Removing the Stumbling Block

[Vance]

I posted this over in the mixed forum, but I realize that it is really more a message for Christians.

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.

 

[herev]

Won't make a lot of people happy, but I agree that this can be true, but people are always stumbling over something--usually at their own choice--IMHO

 

[Micaiah]

There is a verse in Scripture about satan pretending to be an angel of light. Those prepared to accept God's truth are not fooled by attempts to undermine His word.

Of course, the hostility would cease if people would trust God rather that man. Who does this Hugh Ross think he is anyway? So he has a PHD. I'd much rather place my trust in a divinely inspired account of Creation.

 

[Vance]

Are you saying Hugh Ross is Satan? Wow.

No, you would rather put your trust in your interpretation of what the Divinely inspired account of Creation is telling us. I also put my trust in the Divinely inspired Scripture, including Genesis 1 and 2, I just interpret it differently than you do. Oddly, so do a majority of Christians.

Maybe we are all Satan. Maybe YEC's are the only true Christians.

 

[herev]

There is a verse in Scripture about satan pretending to be an angel of light.

Hi, Micaiah
I am familiar with the verse of the angel of light, problem is when two Christians are arguing different sides to the same coin, who's the angel of light? It may be dangerous to make such an accusation against a fellow brother of Christ.

Those prepared to accept God's truth are not fooled by attempts to undermine His word.

Agreed, you and I both accept God's truth and I would presume neither of us are attempting to undrmine His word, are we?

Of course, the hostility would cease if people would trust God rather that man.

But this again is the false assumption and the false accusation against TE's--I DO trust God over man--promise, I do! My interpretatin of Scripture has no effect on, nor is it drawn from--any trust other than my trust in God.

I'd much rather place my trust in a divinely inspired account of Creation.

Me, too, but I find a divinely inpspired account of creation in creation itself. So, see how much we have in common--we're not the antichrists afterall!

yea!!!

 

[Vance]

Herev, I have found that nothing annoys a YEC more than to be reminded that Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians who Love Jesus with all the hearts and who are as "unworldly" as themselves, can still believe in an old earth and evolution.

 

[Underdog77]

"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.

I can see where this is leading right away. The purpose of this paragraph and the whole text we see here in general is saying one word: compromise. It begins by trying to make us feel guilty for believing in YEC. It tries to say that we are a stumbling block for our brothers either in the missions or in their own faith.

My only answer is that Christians must make a stand at one point. There is a difference between being a stumbling block and taking a stand on the Word of God. There has been a continual compromisment (if thats a word?) of our values, of our doctrine, and of our power. Even within the past 50 years we see a decline in how the world looks at us and how we affect the world. Lot's of our value in missions is because of compromise.

I could go on for the next hour talking about the compromises of Christianity but I'll stop here by saying this: Although much of Christianity's (as whole...including all true denominations) values have been compromised, although lots of our tenacity and outspokeness has been lost, we must not let our guideline, the Holy Bible be compromised. Once we let that happen we begin to lose our credibility and evolution/TE/and OEC are compromising the Bible.

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 dude is still trying to paint YECs as malcontent fanatics. YECs do focus on the accuracy of the Bible. That in fact is our foundation. We believe the Bible is accurate when it says God created the universe in 6 literal days. You can argue time period, context, whatever; the Bible still clearly says the God created the universe in 6 literal days.

This digression [into YEC'ism] has effectively inoculated a large segment of secular society against taking seriously the call to faith in Christ.

Here comes a wee bit of mud-slinging. YECism is now a place of digression even though it has been around longer than evolution or TE or OEC. I state that anything other than YEC is a digression (which I would also call a compromise).

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.

Again, those mischievious YECs, they're ruining everything, bla bla bla. I ask the same question, would you all (TEs/OECs/and what not) prefer that we compromise the Bible in order to appeal to others? If you answer yes, do you believe the early saints would have done it? Or the patriarchs? Or Moses or any of the people from the Bible or people who experienced God in a visible way?

No. Compromise was not in their vocabulary. They would not do it because they knew God in a different way than we do. They knew Him in a way that would empower them to take a stand on His word.

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.

While his base ideas are good, his conclusions are unsound. Yes science is man's attempt to interpret the facts of nature and so on so forth.

Now if there is a compromise it is due to man's interpretation but he (the author) says it is man's interpretation of the Bible that is wrong. After looking how YECs interpret the creation account I say it is man's interpretation of science that is wrong. Although not right now, I could describe why YECs interpret the creation account correctly. But assuming for now that YECs do, we come to the conclusion that the conflict does not arise from the Bible but from science.

This actually makes more sense and come to the question whether we will let the Bible dictate science or science dictate the Bible? Which will you compromise?

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."

More calls to compromise (that word is getting a little worn out, isn't it?).

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.

Here of course is where we disagree and answer the big question two different ways. Will you compromise science for the Bible or compromise the Bible for science? I choose the former and you choose the latter.

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.

Nothing we men do can really alter the choice for faith fro another individual. If they are called by God they will come. But even if what you say has some merit, why do I always here about adults, even scientists, switching from evolution/TE/OEC to YEC?

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

Have you ever read "Nightmare Academy" by Frank Perreti? (I think that's how his name is spelled) If not, read it. It's short but fun and it will answer your "either/or" idea.

 

[Underdog77]

Are you saying Hugh Ross is Satan?

Not that I'm saying he is, but don't you believe that Satan sets up some dummys sometimes? We need to question everyone who offends the Scriptures.

 

[herev]

Herev, I have found that nothing annoys a YEC more than to be reminded that Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians who Love Jesus with all the hearts and who are as "unworldly" as themselves, can still believe in an old earth and evolution.

I can see that--I would say it confuses them more than it annoys them--they can't seem to grasp that others can see it differently and not be hell-bound. I frequently say these things, not to annoy, but to hopefully bring harmony and remind others that judging fellow Christians' faith or salvation on a point like this is hurtful and, I believe, disrespectful.

We are one big family and making such judgments hurts our witness. We should be united in Christ--though we disagree, we can still discuss, learn from each other, pray for each other and agree to disagree--then we can be the most effective as the Body of Chsist--IMHO.

 

[Underdog77]

Herev, I have found that nothing annoys a YEC more than to be reminded that Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians who Love Jesus with all the hearts and who are as "unworldly" as themselves, can still believe in an old earth and evolution.

Its annoying but the Bible says that even some believers will be led astray. They won't lose their salvation but may become blind or otherwise.

 

[herev]

I can see where this is leading right away. The purpose of this paragraph and the whole text we see here in general is saying one word: compromise. It begins by trying to make us feel guilty for believing in YEC. It tries to say that we are a stumbling block for our brothers either in the missions or in their own faith.

Hello Underdog, as I rethought the article, I think you are right in some respects, hence I changed my previous post. It does seem to devalue Creationists, so I cannot agree with it entirely.

My only answer is that Christians must make a stand at one point.

Agreed, we probably disagree that this is the place to draw the line, though. We are Christian brothers and sisters on both sides of this one. To draw too harsh a line in the sand is to make judgement on fellow believers.

There is a difference between being a stumbling block and taking a stand on the Word of God.

True

There has been a continual compromisment (if thats a word?) of our values, of our doctrine, and of our power. Even within the past 50 years we see a decline in how the world looks at us and how we affect the world. Lot's of our value in missions is because of compromise.

I agree, but I don't think its fair to attribute it to TE thinking.

I could go on for the next hour talking about the compromises of Christianity but I'll stop here by saying this: Although much of Christianity's (as whole...including all true denominations) values have been compromised, although lots of our tenacity and outspokeness has been lost, we must not let our guideline, the Holy Bible be compromised. Once we let that happen we begin to lose our credibility and evolution/TE/and OEC are compromising the Bible.

For the most part, I agree, we are too full of compromising in our mainline denominations (one in which I am a pastor). But TE's do not compromise THE BIBLE, but only your interpretation. I assure you, I make no compromises when it comes to the Bible. I study it same as you, I dig into it, same as you, I believe it is the inspired word of God, same as you. I just interpret this part differently than you.

Here comes a wee bit of mud-slinging. YECism is now a place of digression even though it has been around longer than evolution or TE or OEC. I state that anything other than YEC is a digression (which I would also call a compromise).

While those specific names may or may not have been around longer, the literal interpretation of the creation accounts is a relatively young phenomenon.

I ask the same question, would you all (TEs/OECs/and what not) prefer that we compromise the Bible in order to appeal to others? If you answer yes, do you believe the early saints would have done it? Or the patriarchs? Or Moses or any of the people from the Bible or people who experienced God in a visible way?

No. Compromise was not in their vocabulary. They would not do it because they knew God in a different way than we do. They knew Him in a way that would empower them to take a stand on His word.

Number one, I would never ask you to change your beliefs one way or the other--and I would be disappointed if you chose to compromise your beliefs. But please, understand,
NUmber two, I do not have my beliefs to "appeal to others." Not evolutionists, not athiests, not scientists, and not you! They are my beliefs, just as creationism is a belief of yours.
Number three--again, let me stress, for me it is NO COMPROMISE for me to adhere to TE thinking.

Now if there is a compromise it is due to man's interpretation but he (the author) says it is man's interpretation of the Bible that is wrong. After looking how YECs interpret the creation account I say it is man's interpretation of science that is wrong. Although not right now, I could describe why YECs interpret the creation account correctly. But assuming for now that YECs do, we come to the conclusion that the conflict does not arise from the Bible but from science.

And we TE's would say there is no conflict

This actually makes more sense and come to the question whether we will let the Bible dictate science or science dictate the Bible? Which will you compromise?

Neither. My faith is secure. My belief and respect for the Bible are secure. My acceptance of TE thinking is secure--and I have no conflict with it at all.

Here of course is where we disagree and answer the big question two different ways. Will you compromise science for the Bible or compromise the Bible for science? I choose the former and you choose the latter.

Wrong, as I said, I choose neither. While I respect your opinions and accept you as you say that to accept what science says is for you a compromise, please give me the courtesy of accepting what I say when I tell you I am experiencing no compromise.

Nothing we men do can really alter the choice for faith fro another individual.

agreed.

But, we can agree to get along and stop insulting each other for the sake of Christ.

 

[Vance]

Underdog, do you realize what you are saying? That you are a true believer and the rest of us have been led astray. Is that not a little bit presumptious?

"Will you compromise science for the Bible or compromise the Bible for science? I choose the former and you choose the latter."

Again, you are making a presumption here, not to mention a false dichotomy. I am not compromising the Bible at all by believing in evolution. You just can't accept that someone can read the Bible and interpret it differently than you.

"But even if what you say has some merit, why do I always here about adults, even scientists, switching from evolution/TE/OEC to YEC?"

Maybe because you are only reading YEC sites. I hear even more instances of YEC's coming to realize that YEC'ism is simply wrong.

It is not a matter of compromise, it is a matter of placing false barriers to Faith that don't need to be there. What if the Church "stood firm" on the position of Geocentrism? What if all Christians were equally firm in their convictions and maintained solidarity on this front? How many souls would have been lost if all Christians uniformly held to the idea that the proper reading of Scripture is that the Sun revolves around the Earth and that any belief to the contrary was a compromise with "the World" and with evil science?

 

[herev]

Its annoying but the Bible says that even some believers will be led astray. They won't lose their salvation but may become blind or otherwise.

Hello again, young friend, problem is, making a statement like that in this environment in this circumstance is making some broad assumptions that you hold THE truth, while all who disagree are blind.
When discussing:
1. the creation of the world, for which there are no living witnesses save for God
and
2. the intended meaning of a manuscript for which there are no witnesses alive who knew the writers---
it would seem that humility would say, I acknowledge that it could be me who is wrong.

 

[Micaiah]

Blind guides of the blind. I wouldn't waste your time and energy Underdog77. Let them alone.

The sad thing is that if you tell a lie for long enough, you end up believing it.

2 Tim 3

13But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.

 

[herev]

Blind guides of the blind. I wouldn't waste your time and energy Underdog77. Let them alone.

The sad thing is that if you tell a lie for long enough, you end up believing it.

2 Tim 3

so much for trying to get everyone to come together

Just as your comment could be thought by either side, so could this biblical quote
Proverbs 23:9
Do not speak to a fool,
for he will scorn the wisdom of your words.
guess we could just throw things at each other?

 

[artybloke]

There is a verse in Scripture about satan pretending to be an angel of light.

*Cough* Kent Hovind *Cough*

Sorry, frog in the throat...

 

[Micaiah]

No fellowship possible between light and darkness.

 

[Micaiah]

*Cough* Kent Hovind *Cough*

Sorry, frog in the throat...

Actually it is in the Bible.

 

[artybloke]

What, there's a frog in the Bible? That's where it went...

 

[Micaiah]

LOL. Point taken.