

I put "liberal churches" in quotes because I really think it is a misnomer. In my experience most churches are either conservative or cater to a wide spectrum of theologies. I have never come across a church that is solidly liberal and I probably have more acquaintance with "liberal churches" than most people here because I have always belonged to the churches that are called so by conservatives.

What you really find in "liberal churches" is a range of theological positions with theologians most likely to be liberal and the average churchgoer most likely to be conservative with clergy falling somewhere in between. Many members of my church are YEC, by far the most have never given origins much thought at all, and a few, like myself are TE. The denomination has no official stand on origins. And that is pretty typical not only for Presbyterians but also United, Lutheran, Anglican and Convention ("liberal") Baptists as well as a number of smaller denominations not specifically supporting an anti-evolutionary position.

2. Does theistic evolution lead one to take other scriptures more lightly, perhaps more liberally?

Emphatically no! Not more lightly. Somewhat less literally --which in your view may be equivalent to more liberally-- on matters of science. One of the best ways I have heard a liberal approach to scripture described is that we are to take scripture "seriously, not literally". In fact taking scripture seriously may mean not taking it literally.

Of course, there are degrees. Some aspects of scripture are historical and meant to be taken literally. But if you have been reading Augustine and the early church fathers, you will be aware that they often considered the literal meaning to be a superficial and unimportant meaning (even when correct) compared to the symbolical and allegorical meanings.

My impression of serious liberal thinkers is that they do indeed take scripture very seriously, really digging to determine both the original intent of the author and the application of the passage to the present.


I should add that a TE position does not imply a liberal theology. While most liberal Christians would be TE, the reverse is not necessarily the case. I have often been struck by how conservative my fellow TEs on this forum are. And no doubt some of them have probably been shocked by my liberalism.

3. How does this line up with innerrancy doctrine?
Should one think outside the box on this?

Again, this is more a liberal/conservative difference than a TE/creationist difference. Most non-creationist churches have never adopted the stance of inerrancy (which is quite recent--barely a century old). Most Protestant churches however, do uphold the Reformation doctrine of infallibility, which as enunciated by the Reformers, referred to the infallibility of scripture in revealing matters of salvation and morals i.e. God, Christ, atonement, eternal life and how we are to live with one another in peace. Infallibility implies that we can be sure of the great teachings of scripture without necessarily holding that it is accurate in a modern scientific sense in every detail.

4. Did all church fathers take Noah's Ark literally?
Should we care? Does it matter?

Quite likely they did, since the science which cast doubt on it did not emerge until the 16th to 19th centuries. However, what was important to them was not the literal event, but its spiritual and moral teaching. We see this even in the NT where Paul applies the story of the flood to baptism and Peter to the final judgment. The spiritual and moral teaching is not dented by science. So in that sense, no, it doesn't matter, no more than it did to the church fathers.

5. I know creation science is the worst reason to believe the bible, so what are better reasons? I believe because of the miracles I've seen and the miracles done in my life and the lives of others. But this is a bit experiential I know.

In the long run, I believe we all have to rely eventually on experience. I believe because I have experienced Christ in my life and have seen his work in the lives of others. I believe the bible because it connects me to Christ. The written word must always be read in the light of the Living Word who is Christ.

 

[FranciscanJ]

Thank you all for answering these questions that have been teasing my brain. Your answers blow me away and deepen my understanding on scripture and how to approach it.

With a better understanding of scripture regarding origins, last night I returned to my bible study (full of YEC) and got really full of the Holy Spirit. We have such a good time (even a violin & drum box). We're a bunch chill San Diegans & musicians mostly. It is truly a blessing. Its been attracting the neighborhood kids (rough lives) and they made a seperate study for them.

Unfortunately, since my group is probably all YEC I am leaving forever. Ha ha, Nah, those guys are great to fellowship with and I'll probably be a beneficial influence, just as they are for me. I'll stick around.

Anyway, just a long way of saying the confusion of switching positions is being replaced by strong faith along with a better understanding of scripture, and you guys help tremendously. Don't ever think your efforts are futile, they haven't been to me.

 

[FranciscanJ]

Hi everybody,

I'll be fasting from forums and theological research for this semester.
I'm going to focus on the 6 classes at sdsu, hit the gym, and be spiritually fulfilled just from the church, scriptures, & prayer.

I'll be back eventually, I just need to focus on my studies. I love the research and fellowship that I've gained from this forum, but its time to take a break and focus my mind on school.

Thank you all for sharing your wisdom and kicking butt on the origins theology.

For those of you who will be around in about 5-6 months, see you guys then.

Peace,

-Jon

 

[rmwilliamsll]

sdsu

i graduated from Madison High in Clairemont and from UCSD then went to Westminister Seminary in Escondido. sometimes i miss San Diego, if this isn't the same initials for another school *grin*
best to you on your classes and studies.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

The Orthodox Church doesn't have a dogmatic opinion on creation/evolution since it has no bearing on salvation. An Orthodox person can believe either way without being in conflict with Church teaching.