YEC teaching reaching souls?

[Vance]

It was recently pointed out to me that, while YEC'ism might be a stumbling block to some, it is a means of bringing others to Christ and/or strengthening faith. Here is my response to that idea.

Why would a person come to Christ as a result of Creationist arguments? Only if they first believed that Scripture was contrary to evolution and an old earth, and thus were either facing a crisis of faith due to the evidence for evolution, or could not accept Christianity because it contradicted this evidence. If so, then the Creationist arguments could convince them that the scientific community was just wrong. Problem solved, and they can accept Christianity, or their shaken faith is strengthened. But, anyone can see how this would work even if YEC'ism were completely wrong. You can create a false dilemma, which is a stumbling block to Christian faith, then provide a solution to it. As long as the seeker can accept the solution, all is well.

Basically, I think this is what YEC'ism does. It creates the stumbling block (or perpetuates a stumbling block by hanging on to a literal reading) and then provides the solution to the stumbling block for those who can accept it (I was about to say "those who are not very well-informed about the issues", but TwinCrier would yell at me). I suppose this is OK, since the end result is positive for those individuals, but to me it is kind of like the shyster evangelist who performs fake healings and "miracles". People might actually come to the alter and get saved as a result, and those salvations are legitimate. But still . . .

The problem is that, if the solution is actually false, many seekers will see it as false, which will only enhance the stumbling block. And more and more, people are coming to see that YEC'ism is false and there really is no Creationist arguments or evidence that can convince them otherwise. For those, they will be lost if all they ever hear is YEC teaching.

But why allow the dilemma to exist in the first place? If YEC's didn't teach this "either/or" approach, there would BE no dilemma and no stumbling block which needed to be overcome.

 

[Remus]

I can only speak for myself, but I never approach witnessing with a dogmatic attitude about creation. I will express and defend my opinion if necessary, but I do encourage everyone to seek his or her own answers. I am not so arrogant to believe that I am right about everything. Ironically, the creation/evolution issue has only come up one time and I found that shaking an atheist's faith in evolution was the fastest thing I’ve ever seen to make them consider God. Other than that one time, I find the majority of the “stumbling blocks” have been homosexual issues, reliability of the scripture, and the nature of God’s love, just to name a few. Should we attempt to remove these “stumbling blocks” by offering a different interpretation or should we rely on the Bible and stand for what it says?

One thing that you are missing Vance is there are people that require something to provide objectivity. You and many others here may be able to deal with “interpreting” the Bible to fit what you believe, but there are many more people out there that will not accept the Bible as the Word of God in that fashion. Many of these people will say that YEC did them in, but in reality, they have lost confidence in the Bible as a whole. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard an atheist discredit the Bible by saying something like ‘you can interpret the Bible to say whatever you want it to say’. How do you reach these people? Agree with them? I suppose you can, but then what? Can a person with this attitude be expected to believe that Jesus died for their sins and rose from the dead?

It’s obvious that you are so concerned about this and I applaud your passion and dedication, and I don’t believe that your intensions are wrong. However, I do think that you are going about it the wrong way. If you think that blasting, demeaning, and demonizing your fellow Christians publicly is what the Holy Spirit is leading you to do, then I can’t argue with that. Only you and God can say if that’s true or not. I can ask you to reevaluate your methods and make sure they are inline with God’s intentions.

As always, God bless

 

[Vance]

I can only speak for myself, but I never approach witnessing with a dogmatic attitude about creation. I will express and defend my opinion if necessary, but I do encourage everyone to seek his or her own answers. I am not so arrogant to believe that I am right about everything. Ironically, the creation/evolution issue has only come up one time and I found that shaking an atheist's faith in evolution was the fastest thing I’ve ever seen to make them consider God. Other than that one time, I find the majority of the “stumbling blocks” have been homosexual issues, reliability of the scripture, and the nature of God’s love, just to name a few. Should we attempt to remove these “stumbling blocks” by offering a different interpretation or should we rely on the Bible and stand for what it says?

One thing that you are missing Vance is there are people that require something to provide objectivity. You and many others here may be able to deal with “interpreting” the Bible to fit what you believe, but there are many more people out there that will not accept the Bible as the Word of God in that fashion. Many of these people will say that YEC did them in, but in reality, they have lost confidence in the Bible as a whole. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard an atheist discredit the Bible by saying something like ‘you can interpret the Bible to say whatever you want it to say’. How do you reach these people? Agree with them? I suppose you can, but then what? Can a person with this attitude be expected to believe that Jesus died for their sins and rose from the dead?

It’s obvious that you are so concerned about this and I applaud your passion and dedication, and I don’t believe that your intensions are wrong. However, I do think that you are going about it the wrong way. If you think that blasting, demeaning, and demonizing your fellow Christians publicly is what the Holy Spirit is leading you to do, then I can’t argue with that. Only you and God can say if that’s true or not. I can ask you to reevaluate your methods and make sure they are inline with God’s intentions.

As always, God bless

But that is just it, I have not blasted, demeaned or demonized any fellow Christian. When I explain why a particular teaching is dangerous and a stumbling block to the spreading of Gospel, I am not making any attack at all on an individual, but a doctrine. This differs dramatically from those YEC's on this forum who DO attack their fellow Christians personally by questioning their faith and even the validity of their Christianity.

And I really don't think that anyone approaches their witnessing with creation as a topic at all. That is not how it comes up. When I witness, it is the non-believer who brings it up to me. And, yes, they very often will cite the fact that they don't find the Scripture something believable. But most often when I ask them for examples, they cite Genesis one and two. When I explain how many Christians read them non-literally, sometimes this is all they need to come to Christ. Seriously. Other times, they dig in their heels and say that it MUST be read literally, and they had heard dozens of Christians they knew telling them that. These I can't reach at all, and neither could a Creationist since there is no way whatsoever that they would accept Creationism.

As for avoiding the "interpretation" issue, this won't work since EVERY reading of Scripture involves interpretation and every Christian will have to deal with this at some point. It is not as if Genesis 1 and 2 are the only Scriptures which involve a choice of interpretation. The fact that there are hundreds of Christian denominations proves that we have interpretive issues over baptism, saints, predestination, eternal security, etc, etc, etc. To say that we should avoid presenting people with the need to interpret Scripture just won't work. It is not as if there is a denomination out there that can say it "just accepts Scripture without interpretation". That would be a bit much for all the other denominations who have different doctrines to take.

 

[mhess13]

There is no way to read the Bible in a straightforward manner and come up with anything other than a recent creation.

I'm not going to apogize for not twisting scripture to try and make it fit modern "science"

The resurrection is a stumbling bolck. Jesus being THE ONLY way is a stumbling block. Romans 3:23 is a stumbling block. Moses parting the Red Sea is a stumbling block. An axe head floating is a stumbling block. Samson killing 1,000 men with a jawbone is a stumbling block. People living to be over 900 years old is a stumbling block. Peter's shadow healing people is a stumbling block. The whole book of Revelation is a stumbling block.

So should I find explainations for all of these things to make them a little easier to accept????????

 

[Vance]

There is no way to read the Bible in a straightforward manner and come up with anything other than a recent creation.

I'm not going to apogize for not twisting scripture to try and make it fit modern "science"

The resurrection is a stumbling bolck. Jesus being THE ONLY way is a stumbling block. Romans 3:23 is a stumbling block. Moses parting the Red Sea is a stumbling block. An axe head floating is a stumbling block. Samson killing 1,000 men with a jawbone is a stumbling block. People living to be over 900 years old is a stumbling block. Peter's shadow healing people is a stumbling block. The whole book of Revelation is a stumbling block.

So should I find explainations for all of these things to make them a little easier to accept????????

First of all, there is definitely a way to read Scripture in a straightforward manner and come up with something other than a recent creation. You just can't see that a non-literal reading is just as straitforward to me as a literal reading is to you.

Second, who is talking about twisting Scripture to fit modern science? I believed that Genesis 1 and 2 should be read non-literally long before I had heard the scientific evidence for evolution and an old earth.

Third, you are comparing apples and oranges with your list of other stumbling blocks. Those are miracles for which there is no contradictory evidence. If a person accepts the possibility of the supernatural (which they must, or they are not going to be receptive to Christianity no matter what we tell them), then these present no stumbling block at all. A young earth is VERY different, since there is massive evidence which falsifies this idea. Those non-Christians who know of this evidence are not going to change their opinion on this evidence. So, teaching them that Scripture requires a young earth will be an immediate and complete stumbling block.

 

[mhess13]

There's no contradictory evidence to an axe head floating? Or to a shadow healing people? Well I've tried to float an axe head and the evidence revealed that it doesn't work.

I put creation in the miracle category. God said that in six days he created the heavens and earth and all therein. That's not a miracle?

I know lots of people who consider themselves to be christians who do not accept miracles in the Bible. They only accept them as allegory.

 

[Remus]

But that is just it, I have not blasted, demeaned or demonized any fellow Christian. When I explain why a particular teaching is dangerous and a stumbling block to the spreading of Gospel, I am not making any attack at all on an individual, but a doctrine. This differs dramatically from those YEC's on this forum who DO attack their fellow Christians personally by questioning their faith and even the validity of their Christianity.

Intentions and results are not always the same. I’m telling you from my standpoint, you are not coming across as you probably want to. Posts that equate atheist and YEC’s, YEC to geocentrism, that start with “Why Creationism is a Bad Thing for Christianity” all serve to offend YEC’s. When I read your post, I start out trying to understand where you are coming from until I get to the obligatory dig at YEC’s which ruins any sympathy that you might have garnered. If you wish to continue with these types of post, then I will give you my other cheek. Have at it.

And I really don't think that anyone approaches their witnessing with creation as a topic at all. That is not how it comes up. When I witness, it is the non-believer who brings it up to me. And, yes, they very often will cite the fact that they don't find the Scripture something believable. But most often when I ask them for examples, they cite Genesis one and two. When I explain how many Christians read them non-literally, sometimes this is all they need to come to Christ. Seriously. Other times, they dig in their heels and say that it MUST be read literally, and they had heard dozens of Christians they knew telling them that. These I can't reach at all, and neither could a Creationist since there is no way whatsoever that they would accept Creationism.

This is not true. It is possible to reach some of them; it just takes a person that can defend the scripture. We’re around and if God willing, they’ll cross paths with us. We all serve a purpose.

 

[Vance]

There's no contradictory evidence to an axe head floating? Or to a shadow healing people? Well I've tried to float an axe head and the evidence revealed that it doesn't work.

No, there is no contradictory evidence regardingthose particular miracles. The fact that it would violate existing natural laws is not evidence against it if you believe that God can allow the supernatural to override the natural laws He established. The problem with a young earth is that there IS specific evidence against it. People do not disbelieve a young earth just because it would be a supernatural event, a miracle. Many, many people who fully accept that miracles have occurred (most TE's I know), do not accept a young earth solely based on the evidence. So, apples and oranges.

I put creation in the miracle category. God said that in six days he created the heavens and earth and all therein. That's not a miracle?

Well, of course it would be a miracle if it occured. God's entire creation is a miracle! God creating through evolution billions of years ago would be a miracle! So again, Christians do not disbelieve a young earth because it would be a miracle. Most Christians who accept evolution and an old earth also accept miracles, that is not the problem. We disbelieve a young earth because of the tons of evidence that God simply did not create the earth less than 10,000 years ago.

I know lots of "christians" who do not accept miracles in the Bible. They only accept them as allegory.

I am sure this is true. I know lots of Christians who believe that praying to saints is efficacious. I know lots of Christians who believe that God has predestined some people to be Christians, but not others. Lots of Christians believe lots of different things. But that disbelief in miracles is not the only basis for a disbelief in a young earth.

 

[Vance]

Intentions and results are not always the same. I’m telling you from my standpoint, you are not coming across as you probably want to. Posts that equate atheist and YEC’s, YEC to geocentrism, that start with “Why Creationism is a Bad Thing for Christianity” all serve to offend YEC’s. When I read your post, I start out trying to understand where you are coming from until I get to the obligatory dig at YEC’s which ruins any sympathy that you might have garnered. If you wish to continue with these types of post, then I will give you my other cheek. Have at it.

Now why is it that when your fellow YEC's make offensive arguments, calling their fellow Christians compromisers, saying they don't believe Scripture and believe man over God, etc, etc, ad infinitum, you have never once (that I have seen) told them this very same thing?

YEC's make very offensive personal attacks (unlike my attacks against a doctrine) and justify this by saying they are just speaking the truth, pointing out false teaching, etc, etc. I make it a point not to attack any person and yet you claim my "approach" is wrong. A bit of a double standard, if you ask me.

The point is that I do believe that YEC'ism, as it is currently being preached, is a great danger to Christianity. My saying this very thing, however, will likely not sit will with those who are YEC's. This can not be avoided. I do try to minimize this by making it VERY clear, that it is not YEC'ism per se that is damaging, but the particular teaching that evolution equals atheism, that it is wholly incompatible with Scripture, etc. But the bottom line is that I am pointing out things that YEC's don't want to hear and they WILL get upset about it.

Again, I am not posting for the benefit of the YEC's but for those listening in. Those lurkers and occasional posters who are either non-believers who might come to see whether all Christians accept a young earth and deny evolution. And those Christians who are troubled by the evidence they see and which they can not deny. THEY are getting the message.

I have no illusions, whatsoever, that I will sway any YEC's away from their dogmatic belief. And I really have no desire to do so, because I am NOT dogmatic about origin beliefs. If Christians want to believe YEC'ism, I have no problem with that whatsoever. In and of itself, it poses no threat to the Gospel message. But I will definitely try to help those who come to this forum by providing a ramp over the stumbling block that too often comes along with YEC'ism.

I take my cue from Paul. Do you think he was worried about offending the Judaizers, or doing away with their stumbling block of circumsicion for gentiles?

 

[mhess13]

I take my cue from Paul. Do you think he was worried about offending the Judaizers, or doing away with their stumbling block of circumsicion for gentiles?

I'd be willing to bet that Paul wasn't an evolutionist!!!!!!!!!!

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

There is no way to read the Bible in a straightforward manner and come up with anything other than a recent creation.

I'm not going to apogize for not twisting scripture to try and make it fit modern "science"

The resurrection is a stumbling bolck. Jesus being THE ONLY way is a stumbling block. Romans 3:23 is a stumbling block. Moses parting the Red Sea is a stumbling block. An axe head floating is a stumbling block. Samson killing 1,000 men with a jawbone is a stumbling block. People living to be over 900 years old is a stumbling block. Peter's shadow healing people is a stumbling block. The whole book of Revelation is a stumbling block.

So should I find explainations for all of these things to make them a little easier to accept????????

This has to be one of the greatest things I've ever read. I commend you on your post.

You are exactly right. If miracles do happen, then the idea of the "natural world rules all" like modern scientists claim, is wrong anyway. If you remove the miracles, you are left with New Theology and Schaeffer alluded to. You take away the miracles of Jesus, you take away what makes Jesus God.

 

[Vance]

You are exactly right. If miracles do happen, then the idea of the "natural world rules all" like modern scientists claim, is wrong anyway. If you remove the miracles, you are left with New Theology and Schaeffer alluded to. You take away the miracles of Jesus, you take away what makes Jesus God.

But no TE is talking about removing the miracles. I believe in miracles as much as you do. This is not the point. The Creation was a miracle, no one doubts that one little bit. The question was how the miracle was performed. Again, this is a straw man argument which has been knocked down over and over, but YEC's don't seem to want to let go of it.

This is not really a complicated issue, and I know YEC's are smart enough to realize the point we have made here many times over. So, when they once again claim that a belief in evolution is a denial of the miracles of God, then this is simply an intentional misrepresentation of what TE's believe.

 

[Vance]

I'd be willing to bet that Paul wasn't an evolutionist!!!!!!!!!!

Of course not, he was born about 1800 years to early. He was also a geocentrist and had no clue about photosynthesis. So, this is not really an issue.

But, he was definitely opposed to the placing of unnecessary stumbling blocks in front of the Cross (ie, the Judaisers and circumcision), which is what we are facing here.

 

[Bushido216]

I'd be willing to bet that Paul wasn't an evolutionist!!!!!!!!!!

I'd be willing to bet that Paul wasn't a heliocentrist, either.

 

[mhess13]

This is not really a complicated issue, and I know YEC's are smart enough to realize the point we have made here many times over. So, when they once again claim that a belief in evolution is a denial of the miracles of God, then this is simply an intentional misrepresentation of what TE's believe.

Hold on there vance. YOU ARE misrepresenting here. Nobody said that TE's didn't believe in miracles (although I know TONS who fit that mold)
You are hung up on this "stumbling block" thingy. It is your mantra. You seem to think you have a "Stumbling Block Ramp Ministry". The point I'm making is that I'm not compromising the CLEAR word of God or looking for a more palletable explaination just because the first few chapters of Genesis are "stumbling blocks".

My point is that it is a stumbling block to ask someone to believe that the Red Sea parted down the center the water just magically formed some sort of wall and the Israelites walked across on dry land. Hezekiah's sundial, now there's a stumbler!

Again MY POINT is that I've met WAY more people who are hung up on Romans 3:23 than those who are hung up on creation. In fact I've noticed that once they get past the romans 3:23 and find the solution in romans 10:9-10, when the issue of creation comes up they are excited to learn of all the evidence of a young earth!

Vance, if you want to disagree that's fine. But stop misrepresenting what is said and spinning it to try and accuse YECs of misrepresenting

 

[Vance]

Hold on there vance. YOU ARE misrepresenting here. Nobody said that TE's didn't believe in miracles (although I know TONS who fit that mold)
You are hung up on this "stumbling block" thingy. It is your mantra. You seem to think you have a "Stumbling Block Ramp Ministry". The point I'm making is that I'm not compromising the CLEAR word of God or looking for a more palletable explaination just because the first few chapters of Genesis are "stumbling blocks".

I thought your point was that those miracles you listed would be "stumbling blocks" because they were miracles, and that you believed that creation was a miracle, so a disbelief in one miracle was a disbelief in the others. I think this was a reasonable reading of what you wrote. If I read it wrong, feel free to restate your point.

And, yes, I DO believe I have a "stumbling block ramp" ministry in this area. Sure thing.

But you seem to keep forgetting that I, too, will "not compromise the CLEAR word of God or look for a more pallatable explanation". What we see as the "clear" word of God is where the difference lies. Also, I am not presenting an interpretation of Genesis for the sake of it being "palatable". This is just another YEC straw man. It is what I believe is the TRUE interpretation. And the literal interpretation is, indeed, a stumbling block to many, many people.

 

[mhess13]

Of course not, he was born about 1800 years to early. He was also a geocentrist and had no clue about photosynthesis. So, this is not really an issue.

But, he was definitely opposed to the placing of unnecessary stumbling blocks in front of the Cross (ie, the Judaisers and circumcision), which is what we are facing here.

Actually evolution had been around long before Paul. Read "The Long War Against God" by Dr. Henry Morris if you'd like a lesson on the history of evolution

 

[Vance]

Actually evolution had been around long before Paul. Read "The Long War Against God" by Dr. Henry Morris if you'd like a lesson on the history of evolution

No, evolution as proposed by Darwin was not around back then. Of course, there were tons of varied beliefs about origins floating around, and among the myriad beliefs, some had features that sound a bit like evolution. But that is not the same thing as what we have now, not to mention the evidence we now have through the fossil record, genetics, etc. But this is for another thread.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I know lots of "christians" who do not accept miracles in the Bible. They only accept them as allegory.

So soon doubting the Christianity of those who disagree with you?

So sad.

 

[artybloke]

The Creation was a miracle, no one doubts that one little bit.

No it wasn't, except in the sense that it was an amazing thing. I think there's a conceptual mistake here. Even in the Bible, the creation is not presented as a miracle; it is presented as something that happened in the normal course of events that God does, just like the sun comes up every day (and God does that), just like corn grows (and God does that) etc...

A miracle is a miracle because it is a special act of God, something out of the ordinary that God does for a particular reason. The creation is not a "special" event: it's an ordinary everyday thing. It's presented in the Bible as perfectly natural, not as "miraculous." In fact, I would say that this is in part the purpose of the creation narratives: as arguments against the creation myths of other cultures around them (eg Babylonian & Egyptian) where the creation is seen as a spectular event or some stupendous miracle in a war of the Gods or something like that.

If miracles do happen, then the idea of the "natural world rules all" like modern scientists claim, is wrong anyway.

Just a question: do you believe that God operates in the natural world, or do you think that he just confines himself to the "miraculous", which presumably are all those events that can't be explained according to scientific methods that we have today? So what if, for instance, somebody comes along with a plausible, falsifiable and properly scientific explanation for, say, Jesus walking on the water. Does that mean it now ceases to be a miracle? I am, of course, presuming that the event is historical rather than legendary. So Jesus DID walk on the water and it's possible because of this new scientific principle that fits in with what we already know etc... Is it still a miracle?

If it is still a miracle, then you've discovered what a miracle is. It's a special act of God as opposed to an ordinary, everyday act of God like grass growing.

Or evolution...