The impact of YEC'ism

[Vance]

Yes, Gluadys, I agree, we should all be VERY dogmatic about Scripture itself. We should all be very dogmatic about its being true and infallible, even when we can't understand it all. We should be dogmatic about the Gospel message that we all agree from Scripture.

 

[jasperbound]

When you start off with "it's clear" then I know we will disagree. For example, your church may teach that Song of Solomon is an allegory for Christ and the Church. Other Christians believe it should be read literally, as a sensual (sometimes erotic) love poem.

To me, it is very clear and plain that the Creation accounts were not meant to be read as literal history. In fact, I have a hard time seeing how any reads them literally. But I understand that we are all just fallible humans, so would never say that it must be so. I think my interpretation is right, as well as being plain to me, and I have evidence to back it up, but in the end, the point is that we should not be dogmatic. Presenting "seems to me" as "must be" is where the pride, hubris, and even worse, comes in.

And that is all I truly object to: dogmatic presentations. Saying that if a literal reading of Genesis is not true, then you can't trust Scripture. How can anyone NOT see the danger in that.

While it is good to debate the issues in all these areas, ultimately, the point is that we should not be doing that.

Remember what Augustine says about it, as quoted in my signature line. Remember what the Westminster Confession says about it: that much of Scripture is unclear, other than what is necessary for salvation.

Poems aren't necessarily literal accounts of history. A poem is not, by definition, literal. I'd be surprised if anybody actually interpreted the Song of Solomon to be a literal account of history. Sure, some will interpret it as a love poem, while others will interpret it as an allegory, but both will agree that it's not a literal account of history.

Of course, perhaps the right interpretation is that the entire Bible, including Christ's sacrifice, is figurative. We are not infallible, so we cannot judge their interpretation as invalid.

And if we shouldn't be debating these issues, then why create this thread in the first place? Why did TEs respond by criticizing the beliefs of YECs? One even implied that American Christians are insane! Is this how Christians are supposed to be? I wouldn't know, because as a YEC, I have such weak faith and I'm such a lower Christian than TEs.

 

[Vance]

Poems aren't necessarily literal accounts of history. A poem is not, by definition, literal. I'd be surprised if anybody actually interpreted the Song of Solomon to be a literal account of history. Sure, some will interpret it as a love poem, while others will interpret it as an allegory, but both will agree that it's not a literal account of history.

A poem can be describing literal events or not, even if it is not always using literal language. The debate with SoS is whether it is telling about literal events (the erotic love story interpretation) or whether it is meant to be read as an allegory for Christ and the Church. There is no clear indication that it should be read as an allegory, so why would ANYONE read it that way?

With the Creation accounts, we have what I believe to be accounts of literal events. The question is which literary genre is being used to tell us about those events. You would agree that God had a wide choice of literary styles to use, correct? One is strict literal historical narrative. Another is a figurative account, using symbology and typology, like the other writings we find from ancient cultures. In other words, God could have used the literary style common to the period in which it was written, or another style which would not be used for another 1,000 years (but which we value much more today). Since it strongly resembles the literary styles common to the period, why would we assume that He was using a style that would not be common for a very long time after it was first told and written?

Of course, perhaps the right interpretation is that the entire Bible, including Christ's sacrifice, is figurative. We are not infallible, so we cannot judge their interpretation as invalid.

Because that would be resorting to relativism and would be a cop-out to boot. God expects us to study to show ourselves approved, to seek wisdom and knowledge to better understand His message to us. How is it that you feel confident about your divergent readings of so many Scriptural styles, but then balk when it comes to reading Genesis differently? Because the others are "clear"? Also, what you will find is that we end up agreeing on almost every essential truth from the creation accounts. One of the tests is whether the reading would contradict an essential for salvation is Christian doctrine. Nothing in the figurative view of Genesis contradicts this (which is proven by the fact that so many Christians who have this view still believe wholeheartedly in the same salvation message, so obviously, our reading is not damaging that at all).

And if we shouldn't be debating these issues, then why create this thread in the first place? Why did TEs respond by criticizing the beliefs of YECs? One even implied that American Christians are insane! Is this how Christians are supposed to be? I wouldn't know, because as a YEC, I have such weak faith and I'm such a lower Christian than TEs.

The reason for this thread is to show YEC's the damage that a dogmatic presentation of Young Earth'ism can do. And to remind non-Christians that they need not abandon the idea of Christianity due to hearing the YEC message. I am not sure whether it is too late for those that responded, but I count on many lurkers reading these threads. I have had many PM's asking me more about TE'ism, saying that they were either about ready to abandon their faith due to the origins issue, but were just now hearing the TE alternative. And from non-Christians who had not heard that many Christians did not hold Young Earth views, and wanting to know more.

That is reason enough for me to continue with this message of non-dogmatism.

 

[SBG]

I disagree that TEs want YECs to not be dogmatic about scripture. Of course we should be dogmatic about scripture. What we should not be dogmatic about is our fallible human interpretations of scripture.

Is it not your interpretation of the Bible that says Jesus Christ rose from the dead? Is it not your interpretation of the Bible that says the Blood of Christ was shed for the Salvation of mankind?

So, if it is your interpretation, then you are dogmatic about Jesus Christ being the Son of God, God Himself, that He died and rose again in three days and that He sits at the right hand of the Father.

TEs are the ones who are very good at reminding YECs all readings of Scripture is interpreted when read. So, when you read about Jesus Christ and who He claimed to be, it is your interpretation. And you are dogmatic about your interpretation. It would be expected as a Christian.

So your argument here is not valid because we should be dogmatic about our interpretation of Scripture. If you disgree, then it seems you would be saying that we can all be correct whether we believe Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father or not. For that too is our interpretation of Scripture that we should be dogmatic about.

Dogmatism is foreign to science, because it is never based on belief. Science is based on evidence--objective evidence--which, in principle, anyone can check out for themselves. Practically, of course, the lay person cannot always do this. I can't go out and check up on what physicists say about particle physics because I can't go out an pick up a particle accerelerator for personal use. But I can be sure that one physicist will be checking out the work of other physicists and so have some confidence in the conclusions shared by the majority of the scientific community.

I disagree with the fact the science is never based on belief. Scientific discoveries can start with a belief. I have yet to see any evidence for black matter, it is simply a belief that is put forth to see if it is accurate.

I too can read the Bible and have confidence that when it says six days, it means six days.

In point of fact, that is how most of us do theology too. We almost never study scripture without a theology we have been taught influencing how we read it. We leave it to the professional theologians to actually debate the theological issues, just as we leave it to the professional scientists to do the actual scientific work.

I very much agree that we all start with a presupposition when reading the Bible. I do think that this presupposition can change over time.

There are different presuppositions that people start with. Some may be literal until it appears figurative, others may be the opposite, and some may have the presupposition that the Bible must conform to science, such as the Genesis accout of creation.

For some Genesis is a myth because of what scientists say about evolution. Others say it is a myth because they start with the presupposition that all ancient writings tell their history as a myth.

So it behoves us to treat both alike, as works in progress, whose conclusions may one day change, just as both theology and science have changed in the past.

There are certain things about creation that make it hard to be able to change. The consistent teaching of everything being created in six days. I am in agreeance with Remus that this could - out of context - be taken as six long ages or six actual 24 hour days. This is because the word yom can mean both. But within context, we have 'evening and morning - the first day.' This sets up the reader to understand what definition of yom is being used.

We then have the six day creation within the Ten Commandments. These are the actual Words God wrote. When comes to Words directly from God that the author recorded as they were written, I have no choice but to believe God exactly as He says. So, when God says 'six days I created everything,' I feel I have no choice but to believe that in six days God created everything. That is my interpretation of what He says. I have not changed a thing about what He said and believe it as He said.

I am very much aware we are in disagreeance with this. That you feel your interpretation is superior to mine. I am ok with this. Personally, I have no choice but to believe it, exactly how it is written, and that is my interpretation.

 

[vossler]

The reason for this thread is to show YEC's the damage that a dogmatic presentation of Young Earth'ism can do. And to remind non-Christians that they need not abandon the idea of Christianity due to hearing the YEC message.

I believe TEs have a very pragmatic outlook. They take what the world says is right and conform their beliefs and the Word of God around it, continually adjusting and fine tuning their beliefs in order to comply with or not offend people. This way they can justify their beliefs without having to take a firm stand on them. All it takes to verify this is to look at the conversations that take place in the C&E forum, TEs are seen as people who commiserate with non-believers. There doesn't appear to be much of a line as to where one is the and the other isn't. I think if one looks at the history of the church, specifically Paul, you will find that he was incredibly dogmatic. TEs, IMO, like to tell people you can have your cake and eat it too. Certainly not a very dogmatic approach and in the end, I believe, not a productive one either.

1 Corinthians 9:21 states: "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe."

It is Scripture and the Holy Spirit that convicts people. All the "scientific evidence" in the world won't be enough to bring people to Christ. God's Word and the Holy Spirit are all we have and need. Everything else is foolishness. I believe God calls us to be dogmatic when it comes to Scripture and not to accept statements such as "Scripture is true either way, and none of it is a salvation issue, and should not be a stumbling block to anyone."

 

[SBG]

The reason for this thread is to show YEC's the damage that a dogmatic presentation of Young Earth'ism can do. And to remind non-Christians that they need not abandon the idea of Christianity due to hearing the YEC message. I am not sure whether it is too late for those that responded, but I count on many lurkers reading these threads. I have had many PM's asking me more about TE'ism, saying that they were either about ready to abandon their faith due to the origins issue, but were just now hearing the TE alternative. And from non-Christians who had not heard that many Christians did not hold Young Earth views, and wanting to know more.

So people are going to abandon their faith in Jesus Christ due to the origins issue?

If it was me, I wouldn't be focusing my attention on origins but rather on Jesus Christ and why they would leave Him because of origins. It would make me think that something is amiss with their relationship with Jesus, not with origins.

 

[Delta One]

Vance,

Your own logic can be used against you. AiG are very upfront and honest about what type of feedback they recieve - both positive and negative (you should check out the feedback link from their home page). Those people whom answered your question have their own heavily dogmatic and biased beliefs and their own agenda to see creation (and Christianity in general) destroyed. Does it really surprise you to read their responses to your question? If you wanted a more honest poll, you'd do it over a wider range of people with varying levels of belief, such as asking on a breakfast show. In Australia, a little bit over half of those who responded to Sunrise's poll said that they believed evolutionism while the rest said that they were for creation.

I am giving you real word examples from those people who have had their lives changed and turned around (or their faith strengthened if they were Christians) just because they had the basis for their unbelief (evolution) challenged and shattered. Paul uses this same tactic of 'challenging a person's belief about their origin to set the correct foundation for which he could build the Gospel message upon' in Acts that brang several people to the LORD! There is no difference to what Paul did then and what AiG and the creation message is doing today.

Regardless, I have been out in the real world, witnessing on college campuses and I can assure you that the dogmatic YEC teaching will have a LOT to answer for when we get to Heaven. It makes me ill to think of the lost souls.


I think you'll be very surprised when you hear what God says (since it's pretty clear in Exodus 20:11 that He created everything in six days). Those that you asked have already rejected God and their hearts are cold to His message - that is not because of the creation message, but their sinful human nature. I can assure you that if you go to an AiG seminar, you will be very surprised at what they say and how many people's belief system is challenged. Have you ever been challenged to answer the question: 'Why do we need a Saviour?'. What did you say in response?

The only reason ANYONE would lose faith over evolution is due to someone convincing them that it was contrary to Scripture.


That is simply because they realise that there is then no basis (or foundation) for the saving message of our LORD and Saviour Jesus Christ! Jesus' Earthly life was made neccessary because of Adam's sin and for no other reason! This isn't a hard concept to understand.

 

[Delta One]

rmwilliamsll,

YECism is not truth, it is a gross misreading of God's book of nature. it is fundamentally anti-intellectual and in the long run bad theology.
To those who honestly seek the truth, OEC is a stable Christian position, YEC is not. Creationism is an evangelistic tool to bring people to a particular interpretation of Gen1, based on a faulty hermeneutic. Certainly it is a tool for evangelism into fundamentalism which is as much a modern social and political phenomena as it is a theological one.

To have billions of years, one has to ignore parts of the Bible. Take Exodus 20:11, it says that God made the heavens and the Earth, the sea and all that in them and He rested on the seventh day - this can only be taken one way. One has to ignore this if one is to believe in billions of years.

One also has to ignore, maybe reject is a better way of putting it, the fact that man and the animals were originally created to be vegetarian and not meat eaters!

One also has to blame God for the suffering and death that we see in the world - who wants to spend all eternity with a sadistic ogre?

One has reject that God made man from the dust, and as a direct result they should also reject when God says that man will return to the dust from which he was created - if God never created us from dust then how can we return from which we never came from? [Do we 'devolve' and go back through the evolutionary process until we reach the pondscum 'reponsible' for starting life? ]

What did sin do to the world? Paul tells us that the whole creation is travailing in birth bangs. Isaiah tells us that the whole creation is wearing out like a garment. Both of these (including the need for a restoration of all things) people tell us that there is something serious wrong with the world today! But evolutionary theory claims that the whole universe has always been like this, suffering and death has always been so long as life has existed, that everything has always been running down and wearing out. That is NOT what these two people and verses claim. There is only a need for a restoration of all things if there is currently something wrong with this creation - but evolution puts forward that there is nothing wrong.

The Bible tells us that sin is the direct cause of everything that we see wrong with the world today. Before Adam's sin, nothing died and man and the animals were vegetarians. Adam and Eve were not running down as we do today because God was upholding his entire creation, like He did the Israelities when they were wondering through the desert for 40 years (only a lot more). BUT, Adam and Eve rebelled against God and God, not wanting man to be separated from Him forever, cursed His creation and death (spirtual death (just refers to not being able to communicate with God), physical; the death of the soul - man is a triune being made in the Image of a triune God, there are three parts to man - the physical body, a spirit and when both of these are mixed he became a living soul) and suffering started to happen. The whole creation started to fall apart (hence Isaiah's expression and Paul's statement) and we started to fall apart.

It really stuns me how TEs say that they still believe the Bible when they have to reject half of it (including the basis for Jesus' Earthly life) just to 'accomodate' for evolutionism! I just can't quite comprehend why you claim that your reading is the 'true reading' when you have to reject half of the Bible, not to mention the the ethical issues and theological issues that arise out of this. The doctrine of marriage is in, and depends on, a literal reading of Genesis; Christ died on a cross because of sin and death and the necessary shedding of blood for the remission of sins (whose origin and basis is in the book of Genesis); why we wear clothes in also based ina literal reading of Genesis; why mankind is in rebellion against God is also based on a literal reading of Genesis! Basically, if you destroy Genesis, which one must if they are to believe in evolution, you have essentially annihilated the basis and origin as well as meaning of the entire Christian doctrine and belief!

How you can claim that a literal reading of Genesis is not 'truth' while believing a religious belief from outside the Bible that destroys the very foundations that the whole Gospel message is based on is beyond me and I'd really, really like to see you try and justify your religious view by using the Bible.When it comes down to it, the only reason why Christians reject Genesis is because they foolishly believe that 'science' has disproven it somehow. This shows their ignorance of science and the nature of the evidence more than anything else. In otherwords, they have put 'science' so-called above the Bible (which is supposed the infallible Inspired Word of God).

 

[TheBear]

Is it not your interpretation of the Bible that says Jesus Christ rose from the dead? Is it not your interpretation of the Bible that says the Blood of Christ was shed for the Salvation of mankind?

So, if it is your interpretation, then you are dogmatic about Jesus Christ being the Son of God, God Himself, that He died and rose again in three days and that He sits at the right hand of the Father.

Yet, some Christians believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation, other Christians don't. Some Christians believe OSAS, other Christians don't. There are Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Evangelicals, Lutherans, Orthodox, and a whole slew of different Christian denominations. All having some doctrinal disagreement with the others, all using the same Bible.

What you've basically stated here is that everyone's beliefs, in all teachings and doctrines of scripture, has to be in lock-step with yours, on all Biblical teachings.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

To have billions of years, one has to ignore parts of the Bible. Take Exodus 20:11, it says that God made the heavens and the Earth, the sea and all that in them and He rested on the seventh day - this can only be taken one way. One has to ignore this if one is to believe in billions of years.

doesn't the fact that God has no need for rest, the fact that the 7th day in Gen 1 is still continuing, that the pattern is a human one, etc etc all point to the fact that this is an anthropomorphism? do you actually believe God rested for 24 hrs. what about providence, lest God stop upholding the universe the elements themselves cease to exist.

One also has to ignore, maybe reject is a better way of putting it, the fact that man and the animals were originally created to be vegetarian and not meat eaters!

this is not true and has reach the frequency of a PRATT here.

- but evolution puts forward that there is nothing wrong.

wrong, evil are moral catagories, sciences says NOTHING about morality, about values, about good and evil. it is descriptive never prescriptive in these realms. that is the naturalist fallacy at work, overtime.

It really stuns me how TEs say that they still believe the Bible when they have to reject half of it (including the basis for Jesus' Earthly life) just to 'accomodate' for evolutionism!

bull, i think that the framework interpretation is how to approach Gen1, i think adam was a historical man, how is this rejecting 1/2 of the Scriptures? i deny that God is teaching us historical scientific order in the days of creation, i think that they are meant to be seen as 24 hr periods. where does this lead to

when you have to reject half of the Bible, not to mention the the ethical issues and theological issues that arise out of this.

????

why we wear clothes in also based ina literal reading of Genesis; why mankind is in rebellion against God is also based on a literal reading of Genesis! Basically, if you destroy Genesis, which one must if they are to believe in evolution, you have essentially annihilated the basis and origin as well as meaning of the entire Christian doctrine and belief!

not in Gen 1 which is where YECists get all there young earth principles. i think gen2-5 are historical and happened 6-8K years ago, i am a providential evolutionist as well. you are simply unaware of the diversity of opinion on the issues and paint everyone with the same wide brush.

How you can claim that a literal reading of Genesis is not 'truth' while believing a religious belief from outside the Bible that destroys the very foundations that the whole Gospel message is based on is beyond me and I'd really, really like to see you try and justify your religious view by using the Bible.

the age of the earth is not a religious issue it is a scientific one.
specifically what religious belief from outside the scriptures are you refering to?

 

[SBG]

Yet, some Christians believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation, other Christians don't. Some Christians believe OSAS, other Christians don't. There are Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Evangelicals, Lutherans, Orthodox, and a whole slew of different Christian denominations. All having some doctrinal disagreement with the others, all using the same Bible.

What you've basically stated here is that everyone's beliefs, in all teachings and doctrines of scripture, has to be in lock-step with yours, on all Biblical teachings.

Hi TheBear!

I think you have misunderstood what I said. Gluadys said:

"What we should not be dogmatic about is our fallible human interpretations of scripture."

Everyone is aware that whatever you choose to believe about what is written in the Bible is an interpretation, even if you believe exactly what is said in the way it is written. Example : God created everything in six days; so I believe God created everything in six days. That is still an interpretation.

Now, look to what Gluadys said, that we should not be dogmatic about our interpretation of the Bible. It is also our interpretation of the Bible that says Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

Since that too is also an interpretation and Gluadys said we should not be dogmatic about our interpretation, one would conclude that Gluadys believes that we should not be dogmatic about Jesus rising from the dead.

I am convinced that this is not what she means, so that is why I said what I did. I believe she would be dogmatic about Jesus rising from the dead. So, here statement is flawed, unless you believe everyone can interpret the whole Bible anyway the please and still be correct. IF so, that would mean that everyone who denies Christ will also be saved by Christ. So there is no need to evangelize because all will be saved regardless to how they believe.

As I said, I don't believe this is Gluadys position, even though her statement says just that.

Now, I never said that everyone has to interpret the Bible as I do. I did not even hint at that in my statement. But I would hope that you and others being a Christian would interpret the passages about Jesus Christ in the Bible that says He did rise from the dead, simply as that, that He did rise from the dead.

So I guess, in a way you are right. I would expect that all Christians recognize Jesus Christ as the Son of God, God Himself who died on the cross, rose from the dead three days later and now sits at the right hand of the Father.

And if you take issue with me because I expect that from all Christians, then you leave me speechless.

 

[TheBear]

I would expect that all Christians recognize Jesus Christ as the Son of God, God Himself who died on the cross, rose from the dead three days later and now sits at the right hand of the Father.

What you're doing then, by inference, is including a specific interpretation of God's creation process, with the message of the Gospel and salvation. If you're going to include this, what other teachings are to be lumped in with core Christian beliefs? What about water baptism? What about speaking in tongues? What about OSAS?

And if you take issue with me because I expect that from all Christians, then you leave me speechless.

I suspect that your own expectations of Christians, involves agreeing wholeheartedly, with just about everything you believe, and not just limited to this short-list example you used. Of course, I could be wrong. But in this case, I'd love to be wrong.

 

[SBG]

What you're doing then, by inference, is including a specific interpretation of God's creation process, with the message of the Gospel and salvation.

No, what I was doing was commenting on the fact that Gluadys said we should not be dogmatic about our interpretation of Scripture.

Scripture to me is the Bible as a whole. Paul was rather dogmatic about Jesus Christ dying and resurrecting. Jesus was rather dogmatic about Him being the only way to Salvation. I think I can follow their lead and be dogmatic about those teachings as well.

I never said anything about creation. Maybe I should have so that you wouldn't have been lead into confusion. I think it is possible to have different interpretations of Genesis. I do think it is wrong to allow your interpretation of Genesis say something against what is actually written. An example would be to say that God created in billions/millions of years, when God said He created in six days.

If you're going to include this, what other teachings are to be lumped in with core Christian beliefs? What about water baptism? What about speaking in tongues? What about OSAS?

Why this automatic assumption without asking me a thing? We have never even discussed anything prior to this before and you have already made assumptions about me without taking any time to know what I believe. It would be nice if all of us here could stop this.

What would I include into the core Christian beliefs? I would follow Paul's teachings, everyone of them as the core Christian belief. Paul references Genesis 1-3 often. I believe Paul set the standard for what we need to teach.

Paul speaks specifically on speaking in tongues, so I would follow what he teaches. I would also follow his teachings on water baptism.

I am sure you have more specific questions on these, so please elaborate, here or in another thread and I would be happy to discuss them with you.

I suspect that your own expectations of Christians, involves agreeing wholeheartedly, with just about everything you believe, and not just limited to this short-list example you used. Of course, I could be wrong. But in this case, I'd love to be wrong.

Sigh... I would expect that all Christians believe in Jesus Christ and who He is and what He has done. I think it is rather presumptuous to assume that I expect everyone to agree wholeheartedly with every thing I believe. That is completely false and rather offending.

 

[Scholar in training]

Faith is supposed to be belief without evidence, not belief in spite of evidence.

Not quite; that's blind faith (the kind that, incidentally, turns off people from coming to Christianity). Abraham laughed when God told him that he would have a son, and, to his amazement, I'm sure, he later did. But he didn't question God when he was told to sacrifice Isaac because he knew by that point that God would provide. What was he doing? Basing his opinion off of past experiences. Tell me, was his belief because of past evidences wrong?

 

[gluadys]

Is it not your interpretation of the Bible that says Jesus Christ rose from the dead? Is it not your interpretation of the Bible that says the Blood of Christ was shed for the Salvation of mankind?

So, if it is your interpretation, then you are dogmatic about Jesus Christ being the Son of God, God Himself, that He died and rose again in three days and that He sits at the right hand of the Father.

TEs are the ones who are very good at reminding YECs all readings of Scripture is interpreted when read. So, when you read about Jesus Christ and who He claimed to be, it is your interpretation. And you are dogmatic about your interpretation. It would be expected as a Christian.

Is there any controversy among Christians over what the bible says about the resurrestion, the atonement, the aascension of Christ? You and I can be dogmatic about these teachings because denying them would take us outside the bounds of Christianity altogether. John Polkinghorne speaks of these basics (as summarized in the Nicene Creed) as the theological equivalent of a scientific theory. This is what we, as the Church of Jesus Christ, hold to be essential. Because on these matters we all share the same consensus on interpretation, we can be dogmatic.

But where there is controversy, whether it is over evolution or baptism predestination, then we are theologically in the same boat as scientists who have not been able to agree on a theory, but are struggling with several different hypotheses, as in the case of abiogenesis or gravity. In this case we cannot be dogmatic about an interpretation which does not have a Christian consensus behind it, any more than a scientist can be dogmatic about a preferred version of abiogenesis when there is no scientific consensus on the question.

I disagree with the fact the science is never based on belief. Scientific discoveries can start with a belief. I have yet to see any evidence for black matter, it is simply a belief that is put forth to see if it is accurate.

There is a difference between a scientist having confidence in her theory and having that theory accepted by the scientific community. Wegener believed in the soundness of his continental plate theory long before there was a scientific consensus that he was right. So while a scientific discovery may begin as a belief, it only becomes an accepted theory when the evidence is there to support it in a convincing way without needing to rely on faith.

I've seen evidence for black matter. We used to heat our house with coal, and that is black matter. You intended, I expect, to refer to dark matter. The evidence for dark matter is its measured gravitational impact. The Law of Gravity would be violated if dark matter were not taken into account.

I too can read the Bible and have confidence that when it says six days, it means six days.

I quite agree. It means six days. I just don't think they were days in any calendar.

We then have the six day creation within the Ten Commandments.

Of course we do. The same writer wrote the Exodus version of the Ten Commandments and the 1st chapter of Genesis. As far as I know the only other writer to refer to them is the author of Deuteronomy who was likely the last of the writers of the Torah and so was familiar with both Genesis and Exodus and probably took the idea from there.

The six days does not really have a lot of presence in scripture. What you do find again and again are the references to Sabbath. That is why it makes sense that these writers linked creation and exodus to the Sabbath: as a basis for keeping the sabbath holy. The primary concept is the Sabbath. The use of a six-day framework for creation is to support the sabbath. This was probably far more important to the writer than an accurate chronology.

These are the actual Words God wrote.

I reject this entirely. God inspired scripture; humans wrote it. Inspiration is not dictation, so the words of the bible are the words of the writers, not of God.

This, of course, is an entirely different issue than the bible being in some sense the Word of God, a concept I do agree with, as long as it does not usurp the primary place of Christ who is the only eternal Word of God.

When comes to Words directly from God that the author recorded as they were written, I have no choice but to believe God exactly as He says.

Again, inspiration is not dictation, so the words did not come from God but from the inspired imagination of the human writer. They are, of course, agreeable to the Word of God (which is always singular, never plural) or we would not consider them inspired. But it misrepresents the case to say the words are God's words. The bible is the Word of God, not the words of God.

I am very much aware we are in disagreeance with this. That you feel your interpretation is superior to mine. I am ok with this. Personally, I have no choice but to believe it, exactly how it is written, and that is my interpretation.

No, I don't think my interpretation is superior to yours. If we were dealing solely with scripture, as if anything outside it did not exist, there would be ample reason to go with either interpretation. But we and the bible do not exist in a vacuum. We live in God's world, and God's world has something to say on the matter too. All the dateable evidence we have tells us the process by which heaven and earth came into being was much longer than six days and much longer ago than a few thousand years. Since I reject the notion that faith requires believing against the evidence, I cannot regard an interpretation of the scripture that necessitates this.

 

[TheBear]

No, what I was doing was commenting on the fact that Gluadys said we should not be dogmatic about our interpretation of Scripture.

Scripture to me is the Bible as a whole. Paul was rather dogmatic about Jesus Christ dying and resurrecting. Jesus was rather dogmatic about Him being the only way to Salvation. I think I can follow their lead and be dogmatic about those teachings as well.

I never said anything about creation. Maybe I should have so that you wouldn't have been lead into confusion. I think it is possible to have different interpretations of Genesis. I do think it is wrong to allow your interpretation of Genesis say something against what is actually written. An example would be to say that God created in billions/millions of years, when God said He created in six days.



Why this automatic assumption without asking me a thing? We have never even discussed anything prior to this before and you have already made assumptions about me without taking any time to know what I believe. It would be nice if all of us here could stop this.

What would I include into the core Christian beliefs? I would follow Paul's teachings, everyone of them as the core Christian belief. Paul references Genesis 1-3 often. I believe Paul set the standard for what we need to teach.

Paul speaks specifically on speaking in tongues, so I would follow what he teaches. I would also follow his teachings on water baptism.

I am sure you have more specific questions on these, so please elaborate, here or in another thread and I would be happy to discuss them with you.



Sigh... I would expect that all Christians believe in Jesus Christ and who He is and what He has done. I think it is rather presumptuous to assume that I expect everyone to agree wholeheartedly with every thing I believe. That is completely false and rather offending.

We'll start fresh then.

How exactly does the creation process tie into slavation? Or does it?

 

[shernren]

I believe TEs have a very pragmatic outlook. They take what the world says is right and conform their beliefs and the Word of God around it, continually adjusting and fine tuning their beliefs in order to comply with or not offend people. This way they can justify their beliefs without having to take a firm stand on them.

Now it's ironic that in my books it's the creation science movement (not YECism - there's a difference) that is the pragmatic accommodation of science. Why do I say that? Well, just look at ministries like AiG and ICR. Admittedly their beliefs for a young earth come first and foremost from Scriptural justifications, right? So why don't they just ignore modern evidence? Why don't they just stick their fingers in their ears and go "Lalala, all you heathen scientists are dead wrong!"? After all, they're supposed to practice Christian faith, right?

Because if they did so, they would have nothing left to say - more precisely, all they had to say (i.e theological arguments) would have nobody to listen to them. So that's why they fumble around with outdated figures and misquoted celebrities trying to make it sound like science agrees with them. But why should they care about science agreeing with them? If AiG dares to say that all contrary evidence is invalid why don't they be consistent and say all science is invalid? Because, they know they won't be convincing anyone.

I think if one looks at the history of the church, specifically Paul, you will find that he was incredibly dogmatic. TEs, IMO, like to tell people you can have your cake and eat it too. Certainly not a very dogmatic approach and in the end, I believe, not a productive one either.

Actually, it's the creation science people who want to have their cake (young earth belief) and eat it too (scientific evidence). Why don't they just say "Screw science, the earth is young!"? After all this fits in perfectly with:

1 Corinthians 9:21 states: "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe."

Or maybe it's a little too embarrassing for them to outright preach folly?

As for Paul being dogmatic, I think you would be surprised to hear this summary of his ministry in Ephesus that lasted nearly two years...

35The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: "Men of Ephesus, doesn't all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven? 36Therefore, since these facts are undeniable, you ought to be quiet and not do anything rash. 37You have brought these men here, though they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess.

Paul was neither sacrilegious nor blasphemous towards the goddess Artemis throughout all his years of ministry! I have no idea how that is possible - and yet, like you YECs like to say, it's what the passage says "at face value". I think that his approach was not to focus on what was wrong with the goddess Artemis but to focus on what was right in Our Lord Jesus. Did he avoid confrontation with this erotic religion? Did he support what little value it had? We don't know, but we can see that Paul was able to preach without being accused of being disrespectful or doing injustice to current paradigms while he tried to bring new ones to the people.

It is Scripture and the Holy Spirit that convicts people. All the "scientific evidence" in the world won't be enough to bring people to Christ. God's Word and the Holy Spirit are all we have and need.

Then what do all those testimonies quoted by Delta One mean? After all, it is only the Spirit and the Scriptures that bring one to repentance in Jesus. So if someone is being brought by "evidence of a young earth", exactly what is he being brought to?

Everything else is foolishness. I believe God calls us to be dogmatic when it comes to Scripture and not to accept statements such as "Scripture is true either way, and none of it is a salvation issue, and should not be a stumbling block to anyone."

It depends: you have to quantify the bolded part. If someone says "Whatever you believe about Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection, Scripture is true ...." then my response is anathema! But if someone says "whatever you believe about creation, within the bounds that God is the ultimate creator, Scripture is true ..." I would consider at least open dialogue to be an option.

And Delta, you still haven't answered me.

 

[SBG]

Is there any controversy among Christians over what the bible says about the resurrestion, the atonement, the aascension of Christ? You and I can be dogmatic about these teachings because denying them would take us outside the bounds of Christianity altogether. John Polkinghorne speaks of these basics (as summarized in the Nicene Creed) as the theological equivalent of a scientific theory. This is what we, as the Church of Jesus Christ, hold to be essential. Because on these matters we all share the same consensus on interpretation, we can be dogmatic.

Yes, there is conterversy over what the Bible says about Jesus Christ and His resurrection. We have Mormons who don't believe the same about who Jesus is. Jehovah Witnesses do not believe the same. There are others who claim they are Christians and do not believe what is emphatically taught in the New Testament about Jesus.

So to state that all Christians share in the consensus of interpretation about Jesus is incorrect.

Were you stating about Christians on this board or all Christians in general?

But where there is controversy, whether it is over evolution or baptism predestination, then we are theologically in the same boat as scientists who have not been able to agree on a theory, but are struggling with several different hypotheses, as in the case of abiogenesis or gravity. In this case we cannot be dogmatic about an interpretation which does not have a Christian consensus behind it, any more than a scientist can be dogmatic about a preferred version of abiogenesis when there is no scientific consensus on the question.

I just don't agree that we need a consensus on what the Bible teaches before we can be dogmatic about what the Bible teaches. As far as Christians as a whole, there is not a consensus about who Jesus Christ is, yet I and you will be dogmatic about who He is.

I will also be dogmatic about the fall of mankind, how it happened, who was involved, and what the consequences of it are, because that is what Paul teaches dogmatically.

There is a difference between a scientist having confidence in her theory and having that theory accepted by the scientific community. Wegener believed in the soundness of his continental plate theory long before there was a scientific consensus that he was right. So while a scientific discovery may begin as a belief, it only becomes an accepted theory when the evidence is there to support it in a convincing way without needing to rely on faith.

Sounds good. I see we can agree that scientific theories can begin with a belief. And if it does begin with a belief that belief can persuade people to find whatever evidence they are looking for.

I think faith comes in, not necessarily for the scientists but for those who are not scientists that believe what the scientists tell them. Faith basically means trust. And I think it would be correct to say you that have trust in those scientists to be correct about the evolutionary theory. If so, saying you faith in them being correct and their theory being correct would be saying the same thing.

I've seen evidence for black matter. We used to heat our house with coal, and that is black matter. You intended, I expect, to refer to dark matter. The evidence for dark matter is its measured gravitational impact. The Law of Gravity would be violated if dark matter were not taken into account.

Yeah that is what I meant, dark matter. heh thanks for correcting me!

I admit I am not very knowledgable on dark matter. I had thought I had heard that there was no evidence for it, but it was a belief that it exists.

I quite agree. It means six days. I just don't think they were days in any calendar.




Of course we do. The same writer wrote the Exodus version of the Ten Commandments and the 1st chapter of Genesis. As far as I know the only other writer to refer to them is the author of Deuteronomy who was likely the last of the writers of the Torah and so was familiar with both Genesis and Exodus and probably took the idea from there.

I guess we then would disagree with this verse:

[font=ARIAL,HELVETICA,TIMES ROMAN]"And He gave unto Moses ... two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God." "And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables." Exodus 31:18; 32:16.

The writer follows up what is written in Exodus 20:11: "[/font]For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." with saying God wrote this by His own hand, and the writing was the writing of God.

The six days does not really have a lot of presence in scripture. What you do find again and again are the references to Sabbath. That is why it makes sense that these writers linked creation and exodus to the Sabbath: as a basis for keeping the sabbath holy. The primary concept is the Sabbath. The use of a six-day framework for creation is to support the sabbath. This was probably far more important to the writer than an accurate chronology.

Do you see any difficulties in taking Genesis mythically, even though the order of creation is out of line with your belief of how it happened?

I reject this entirely. God inspired scripture; humans wrote it. Inspiration is not dictation, so the words of the bible are the words of the writers, not of God.

Well it wouldn't be too hard for the author to just rewrite what God actually wrote on the tablets with His own finger. And I think Moses would have thought it a sin to not write exactly what was written on the Ten Commandments.

I believe Exodus records the full written text of what is given by God in the Ten Commandments and Deut. is a reflection on what was written, not an actual transcription of what was written.

This, of course, is an entirely different issue than the bible being in some sense the Word of God, a concept I do agree with, as long as it does not usurp the primary place of Christ who is the only eternal Word of God.

Again, inspiration is not dictation, so the words did not come from God but from the inspired imagination of the human writer. They are, of course, agreeable to the Word of God (which is always singular, never plural) or we would not consider them inspired. But it misrepresents the case to say the words are God's words. The bible is the Word of God, not the words of God.

It was God who actual wrote the Ten Commandments with His finger on those tablets.

No, I don't think my interpretation is superior to yours. If we were dealing solely with scripture, as if anything outside it did not exist, there would be ample reason to go with either interpretation. But we and the bible do not exist in a vacuum. We live in God's world, and God's world has something to say on the matter too. All the dateable evidence we have tells us the process by which heaven and earth came into being was much longer than six days and much longer ago than a few thousand years. Since I reject the notion that faith requires believing against the evidence, I cannot regard an interpretation of the scripture that necessitates this.

I understand your position and I assume you understand mine. I see this evidence that you suggest is against my belief, as not evidence but an interpretation of evidence that has been based on a belief to not believe there is a Creator. There are other interpretations to this evidence as well. You may find them lacking and I find you theological points on Genesis lacking.

So, yet again, on this we stand here, both unable to agree with each other on this point. I have no choice but to reject your position on Genesis and evolutionaries common descent. Just as you reject mine on God creating in six days.

May God continue to Bless you!

 

[vossler]

Now it's ironic that in my books it's the creation science movement (not YECism - there's a difference) that is the pragmatic accommodation of science. Why do I say that? Well, just look at ministries like AiG and ICR. Admittedly their beliefs for a young earth come first and foremost from Scriptural justifications, right? So why don't they just ignore modern evidence? Why don't they just stick their fingers in their ears and go "Lalala, all you heathen scientists are dead wrong!"? After all, they're supposed to practice Christian faith, right?

Because if they did so, they would have nothing left to say - more precisely, all they had to say (i.e theological arguments) would have nobody to listen to them. So that's why they fumble around with outdated figures and misquoted celebrities trying to make it sound like science agrees with them. But why should they care about science agreeing with them? If AiG dares to say that all contrary evidence is invalid why don't they be consistent and say all science is invalid? Because, they know they won't be convincing anyone.

What you say here may very well be true. However, the important point, at least for me, is that AiG and others of their ilk place God's Word first and then attempt to have science support God's Word. TEs, IMO, do the opposite! Now, do AiG and others use only "good" science or selective science in order to bolster their positions? Probably so, but then again I think TEs do the same.

Actually, it's the creation science people who want to have their cake (young earth belief) and eat it too (scientific evidence). Why don't they just say "Screw science, the earth is young!"? After all this fits in perfectly with:
Or maybe it's a little too embarrassing for them to outright preach folly?

I'm not a scientist. I can't and won't even attempt to get into scientific discussions to a level such as someone like yourself. Therefore, I'm not in a position to judge what AiG and other YEC sites promote as the truth. I will only say that what they say makes perfect sense to me and my very limited scientific knowledge. To be perfectly honest that's all I really need, that and of course the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

As for Paul being dogmatic, I think you would be surprised to hear this summary of his ministry in Ephesus that lasted nearly two years...Paul was neither sacrilegious nor blasphemous towards the goddess Artemis throughout all his years of ministry! I have no idea how that is possible - and yet, like you YECs like to say, it's what the passage says "at face value". I think that his approach was not to focus on what was wrong with the goddess Artemis but to focus on what was right in Our Lord Jesus. Did he avoid confrontation with this erotic religion? Did he support what little value it had? We don't know, but we can see that Paul was able to preach without being accused of being disrespectful or doing injustice to current paradigms while he tried to bring new ones to the people.

Good points about Paul, couldn't agree more. If I was in any way disrespectful please accept my humble apology. I pray I'll do better.

Then what do all those testimonies quoted by Delta One mean? After all, it is only the Spirit and the Scriptures that bring one to repentance in Jesus. So if someone is being brought by "evidence of a young earth", exactly what is he being brought to?

Ahhh, but the Holy Spirit is also the source of wisdom and knowledge. He brought the nourishment they so desperately needed: The Truth!

It depends: you have to quantify the bolded part. If someone says "Whatever you believe about Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection, Scripture is true ...." then my response is anathema! But if someone says "whatever you believe about creation, within the bounds that God is the ultimate creator, Scripture is true ..." I would consider at least open dialogue to be an option.

I'll give you that, at least to a certain degree. At least up until someone changes the definition of the actual words of Genesis to mean something entirely different.

 

[invisible trousers]

In my opinion YEC is one of the worst things to happen to modern christianity.