What if you found out tomorrow . . .

[Vance]

I have asked this question before and got some very interesting answers, but since we have a lot of new YEC's here, I thought I would ask it again. This is a question specifically for Creationists, either old or young.

If you found out tomorrow, in a way that left NO DOUBT whatsoever, that the earth was billions of years old and that all the species on earth, including Man, evolved from a common ancestor, how would that effect your view of Scripture? How would it effect your faith?

 

[Remus]

If you found out tomorrow, in a way that left NO DOUBT whatsoever, that the earth was billions of years old

"billions of years old" not a problem.

and that all the species on earth, including Man, evolved from a common ancestor, how would that effect your view of Scripture?

Common descent, I would consider Scripture to be unreliable and have to discard it.

How would it effect your faith?

I'd probably become a Deist or something like that.

 

[Vance]

Anyone else? For the record, TwinCrier and mhess and some others basically agreed with your position last time I asked this question.

 

[mhess13]

I have asked this question before and got some very interesting answers, but since we have a lot of new YEC's here, I thought I would ask it again. This is a question specifically for Creationists, either old or young.

If you found out tomorrow, in a way that left NO DOUBT whatsoever, that the earth was billions of years old and that all the species on earth, including Man, evolved from a common ancestor, how would that effect your view of Scripture? How would it effect your faith?

I would start using my Bible as a coaster or paperweight because that's about all it would be good for

 

[herev]

I would start using my Bible as a coaster or paperweight because that's about all it would be good for

amazing and incredibly sad...
your salvation rests on your interpretation of one story of the Bible--how limiting that is to Christ--I guess we all remember him?

 

[mhess13]

amazing and incredibly sad...
your salvation rests on your interpretation of one story of the Bible--how limiting that is to Christ--I guess we all remember him?

My salvation rests with Christ's atonement for my sins.
BTW--the creation is not just a "story" in the Bible. How sad it is to hear a pastor say such a thing. Who is the one limiting Christ? I say it's you, you limit Christ to not being capable of saying what He means in the Bible. You've turned our savior into someone having a common ancestor with an ape!

 

[Vance]

Now, Herev, I was wanting to get more responses first! :0)

But, really, this is where I see the danger of this type of YEC thinking and teaching, since we know that if this is how many YEC's THINK, it is how many YEC's TEACH.

I am not worried about these posters spiritual lives, since I doubt they will ever come to doubt their position, but it takes VERY little imagination to see the dangers involved. Many people are being taught (especially our young people!!!) that if evolution is true, you might as well throw the Bible out, since it is entirely, utterly and without doubt contradictory to Scripture. While some YEC's have insisted that this type of dogmatism is not what YEC's think or say, threads like this prove otherwise.

Now, consider these people believing this concrete dichotomy as the Creationists above do. Then imagine them studying the evidence and coming to accept that evolution is true. According to their view of the irreconcilable nature of the two, the more they come to see that evolution is likely true, the more they doubt Scripture is true AT ALL!

And non-Christians as well are effected by this teaching. IF they already accept evolution (which most do), and they are told in no uncertain terms that if evolution is true, you might as well toss Scripture out, then that is exactly what they will do!

All for a particular interpretation of particular Scripture, that many (if not most) Christians find an incorrect reading anyway.

All I have ever asked on this forum is that if you believe this absolute division, please don't present it to our youth or non-Christians that way, and discourage others from doing so. The potential damage is great, and the rewards are minimal if they exist at all.

 

[bdfoster]

My salvation rests with Christ's atonement for my sins.

Yes but you just said the Bible, with it's message of Christ's atonement, would be worthless if the YEC interpretation of the creation account were disproved. I think it's very dangerous to base our faith on anything other than Christ. This includes scripture or any particular interpretation of scripture which may some day be overturned.

 

[herev]

My salvation rests with Christ's atonement for my sins.
BTW--the creation is not just a "story" in the Bible. How sad it is to hear a pastor say such a thing. Who is the one limiting Christ? I say it's you, you limit Christ to not being capable of saying what He means in the Bible. You've turned our savior into someone having a common ancestor with an ape!

puleeeeeze. STory is a word--it's not a bad word, though it is a four letter word. I can tell you the story of what happened to me on the way home from school today. I can tell you the story of how I met my wife, or the story of my son's birth. Don't turn YOUR interpretation of a simple word into some deep theological issue. I fully believe the story of Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection, as I am sure you do as well.

I have not limited Christ. Unlike you, I don't say he COULDN'T HAVE or else. I fully believe that He is capable of creating the world in 6 days, of having every word in the bible preserved, or dying on the cross, and rising agian to eternal life, offering you and me a chance of eternal life with Him in His Father's house! YOu, on the other hand have said that IF the creation STORY is NOT LITERAL, then you might as well throw out the Bible--or I believe you said use it as a coaster. Did I mention: "PULLLLEEEEEEZE"

 

[Remus]

I am not worried about these posters spiritual lives, since I doubt they will ever come to doubt their position, but it takes VERY little imagination to see the dangers involved.

I wonder... have you ever considered the dangers of attempting to convince others that evolution is true or the dangers of undermining the Bible?

 

[Vance]

I wonder... have you ever considered the dangers of attempting to convince others that evolution is true or the dangers of undermining the Bible?

There are only two dangers that can exist in someone accepting evolution.

The first is if they are also convinced of the Creationist idea that evolution is contrary to Scripture so that they begin to doubt Scripture.

The second is if they accept the purely naturalistic version spouted by atheists that it all happened without God.

All this means is that the sanctity of Scripture and the surety of God's creation of all must be taught along with it. This is made more difficult by those who teach that if evolution is true then Scripture is false, and vice-versa. In short, absent Creationist teaching, there is no problem with a belief in evolution.

And teaching that a given Scripture can be read figuratively does not undermine that Scripture, or Scripture as a whole. It can only undermine a contrary reading of Scripture. And even then, it is not in any way arguing against the idea that Scripture is the inerrant, holy message from God. Some may argue this, but that is a different issue. I sure don't do that.

 

[Remus]

Vance, what I’m about to say to you I ask you to take to heart. I’ve given this a lot prayer and a lot of thought; I just hope God will give me the words to get this idea across.

Different people think in different ways. There are some people that are able to base their beliefs on subjective things and there are those that require something objective. I, of course, am among that latter group so I hope you understand that my perspective is valid. We can argue about how we can read the Bible until Jesus comes back, but that will not change the fact that reading the parts relevant to our discussions as myth or allegorically would remove this objectivity that many of us require.

I’m going to be blatantly honest with you here Vance. I see you attacking the reliability of the Bible and your brothers/sisters in Christ, but I try to give you the benefit of the doubt. I strive to believe that your purpose in the body of Christ is to reach those that refuse to give up evolution but are still open to the message of Christ. This is becoming very hard to do. I ask you now to find a way to do your part without drawing blood from others in the Body.

This is not open for debate. I’m telling you how it is. If you wish to continue as you have been, then I will no longer be able to give you the benefit of the doubt.

May God bless you and open your heart to what I’m saying

 

[Vance]

Remus, I think there are two things you are missing about what I have been saying all along.

First, I have no problem whatsoever what other particular people believe about origins, the reading of Genesis, etc. What any given person believes is not a problem at all, as long as it is not something that causes them to doubt Scripture. It is ONLY the method of presentation of beliefs to others that I am pleading for.

Second, I am not attacking any other Christians. I am only attacking a method of presentation of a doctrine. Do you think Paul was personally attacking other Christians when he opposed the Judaizers? Well, he did say that he wished they would castrate themselves, so maybe he was attacking them personally, but that is not what I have ever done. All I have ever said, all I have ever asked for is that, whatever anyone believes on this subject, they keep the issue in perspective and treat the issue with sufficient humbleness, which would require a lack of dogmatism.

Now, you will notice even above, in response to your and mhess's post, I don't say at all that you should not believe what you believe. We can debate that all day long, as you say, and that debate can be productive. All I argue against is the method of presentation, and call for something more humble and responsible. This appeal is general to all on this issue. We should all avoid teaching a particular view on this as the ONLY possible view, and even more importantly, teaching it in a way that can even possibly lose faith in Scripture.

As for my motivation, all I can say is what I have said all along: I want to see the Gospel spread and this means not only spreading the word, but removing unecessary stumbling blocks while trying not to erect any myself. Again, I am with Billy Graham on this one.

 

[SBG]

puleeeeeze. STory is a word--it's not a bad word, though it is a four letter word. I can tell you the story of what happened to me on the way home from school today. I can tell you the story of how I met my wife, or the story of my son's birth. Don't turn YOUR interpretation of a simple word into some deep theological issue. I fully believe the story of Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection, as I am sure you do as well.

I have not limited Christ. Unlike you, I don't say he COULDN'T HAVE or else. I fully believe that He is capable of creating the world in 6 days, of having every word in the bible preserved, or dying on the cross, and rising agian to eternal life, offering you and me a chance of eternal life with Him in His Father's house! YOu, on the other hand have said that IF the creation STORY is NOT LITERAL, then you might as well throw out the Bible--or I believe you said use it as a coaster. Did I mention: "PULLLLEEEEEEZE"

Well first s-t-o-r-y is a five letter word. Second, mhess didn't say story was a bad word, not sure how you inferred that other than looking to argue against him on something.

As a pastor, do you even care about the position of the early church or do you just consider Paul and the others to be wrong in their interpretation of Scripture concerning the issue of origins and the flood? Through Clement of Rome we can see much of how Paul viewed these as well as Paul's sermons throughout his writings in the Bible.

Thirdly, I have seen a many number of theistic evolutionists say God is a liar if Genesis is literal history. They use this as their arguement for the belief in their position.

 

[Vance]

All TE's say is what AiG says on this issue: God can't deceive, so God can't have created in a way that would be deceptive. So, based on this rock solid philosophy:

God can't deceive.
So, God can't create deceptively.
If the earth was 6,000 years old or there was a recent global flood, this means God would have created deceptively.
So, the earth can't be 6,000 years old and there can't have been a recent global flood.
Thus, any reading of Genesis which concludes that the earth is 6,000 years old and that there was a recent global flood can't be correct because.

That is all TE's say. It is entirely based on the idea that God CAN'T deceive, and doesn't deceive. Period. Yes, this can be phrased in the corollary that if Genesis taught a young earth, then it would either be incorrect, or it would make God a deceiver. But it is entirely misleading to say that any TE is saying that God can be a deceiver. The point is that such a reading of Scripture can't be correct BECAUSE:

1. Scripture IS correct.
2. God can't have created deceptively.

If you characterize the TE position to say that TE's think God can be a liar, you would be misrepresenting the TE view.

This whole

 

[Remus]

Remus, I think there are two things you are missing about what I have been saying all along.

Obviously my words meant nothing. So be it.

 

[Vance]

Well, of course they did not mean nothing. You stated you believed that I was attacking Scripture and attacking fellow Christians. I was explaining what that is not at all what I was doing. Often, these types of misconceptions about what a person's motivations are can be cleared up by an explanation of what is actually meant. After all, when you are questioning someone's motivation and the intent of their actions, this is something necessarily subjective. It is MY intent, and MY motivation, you are questioning. So, it stands to reason that I am in the best position to clarify what those intents and motivations really are. And, unless you would also consider that I would lie about it, then my explanation should be all that is needed.

If you felt that anything I wrote was a personal attack rather than an argument against a method of presentation, I am sorry you feel that way. I can assure you that I have never intended to personally attack anyone, much less a fellow Christian.

But, as for speaking out against what I see to be dangerous teachings and presentations of doctrines, there seems to be a bit of a double standard. It is perfectly fine, apparently, for Creationists to call out against theistic evolution in very condemning ways (try typing in "theistic evolution" in google and you will get a string of sites that do just that), but it is not OK for TE's to call out against the dogmatic presentation of YEC'ism.

And if you look back at what I have been saying all along, you will see that I am not even arguing against YEC'ism itself, much less against those who hold this view. I am simply asking that this particular view not be preached and presented as if it was the only possible view, without respecting and acknowledging that other devout and Bible-believing Christians believe differently.

I can't possibly see what the problem would be with that.

 

[Remus]

And if you look back at what I have been saying all along, you will see that I am not even arguing against YEC'ism itself, much less against those who hold this view.

You sure you want me to do that? You know how good I am about digging up old threads. Like this thread perhaps?
http://www.christianforums.com/t820915-typical-yec-claim.html
How would you like to spin this one Vance?

 

[talitha]

Back to the OP.......

I have asked this question before and got some very interesting answers, but since we have a lot of new YEC's here, I thought I would ask it again. This is a question specifically for Creationists, either old or young.

If you found out tomorrow, in a way that left NO DOUBT whatsoever, that the earth was billions of years old and that all the species on earth, including Man, evolved from a common ancestor, how would that effect your view of Scripture? How would it effect your faith?

The problem with this question, as I see it, is that the ONLY THING in the universe that is certain from the typical Creationist point of view is the Word of God (by the way, I agree; I'm a Creationist, leaning toward gap theory but havent dedicated my life to resolving this issue (it's pointless, IMHO)). Science is never absolutely certain, my experiences are not wholly trustworthy, my feelings can be horribly deceptive, etc.... only the Word of the Lord is true. And the most reliable source *by far* of divine Word is the Bible. Truth is not something you decide upon or even necessarily ever discover. Truth is God Himself and can only be known as He reveals it. For that reason it would be impossible from my p.o.v. as a Creationist to believe anything which would contradict Biblical truth as I understand it -- the only thing that could prove me wrong is proof from the Bible itself.

Do you understand??
blessings
tal

 

[herev]

Well first s-t-o-r-y is a five letter word.

That was a joke, obviously a bad one, but still...

Second, mhess didn't say story was a bad word, not sure how you inferred that other than looking to argue against him on something.

Well, let's go back and look at what HE said:

My salvation rests with Christ's atonement for my sins.
BTW--the creation is not just a "story" in the Bible. How sad it is to hear a pastor say such a thing. Who is the one limiting Christ? I say it's you, you limit Christ to not being capable of saying what He means in the Bible. You've turned our savior into someone having a common ancestor with an ape!

he put "story" in "", as if to say that the word was the problem. I made a very natural inferrance that this word was the issue that he had. If you go back and look at what I said, I never said it was "just" a story. Had I said that, and had he put "just" in "", then I would have made a different inferrance as to his intent. As it stands, looking at what I said, and what he said, I would still make the connection from his comments that he thinks because I called it a "story" that I have a problem with it, thinking it was something less than the truth. "how said it is to hear a pastor say such a thing." was how he followed that sentence. As a pastor, I resent folks making such assumptions based on a word. If he wants to be literal, be literal with my words and don't make assumptions.

As a pastor, do you even care about the position of the early church or do you just consider Paul and the others to be wrong in their interpretation of Scripture concerning the issue of origins and the flood?

Do I care? Of course I do. Do I agree with your assessment as to what their position was? No. Do I think that even if you were right in your assessment that I can disagree with them? Yes. Had the early Fathers thought it to be a big deal, surely they would have said in one creed or another that this was literal and that to disagree would make someone anethema--they didn't.

Through Clement of Rome we can see much of how Paul viewed these as well as Paul's sermons throughout his writings in the Bible.

I'll leave Clement of Rome to my friend here who goes by his name. As to Paul's sermons, interpretation is called for, and I think you are either: misinterpreting Paul's message or making too much of one of his illustrations.

Thirdly, I have seen a many number of theistic evolutionists say God is a liar if Genesis is literal history. They use this as their arguement for the belief in their position.

Yes, they have. I disagree with the point as you have raised it. If you are trying to reverse the issue of the OP, you need to say it this way: To the TE's: if there were undeniable evidence found today of a young earth and instantaneous creation, would you drop your belief in evolution. I think almost everyone of the TE's would say, sure!