The issue with YEC

[SBG]

I have a question for all TE's here. What part of the yec camp do you have a problem with?

Is it the ones who take the Biblical account by faith?

Or is it the ones who use science - where you call bad science - to back it up?

 

[gluadys]

I have a question for all TE's here. What part of the yec camp do you have a problem with?

Is it the ones who take the Biblical account by faith?

Or is it the ones who use science - where you call bad science - to back it up?

As far as I am concerned---both. YECism is not just bad science. It is also bad theology.

 

[Vance]

Actually, while I think Gluadys is correct, my problem is not with the beliefs at all, but with the method of presentation of those beliefs often used. The dogmatic presentation of their particular interpretation of Scripture as THE intepretation of Scripture, which if true, means an old earth and evolution are necessarily false. This dogmatism creates the obvious corollary in the minds of their indoctrinees: if evolution and and old earth are true, then Scripture is false. Incredibly dangerous statement to make when based on a particular interpretation of Scripture.

Also, I don't have any problem with anyone taking the Bible on faith, since that is exactly what I do myself. I have faith that what it says is completely true and inerrant in its message to us. That requires complete faith. The difference between YEC's and TE's has nothing to do with faith at all, and it is a bit insulting for YEC's to draw that as the distinction. It is a matter of hermenuetics and exegesis. I think that YEC's are wrong in both of these areas by not allowing the evidence from God's creation to factor into their interpretive process. This denial of evidence from God leads to improper readings of Scripture, and even some incorrect doctrine, such as "no death before the Fall". It has nothing to do with "degree of faith".

 

[SBG]

As far as I am concerned---both. YECism is not just bad science. It is also bad theology.

Without science can you explain why taking Genesis by faith is bad theology?

 

[gluadys]

Without science can you explain why taking Genesis by faith is bad theology?

Not entirely. You see taking a YEC interpretation of Genesis by faith also implies certain faith perspectives on the nature of the physical, observable world around us.

It is these faith perspectives which I see as "bad" theology, by which I mean theology that contradicts that of mainstream Christian theologians from the days of the early Church fathers to the present.

YECism implies a reversal of Christian teaching in either ontology or epistemology, if not both.

Ontology explores the question of existence.
Traditional Christian thought has always held that when God created the world this was a real creation of a real world which, though dependent on God's sustaining providence for its existence, does really exist "outside" (for lack of a better term) of the existence of God.

In other words, this created world we live in is real, not some sort of gigantic virtual holodeck or matrix.

To the western mind this may seem obvious. But it is not. There are all sorts of religions and philosophies which have come to the opposite conclusion. One version of Hinduism, for example, is that the world and everything in it exists as a dream in the mind of God and will disappear when God wakes up.

Now if the world is real, then those rocks which testify of the age of the earth are also real. And so is the speed of light and the distances to the stars.

YECism, however, requires us to believe that such things are not real, but only an appearance. This is essential to creation with appearance of age arguments.

Such arguments in defence of YECism require turning away from the traditional Christian affirmation of a real creation toward a creation which is only a matter of illusory appearance.

Epistemology explores the question of how we know the world.
Traditional Christian theology has affirmed the possibility of real knowledge in several ways:

Through our consciousness we really apprehend our own existence, the existence of God and of the world around us.
Through our sensory apparatus we really perceive the world as it is.
Through our intellect and rational capacity we are really able to discover truth, both physical and spiritual.
Through our moral capacity we can know right from wrong, good from evil.

Points 1, 3 and 4 above constitute the traditional understanding of the "image of God" in humanity as they also constitute the characteristic distinction between humans and other animals. Note that so understood, the "image of God" does not pertain to the physical form of humanity.

YECism basically denies points 2 & 3. It usually appeals to the fall as justification, but this is nowhere supported biblically, nor in Christian theology up to the rise of YECism. Of course, neither sense nor reason are infallible. But look through the theology and philosophy of Europe and you will always find appeals to sense and reason as reliable arbiters. Among Christian theologians, reason has been considered the most god-like of natural human capacities even after the fall, a manifestation of the image of God, and second only to faith as a means of reaching truth. Furthermore, while it is universally agreed in Christian thought that faith surpasses reason, it is foreign to traditional theology to say that faith contradicts the conclusions of reason, especially in regard to mundane matters such as science.

YECism, however, requires that sense be denied and reason treated with the utmost suspicion. As I see it this is a denial of the gifts God has given us and intends us to use to his glory. On another level it is also a denial of Christian freedom, but I will leave that to another post.

 

[Vance]

I think it is bad theology additionally because it leads to this whole "no death before the Fall" error and fails to focus on the idea that it is SPIRITUAL death that we are redeemed from.

It also is bad theologically in the way it is presented because it undermines the validity of Scripture, and thus the Gospel messages. YEC teaches a false dichotomy which causes many to doubt Scripture as a whole when they come to doubt the YEC'ism they have been indoctrinated with.

Can't get any worse theologically than that.

 

[SBG]

Can you find in the Bible where it talks about death before the fall of man? You say its bad theology, and theology should be based upon what the Bible says.

You don't think it can get worse than yec theology? How about denying Christ's ressurection that we will be celebrating Sunday? Paul didn't say we have no hope if we don't understand creation, he said we have no hope if Christ didn't raise from the dead. I can't see how creation is worse then believing Christ didn't rise from the dead.

Now gluady's, do yec deny the evidence or interpret it differently? Because they interpret it differently does this mean they are denying the truth?

The fact that all scientists interpret the evidence and the evidence alone does not speak, is very much glossed over in this forum. It is not the evidence per say that says anything, it is the scientists who interpret what the evidence is saying.

The rock doesn't get up and speak it is history. Men/women have to interpret how old it is with a method that has had some problems. There is newer evidence that now supports that man is not much older than 140,000 years old and that all mankind came from one man about 40,000 years ago. The 140,000 years is linked back to the one woman. Anways, that is not the point in this thread.

What I see here is that one side that believes the scientists who interpret an old earth and man evolving. Because no one was there and there is an interpretation going on, there is a significant amount of trust involved that the evidence we have today and the interpretation given today is the CORRECT one and it will not change in the future.(drastically change)

On the other side we have some who take the young earth by what Christian scientists say. (i say Christian because I don't know of any atheists who support a young earth) We also have people like myself who take it by faith without too much worry or care about what the scientist have been trying to make us believe. The language used in Genesis suggests to me that it is not allegorical. The study of the hebrew language that I have done also suggests that the verb usage is consistent with a narrative and not a poem.

Now someone like myself doesn't go out and speak to the masses and tell them about creation to get them to become Christians. I speak about Christ crucified. To me the power is in Jesus Christ, not six days of creation, or evolution.

What I see here in this forum is people wasting there time arguing back and forth. People like Vance claim they are leading a ministry and he may very well be. But is this the place for it? In a Christian only part of the forum? I am not saying you (Vance) don't go anywhere else, but is this the place to expand to and argue against fellow Christians? Really all that is happening is each side is damaging the credibility of the other to preach Christ Crucified. We are not one people here. Fact is fact. We are not revaling in the fact that we are sinful and Jesus Christ died to save us. We are in fact spending our time aruging how the other is wrong without ever listening to what the other is saying because we are too busy trying to find out what we can refute.

If you have a problem with the scientists, take it up with the scientists, not the ones who believe it by faith or how they understand Genesis personally. If you have a problem with someone like me who takes it by faith, then you have a problem with yourself as well because you do the same thing in the opposite way.

The problem is that we do have something that needs to be told to the rest of the world. And it is not about how we read Genesis. It is about Jesus Christ who suffered for our sins and died on that Cross for us. That is what needs to be told.

WHile we spend our time arguing over this, how many people will not hear about Jesus Christ because we rather talk about Genesis? Was Jesus' commission to preach Genesis or about what He has done for us all?

There has been numerous people who I have seen and talked with that had their faith damaged by the teachings of evolution. Just as Vance claims about creationism. Maybe it isn't because of the opposing sides are wrong, but because not enough time was spent teaching and peaching Jesus Christ crucified.

If you want to take after Paul, do what he did, constantly preach Christ Crucified. That is where the power is, not in creation or evolution. Jesus didn't spend his time speaking about Genesis, He talked about the fact that He is the Way, the Truth and the Light.

Honestly, I don't understand why anyone here, including myself, would spend so much time talking about Genesis. I think too many here have forgotton the fact that Jesus died on the cross for the person you despise or dislike because of what they believe. Jesus didn't and doesn't favor anyone more than another.

Maybe this Easter we can spend our time reflecting on what truly matters and stop wasting time on issues that are not of as great importance. Whether you are for or against, doesn't matter. Tell about Jesus, not evolution or creation.

Adam and homo erectus are not the ones who give life. You believe I am in false doctrine and I believe you are. But with the Lords Grace, we ought to spend more time focusing on Jesus instead about our foolish pride to be right and convince others that we are too. That is what debate is, prideful, to convince ourselves and others we are right and someone else is wrong. We are all wrong, Jesus is the only one that truly matters.

I hope some can understand this. Others will come in and chime about how they have been doing such and such or why they are right and by this they will prove that pride is worth it.

May God Bless all of you this wonderful easter weekend and beyond.

 

[Vance]

SBG, you can not point to a "negative" as proof of anything. There is no mention in Scripture of LOTS of things that are actually true. And, the idea of "death before the Fall" is not a doctrine, it is just something that happened, and we know that it happened. The doctrine is that the death referred to at the Fall is spiritual death, and we can see that from other Scripture and sound doctrine.

And the "can't get any worse than that" was that the dogmatic teaching of YEC can lead people to doubt ALL of Scripture. Would you not agree that the loss of faith in Scripture is the worse theology of all?

 

[seebs]

I have a question for all TE's here. What part of the yec camp do you have a problem with?

Is it the ones who take the Biblical account by faith?

Or is it the ones who use science - where you call bad science - to back it up?

I object to portraying pseudo-science as science, and to portraying YEC as a salvation issue. I know at least one Creationist who makes no pretense of scientific backing for his purely faith-based position, and I don't object to this.

But when some people (not necessarily anyone here) misrepresent facts, quote-mine, or otherwise abuse the normal research process to get desired results, I do find that problematic.

In short, given what we know about plate tectonics, I object to primitive sea fossils in mountain ranges being offered as "evidence" of the Flood, but I'm all fine with, say, the actual text in Genesis being offered as a reason for which a person would believe in the Flood.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I have a question for all TE's here. What part of the yec camp do you have a problem with?

Is it the ones who take the Biblical account by faith?

Or is it the ones who use science - where you call bad science - to back it up?

I have a problem with the ones who think that evolution is some giant conspiracy to silence the word of Jesus.

I have a problem with the ones who think your salvation depends on a literal interpretation of Genesis (this includes those who use the slippery slope thing of "If you don't believe Genesis how can you believe Jesus" stuff).

I have a problem with those who use faulty science in order to skew the data in order to make it fit their beliefs.

 

[gluadys]

Now gluady's, do yec deny the evidence or interpret it differently? Because they interpret it differently does this mean they are denying the truth?

They deny evidence. They have to in order to give a different interpretation to what they accept.

Now someone like myself doesn't go out and speak to the masses and tell them about creation to get them to become Christians. I speak about Christ crucified. To me the power is in Jesus Christ, not six days of creation, or evolution.

Agreed.

There has been numerous people who I have seen and talked with that had their faith damaged by the teachings of evolution.

And that would not likely happen if they were not told by people they trust that evolution is anti-biblical and godless.

If you want to take after Paul, do what he did, constantly preach Christ Crucified. That is where the power is, not in creation or evolution. Jesus didn't spend his time speaking about Genesis, He talked about the fact that He is the Way, the Truth and the Light.

I agree when you are reaching out to the unconverted. Preach Christ and Christ crucified. That is how most people come to be converted in the first place.


But then they are in the congregation, attending Sunday by Sunday, and one day the preacher preaches on Genesis and refers to evolution as anti-thetical to creation. The new convert has never heard this idea before, has taken evolution for granted. Now, s/he begins to wonder.

I have seen dozens of testimonies of just this sequence: first I became a Christian, then I became aware of a conflict between creation and evolution, so I investigated and became a creationist.

I have never ever heard of anyone who was convinced of creationism from scientific evidence alone. Only of people already commited in faith who have been led into the pseudo-science of creationism

That second step from Christian to creationist never needs to happen, and should not happen because it is built on a foundation of lies.

I think too many here have forgotton the fact that Jesus died on the cross for the person you despise or dislike because of what they believe. Jesus didn't and doesn't favor anyone more than another.

Please, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. I do not despise or dislike anyone because of what they sincerely believe, no matter how strongly I disagree with that belief.

May God Bless all of you this wonderful easter weekend and beyond.

Hallelujah! He is risen indeed. A blessed Easter to all.

 

[SBG]

They deny evidence. They have to in order to give a different interpretation to what they accept.

I don't know if I actually believe that to be true. Maybe you have some examples where some fossils are shown but creations deny those fossils exist, rather than the interpretation of the fossils.(or another piece of evidence)

And that would not likely happen if they were not told by people they trust that evolution is anti-biblical and godless.

Well, I have talked with people who take evolution seriously and have come to the conclusion that with it there wouldn't be a need for a God. This isn't anything to do with creationism, but the effect that naturalistic evolution has had on the individual, where it tries explains everything without God.

I am sure you are aware that we all rather have a logical explanation that we can readily see rather than a supernatural one. The supernatural explanation is much harder to believe in because it requires so much faith. Now throw in naturalistic evolution with someone who is even more determined to see rather than believe and it creates a problem.

The evolution you believe and the naturalistic evolution are not two different set of beliefs. Both are evolution. You believe God is there and involved in some sense, others don't believe God exists. Evolution itself is not different. And it is not just evolution, abiogenesis as well, non-life becoming life.

So as much as you would like to make it the creationists fault, it has not been my experience that the fault lies on the creationists themselves. The problem is, as it is with this forum, that Jesus Christ is not the center of the teachings.

Genesis 1-11 are great. I very much enjoy them, but Adam doesn't give me eternal life. Homo erectus doesn't give you eternal life. Neither of them save either of us from anything. If someone falters it is not creation or evolution's fault, it is a simple fact that either the person faltering or who ever the faltering person is talking with is not spending the time talking about Jesus Christ enough.

This whole debate is ridiculous. Both sides want to place the blame on the other. Vance wants to balance out the ministry by covering the opposite side of the creationists. The problem is that it is not a counter attack by the rival theory that needs to be preached. It is Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone that needs to be preached.

If someone is faltering in their faith because of evolution or creationism, stop trying to counter with the opposite theory. Start talking about Jesus Christ and what He did for each and everyone of us.

By spending so much time on either theory, you have given an importance to that theory that that theory may be the one to save their salvation. That is a bunch of bolognia. It is Jesus Christ who gives salvation and saves. No other theory, or doctrine does this. Spending time thinking evolution will help save someones faith is dumb. Jesus Christ does this and He and He alone.

I agree when you are reaching out to the unconverted. Preach Christ and Christ crucified. That is how most people come to be converted in the first place.

And that is how people stay converted. It is not Daniel, Moses, Obediah, Saul, Peter, Abraham, or Paul who keep someone converted. It is the Holy Spirit who brings understanding of the witnesses who speak of Jesus Christ. It is always Jesus Christ, whether new or old, it is always Jesus Christ. He and He alone saves us, redeems us, and keeps us. Creationism does not keep us, Jesus does. Evolution does not keep us, Jesus does.

But then they are in the congregation, attending Sunday by Sunday, and one day the preacher preaches on Genesis and refers to evolution as anti-thetical to creation. The new convert has never heard this idea before, has taken evolution for granted. Now, s/he begins to wonder.

Let them wonder, but remind them that it is Jesus and Jesus alone who saves. Everything else is secondary. Our commission is not to preach Adam or homo erectus, it is to preach Jesus Christ.

You do not have to understand everything in the Bible to be saved. You do have to submit to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, Son of God, True God to be saved. You do have to follow Him. If you don't understand what Genesis is saying or what Revelation means, doesn't mean you will not lose your salvation.

The problem is not creationism or evolution. The problem is the lack of time spent by the Church preaching Jesus Christ crucified.

I have seen dozens of testimonies of just this sequence: first I became a Christian, then I became aware of a conflict between creation and evolution, so I investigated and became a creationist.

I have never ever heard of anyone who was convinced of creationism from scientific evidence alone. Only of people already commited in faith who have been led into the pseudo-science of creationism

That second step from Christian to creationist never needs to happen, and should not happen because it is built on a foundation of lies.

That is very strong wording to say creationism, God creating in six days is a foundation of lies. People can become creationists if they feel led that way. I don't see why you would have a problem with that, unless it is just out of spite.

Please, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. I do not despise or dislike anyone because of what they sincerely believe, no matter how strongly I disagree with that belief.

Do you always keep the commandment of love thy neighbor as yourself? If not then you have despised your neighbor at one time or another. And you have forgotton what Jesus did on that cross was for everyone, including those who hate Him.

We all forget this, this is the nature of our sinfulness. We all need to be reminded of what Jesus did for us. I believe we need reminding of it everyday of our lives. We need to keep our eyes focused on Jesus, not creationism or evolutionism.

The problem with this forum, which has led to the war we see here, is that too much time is spent on both theories and not enough time on Jesus Christ. You can talk about origins and still reflect on Jesus Christ as the center of it. I don't remember the last time I have seen someone even use Jesus' name here in this forum.

Hallelujah! He is risen indeed. A blessed Easter to all.

Yes, He has risen indeed. And I hope we can stop focusing so much on the theories here and focus more on our Lord and Savior. That would truly be a wonderful thing.

 

[Vance]

SBG, again, that is what TE's have been saying all along. It is the YEC's who are making this a national issue, and causing the distraction you seem to disapprove of. If you really felt that way, you would be writing to AiG and ICR and telling them to shut down and move on to preaching the Gospel message. It is not a matter of what individual people believe, it is a matter of what people are teaching others, and HOW they go about teaching it, that is the problem.

If a stumbling block is put in place, someone has to remove it. So, you can not fault us for striving to remove it, you should be talking to the ones who put it there in the first place, even if you are a YEC yourself.

 

[SBG]

The problem is you are trying to remove this so called stumbling block with evolutionism. I apologize, but this seems rather stupid.

If you want to help some in their faith, preach Jesus Christ and Him alone.

 

[Vance]

The problem is you are trying to remove this so called stumbling block with evolutionism. I apologize, but this seems rather stupid.

If you want to help some in their faith, preach Jesus Christ and Him alone.

No, I am not trying to remove the stumbling block with "evolutionism" but with "it doesn't matter, it is something Christians differ over".

And, yes, I DO preach Jesus Christ and Him as the sole means of salvation, but my other thread is more than enough to show that some are being damaged by the dogmatic YEC teaching, and this IS a stumbling block that needs to be removed. Not replaced with a theistic evolution option, necessarily, but with the recognition that it is just not an issue of the importance that these YEC ministries want to make it.

 

[gluadys]

I don't know if I actually believe that to be true. Maybe you have some examples where some fossils are shown but creations deny those fossils exist, rather than the interpretation of the fossils.(or another piece of evidence)

YECists deny the evidence of the fossils. They think that by classifying Archeopteryx as a bird they have dealt with the evidence of its teeth and tail and claws which align it with dinosaurs. They haven't.

They deny the stratography of fossils. There is no way you can look at the geological distribution of fossils and conclude "flood". Nor is there any way you can match the geological distribution of fossils to the order of creation in either Gen. 1 or 2.

They deny geology itself. They have never come to grips with angular unconformities. Or one polystrate forest sitting on top of another polystrate forest as at Joggins, Nova Scotia.

Well, I have talked with people who take evolution seriously and have come to the conclusion that with it there wouldn't be a need for a God. This isn't anything to do with creationism, but the effect that naturalistic evolution has had on the individual, where it tries explains everything without God.

Sure you have. People who come to this conclusion are moving to philosophical naturalism, the belief that scientific truth is the sum total of all truth. The way to deal with that is not to try and shoehorn God into science, but to point to the truths of human existence that are not based on science. In other words, leave the science out of the conversation and concentrate, as you have said, on preaching Christ and salvation.

A person who has come to know Christ is not going to be a philosophical naturalist, whether or not they accept evolution. So why raise the issue at all? Unless they do, and then, as Vance says, make sure they know that this is not a salvation issue, that many Christians do accept evolution, give your reasons for not doing so, and let them come to their own conclusion.

The evolution you believe and the naturalistic evolution are not two different set of beliefs. Both are evolution. You believe God is there and involved in some sense, others don't believe God exists. Evolution itself is not different. And it is not just evolution, abiogenesis as well, non-life becoming life.

I agree, and I am glad that you understand, that there is only one theory of evolution. There is not an atheistic and a theistic version. It is the same theory seen in one case through the lens of atheism or agnosticism and in the other case through the lens of theistic faith. The theory itself is not different.

So as much as you would like to make it the creationists fault, it has not been my experience that the fault lies on the creationists themselves. The problem is, as it is with this forum, that Jesus Christ is not the center of the teachings.

It depends on the context. Here, in this forum, that is the focus. I don't expect it to be part of the context of witnessing. Indeed, whether in worship, bible study or evangelism, I have never encountered a situation in which theistic evolution is part and parcel of the teaching or witnessing ministry. Look through the whole Kerygma curriculum (widely used in liberal churches) and you will not find evolution mentioned at all.

The reverse is not true. I have encountered churches and Christian ministries in which creationism, and in particular YECism, is part and parcel of the teaching and witnessing. Just where do you think those creationist videos are used if not (primarily) in churches? So, to me, the evidence is that the controversy is the fault of creationists, because if they were not consistently making it a part of their ministry, the controversy would not exist. I know that I would never have been aware of it, had creationists not raised it with me.

If someone is faltering in their faith because of evolution or creationism, stop trying to counter with the opposite theory. Start talking about Jesus Christ and what He did for each and everyone of us.

It is not quite that simple. If someone is faltering in their faith for a specific reason, that reason needs to be addressed.

Let them wonder, but remind them that it is Jesus and Jesus alone who saves. Everything else is secondary. Our commission is not to preach Adam or homo erectus, it is to preach Jesus Christ.

But that is not what is being done. New converts are being told that only creationism is consistent with their new faith in Christ.

Believe me, no one in liberal churches is telling new converts that only evolution is consistent with their new-found faith. Evolution is simply not a topic of preaching or teaching at all. Sometimes I wish it were, so that our young people would be better prepared to deal with aggressive creationist ministries. But you will hardly find 0.001% of ministers or teachers even vaguely interested in the topic. And fewer still who feel competent to address it.

The problem is not creationism or evolution. The problem is the lack of time spent by the Church preaching Jesus Christ crucified.

Well, look to the churches that teach and preach creationism then, because there are no churches I know of that preach evolution.

That is very strong wording to say creationism, God creating in six days is a foundation of lies. People can become creationists if they feel led that way. I don't see why you would have a problem with that, unless it is just out of spite.

Strong, but true. And I do have a problem with it that is not related to spite at all, but to my deep-seated belief in the truthfulness of God and in God's purpose in creating and redeeming humanity. I sincerely consider creationism to be a very dangerous teaching--possibly even heretical. I go farther than Vance in this direction. He would be content if creationists agreed to say that creationist teaching is not a salvation issue and accepted theistic evolution as a legitimate Christian perspective. I think creationist teaching is as much outside the pale of mainstream Christianity as the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons and should be treated as such.

Do you always keep the commandment of love thy neighbor as yourself? If not then you have despised your neighbor at one time or another.

But not because of what they believe or solely because I disagreed with them.

 

[Vance]

What Gluadys said. Double.

 

[gluadys]

An Orthodox Christian posted this link in the C&E forum.

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/evolution_kuraev.htm

I find the Afterword most telling:

I was recently invited to give several lectures at the department of biology at Moscow State University. Normally, I easily establish contact with students during lectures at MSU, but here the coolness of the auditorium surprised me. After the first lecture, I asked my hosts about the reasons for such a strange reception. "Oh, excuse us, Fr. Andrey . . . we didn't warn you," they said, "that a week before, some American Baptists were here, and they tried to persuade our audience that there was no evolution and that the world was created in six days. But our students (not to mention professors) noticed how they manipulated and misused scientific data, lining up some evidence and suppressing other. Maybe the students decided that this approach to the data of their science is common to all you Christians — and saw you as a colleague of those American dilettantes." At the next lecture, I talked about the other way of understanding the first chapters of Genesis, and contact with the audience was regained, and they were very receptive to discussion of the Gospels and Orthodoxy.

So I have a missionary interest in not accepting the views of extreme anti-evolutionists and in trying to find a possible evolutionary understanding of the Six Days. I have no personal problem in believing that God created the world at once or in six days, nor do I have a problem in saying something that is, a priori, unacceptable to an audience (and I have to do this very often), but it is not good pastoral practice to lay on people burdens that are too heavy. Yes, there are, in Christianity, instances of a necessary "sacrifice of reason," but I think that such a "sacrifice" is better offered to the dogma of the Trinity, rather than to a "dogma" of the precise number of hours of creation.

Finally, it's useful to look closely at our own, internal motives leading us to accept this or that view. A popular hobby of far too many people in our parishes, monasteries, and even seminaries — is to prove to each other their "arch-Orthodoxy." Towards this goal, denunciation of "heretic evolutionists" is a very suitable means. But if a man is interested not in acquiring the reputation of a super-Orthodox among like-minded friends but in trying to lead people who are still far from the Church towards Her doorstep — it may be better to reject the joy of feeling one's own strictness or of finding and condemning another "heretic."

All emphasis added

 

[SBG]

YECists deny the evidence of the fossils. They think that by classifying Archeopteryx as a bird they have dealt with the evidence of its teeth and tail and claws which align it with dinosaurs. They haven't.

I wouldn't say they denied the fossil exists when they are looking at it. I would say they interpret it differently.

You believe evidence alone says nothing and that someone has to interpret it, right?

They deny the stratography of fossils. There is no way you can look at the geological distribution of fossils and conclude "flood". Nor is there any way you can match the geological distribution of fossils to the order of creation in either Gen. 1 or 2.

This is the difference between people. Some can look at things and get a different perspective than you. You aren't trying to say that everyone thinks and perceives the same are you?

They deny geology itself. They have never come to grips with angular unconformities. Or one polystrate forest sitting on top of another polystrate forest as at Joggins, Nova Scotia.

I don't think they deny that geology exists. Maybe you can show me where they say this - I don't spend too much time reading up on creationists or evolutionists.

Sure you have. People who come to this conclusion are moving to philosophical naturalism, the belief that scientific truth is the sum total of all truth. The way to deal with that is not to try and shoehorn God into science, but to point to the truths of human existence that are not based on science. In other words, leave the science out of the conversation and concentrate, as you have said, on preaching Christ and salvation.

A person who has come to know Christ is not going to be a philosophical naturalist, whether or not they accept evolution. So why raise the issue at all? Unless they do, and then, as Vance says, make sure they know that this is not a salvation issue, that many Christians do accept evolution, give your reasons for not doing so, and let them come to their own conclusion.

It seems that some te-ist mission here is to counter creationism with evolutionism, thinking this will solve the falling away issue. Something that doesn't focus totally on Jesus Christ will not solve the falling away issue.

I agree, and I am glad that you understand, that there is only one theory of evolution. There is not an atheistic and a theistic version. It is the same theory seen in one case through the lens of atheism or agnosticism and in the other case through the lens of theistic faith. The theory itself is not different.

It depends on the context. Here, in this forum, that is the focus. I don't expect it to be part of the context of witnessing. Indeed, whether in worship, bible study or evangelism, I have never encountered a situation in which theistic evolution is part and parcel of the teaching or witnessing ministry. Look through the whole Kerygma curriculum (widely used in liberal churches) and you will not find evolution mentioned at all.

Well this forum is suppose to be a place of fellowship, isn't it? Or is it a place to war against beliefs?

How often do you actually see fellowshipping happen here? How often do you see Jesus Christ mentioned here? Is He the center of the converstations here or is He the back thought of the converstations while evolution, creation, geocentrism, helocentrism, abiogenesis, and big bang are being talked about? I realize this is the origin forum, but through Jesus Christ all things were made. One would think He would be the main focus of all the conversations here among Christians. Apparently, not.

The reverse is not true. I have encountered churches and Christian ministries in which creationism, and in particular YECism, is part and parcel of the teaching and witnessing. Just where do you think those creationist videos are used if not (primarily) in churches? So, to me, the evidence is that the controversy is the fault of creationists, because if they were not consistently making it a part of their ministry, the controversy would not exist. I know that I would never have been aware of it, had creationists not raised it with me.

You would think this might hit someone to mean something. Maybe the fact that one cannot reconcile evolution with scripture and creation can be?

The fact is that if one was diligent enough to understand the Bible in the original language and read the very early church father's writings throughly, one would see that an allegorical teaching of creation where God used billions of years is not to found. In fact you will find the contrary to be true that all the early church fathers believed in a literal creation.

Creationism has its time in churches to counter naturalistic evolutionists. The Bible supports God creating man as a special creation. It does not support man as just another animal. Was man given stewardship over the animals even though he is one. Evolutionism confuses the fall of mankind, it confuses when the soul was breathed into man, it confuses the reason why man was made. I would never put it past the intelligence of man to create work arounds to these problems. Many atheists have made work arounds for there being a God.

I would not though want to see churches spend their worship time worshipping creation rather than Jesus Christ. I have yet to see a church do this.

When teaching and preaching Jesus Christ always needs to be the focus. When Christians have matured - and this has nothing to do with how long one has been a Christian - then they spend time learning more about what the Bible says about what is written. I am not against this, this is the meat that a mature Christian is ready to move on to. An immature Christians needs to stick solely on Jesus Christ, until they are ready to move onto more meaty teachings. That is why when one is falling away, you should not try and feed them meat. You must preach to them Jesus Christ crucified and risen and nothing else.

It is not quite that simple. If someone is faltering in their faith for a specific reason, that reason needs to be addressed.

It is not that simple? How did you come to faith, was it Adam, homo erectus, Moses, Jonah, Job, or was it Jesus Christ? Who gives us eternal life... Jesus Christ. If someone is faltering in their faith it is because they have taken their eyes off Jesus Christ, not because of what Genesis says or what the evolutionists say.

Look at Peter, he took his eyes off Jesus and sank in the water. Do you believe that if one falters in their faith because of creationism that you should teach them evolutionism and not Jesus Christ?

The reasons that need to be addressed will be much more than they are willing to admit in the beginning. We are all the same in the sense that we need to first blame someone or something for what we have done, did, or going through. It is always our first instinct to do so. Look at Adam, he set the first example by blaming Eve, in which he was really blaming God. We do this all the time.

You don't think that it would be Satan's tool to have us spend more time arguing about evolution vs creation and less time on Jesus Christ the one who gives eternal life? You don't think Satan would want us to counter a problem with one of the two theories rather than JEsus Christ? Satan doesn't fear evolution or creation. He fears Jesus Christ. So preach Jesus Christ.

But that is not what is being done. New converts are being told that only creationism is consistent with their new faith in Christ.

Well that is the truth, I am sorry to say. You can still believe in Jesus Christ and evolution. But it is not consistent with scripture. Yec's also believe in things that are not consistent with scripture.

Your believe doesn't make the Bible wrong. It is our misunderstanding that is wrong, not the Bible. We tend to make this argument that we are right and the Bible must be wrong, kinda of thinking. We can be Christians and not understand everything written in the Bible, and be wrong about certain things. We cannot afford to be wrong about Jesus Christ. And it is through Jesus Christ that we are kept in faith. Look to what Paul spoke of about this. He didn't say creation keeps us in faith, he didn't say Moses keeps us in faith, he says Jesus Christ keeps us in faith. And if someone is falling from faith, they were not being kept in Jesus Christ; they didn't keep their eyes on Him.

Believe me, no one in liberal churches is telling new converts that only evolution is consistent with their new-found faith. Evolution is simply not a topic of preaching or teaching at all. Sometimes I wish it were, so that our young people would be better prepared to deal with aggressive creationist ministries. But you will hardly find 0.001% of ministers or teachers even vaguely interested in the topic. And fewer still who feel competent to address it.

If we are not teaching Jesus Christ crucified and risen, we have missed the message. For the mature Christian, they can move onto the other parts of the Bible, but if this causes them to stumble in their faith, then they must be brought back to the milk and that is Jesus Christ crucified and risen. It is that simple.

Evolution is not a topic of teaching because it has not place in the church for being taught. It is inconsistent with scripture. Because it is doesn't mean you cannot believe it and in Jesus Christ too.

Young people do not need to deal with creationists. All they have to do is look to Jesus Christ and if someone questions them about it, they can simple ask where does salvation come from.

I am not an adovocate for evolution as you and other well know. But I am tired of this bickering, I am tired of people forgetting what we are suppose to be doing. Creation has no power in and of itself. Evolution has not power in and of itself. If they don't have power to save, and this argument is discussing about people who are faltering and people who are not saved, then it is a waste of time to talk about them. They don't save, they don't give salvation. Those who are faltering and those who are not believers need salvation, not theories of origins. They need Jesus Christ, not evolution or creation.

Jesus Christ and Him alone will save and bring salvation to the lost.

Well, look to the churches that teach and preach creationism then, because there are no churches I know of that preach evolution.

I am not aware of any that spend their time preaching creationism rather than Jesus Christ. Maybe you can help me so that I can know.

Strong, but true. And I do have a problem with it that is not related to spite at all, but to my deep-seated belief in the truthfulness of God and in God's purpose in creating and redeeming humanity. I sincerely consider creationism to be a very dangerous teaching--possibly even heretical. I go farther than Vance in this direction. He would be content if creationists agreed to say that creationist teaching is not a salvation issue and accepted theistic evolution as a legitimate Christian perspective. I think creationist teaching is as much outside the pale of mainstream Christianity as the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons and should be treated as such.

How does evolution fit into God redeeming mankind? Does evolution assist Jesus Christ with salvation? I don't see it having anything to do with it.

I would think that if a true theistic evolutionists really wanted to be truthful and consistent with evolution, they would believe in a literal fall as written in Genesis 3. That is an important understanding and to suggest it is a myth or an allegorical statement that didn't happen but we all need salvation anyways is to undermine its teaching. If we need a realistic salvation, it is because of a realistic fall of mankind that happened ages ago.

You would think if you wanted to keep the belief that the earth is old you would go the gap theory way. It is actually a much better theory than evolutionism. It relies on the original language usage which many evolutionists omit in trying to say Genesis is a myth. The claim is inconsistent with the actual texts.

It seems to me that you have, by stating that because creationism should be on par with mormons and jehovah witnesses, put creationsim/evolutionism on par with Jesus Christ's divinty. That is what is in question in those two religions. This is the real problem I see with so many here that origins is somehow equal to Jesus Christ. You have demonstrated to me by this statement that this is your belief. And this is where the problem lies. It is rather unfortunate.

But not because of what they believe or solely because I disagreed with them.

But you haven't always kept it, just like I have not always kept it. By us not keeping it, we have forgotton that Jesus Christ died for those who we are not demonstrating our love to. Because we disagree with each other is not an excuse to not love each other, is it? Did Jesus say love thy neighbor if... Or was it a straight forward commandment without any if's or but's?

It is rather difficult to always keep. And when we don't keep this commandment we have not kept the commandment to love thy God with all our heart, mind, body, and spirit. IF we loved God like this, then we would keep all of His commandments, all the time. Because we break one of them - we are sinful - we break both of them.(the ten commandments that Jesus condenced into two)

It is a sad reality, but it is truth. We have not excuse and that is the reason we need grace, mercy and forgiveness. We are blessed to be under grace rather than under the law.

We so easily forget about Jesus Christ when we feel the need to prove we are right and someone else is wrong. Fact is, we are wrong because we are not doing what is commanded of us.

Maybe this can be a starting place to start being what Jesus Christ wants us to be. Or we can continue to wallow in our pride and sinfullness and argue about why we are right and someone else is wrong.

 

[Vance]

But SBG, according to your position, then, AiG and ICR should shut their doors. Don't you agree?

And, this is a forum for debate and discussion of this very specific issue. Why would you be surprised when that is what happens?

TE's here are not trying to "preach evolution", they are simply showing why it is that evolution and an old earth are NOT inconsistent with Scripture, so that if they DO believe in evolution, or come to believe it later, they will not doubt the validity of Scripture.

There is a perceived contradiction between the scientific discoveries about origins, and what the Scripture says. These need to be reconciled or some Christians WILL doubt Scripture and some non-Christians will not even consider Scripture. Thus, it is incumbent on some Christians, in addition to the straightforward Gospel message, to show how this reconciliation can take place.

YEC's think the reconciliation is that science is just wrong to the extent that it conflicts with a literal reading.

TE's think the reconciliation is that the literal reading of Scripture is wrong, and so there is no conflict.

The difference is that ONLY YEC's are teaching the "either/or" doctrine which does not resolve the "reconcilation" issue, but simply exacerbates it.

While we can debate the pros and cons of the two reconciliation approaches, all I ask is that YEC's be willing to make the statement I suggested in the other thread. TE's already make that statement. But so far, not a single YEC here has been willing to make it.