Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Book Plunge: Part One --- Three Views on Creation and Evolution --- Part 1

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Book Plunge: Part One --- Three Views on Creation and Evolution --- Part 1

    What about YEC?

    Link

    ------------

    What do I think of the argument presented here for YEC? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    I am going through the book Three Views on Creation and Evolution and the YEC position is the first one. This one is done by John Mark Reynolds and Paul Nelson. Readers of this blog know I move somewhere between OEC and evolutionary creationism. For this part, I am only commenting on the chapter of Nelson and Reynolds (N&R from now on). I might say something on the responses to their essay and their response to the responses. Time will tell.

    So let’s start with the positives.

    I do appreciate that there doesn’t seem to be dogmatism on the part of N&R. They do condemn any name-calling on any side of the debate, even on their own. They also do admit that there are problems with their viewpoint that need further exploration and they emphasize scientific exploration.

    I also definitely agree with them that science should be open. Too many times, naturalistic assumptions that are simply bad philosophy can impede research. Whatever happened, it must not be XYZ after all, because that could lead to theistic claims. This was something that happened when science started to conclude that the universe had a beginning.

    That having been said, there were a number of problems in their essay that in some ways left me surprised. Let’s go over them.

    For one thing, I was surprised with how little argument there was on the main subject matter. It’s only towards the end of a long essay that they start making an argument for their position. Unfortunately, their argument was simply going with what they called a plain reading and nothing about the scientific arguments that they could use and no interaction that I recall with the contrary position.

    Now my problem with a plain reading is, plain to who? Why assume that the question that a 21st century American brings to the text is the one that the text itself is addressing? It could be that the author was writing to address scientific questions, but that needs to be argued and not assumed.

    If anything, I would be extra cautious about reading the Bible as a scientific text since the people it was written to did not think in those terms. These were not people who were going out and doing experiments, not because they would necessarily oppose that, but more because they were often just trying to survive. Science really got going when we had developed enough agricultural means that we didn’t have to work as long for food.

    Many times when a text has been read scientifically, it has led to embarrassment since the text was never meant to be that way. Let’s consider how the text tells us to love the Lord with all our hearts. Now we could say “This makes no sense. The heart is not an organ of love, but it is one of pumping the blood throughout the body and keeping it functioning.” Yes. We know that today, but even still, we often use that expression. There needs to be a reason given as to why one should think the text is speaking scientifically.

    Second, the writers seem to have a problem with secondary means. Psalm 139 tells me I was knit together in my mother’s womb. However, everyone would also know that was a nine-month process. God can be behind something and it be a process as well.

    Third, there were too many false assumptions on the part of N&R. When they spoke about theistic evolutionists, they often said that they cannot allow an act of God in any way into their system. Unfortunately, I know a number of TE’s who would have no problem with that. TE’s who are Christian do hold to miracles after all, such as the resurrection of Jesus.

    When I saw a statement like that on their part, I wound up getting dismissive. If you are presenting a case and claiming your opponents believe or know X, you’d better make sure they do. I’ve had a number of atheists tell me that I know XYZ, when I know no such thing.

    I also thought they were too dismissive of ideas such as God sustaining the universe. It was presented as if to say “What does this even mean?” and then it was not really discussed. For me, God’s sustaining of the universe is something incredible that shows how active He is in the universe. Elihu told Job that if God removed His breath, all life would perish.

    God’s sustaining the universe means right now, everything you and I do depends on Him. It means that the universe doesn’t exist on its own, which is something that I think is a problem for materialism. Existence is treated as if it’s a brute fact. Yes. The universe exists. How? It just does. What does it mean to exist? Why do you ask such stupid questions?

    By giving up this ground, I fear N&R have conceded too much to atheism with this position. Very few people today seem to have a doctrine of existence. Atheists often want to ask if God exists without first asking what it means to exist.

    Finally, N&R gave the sound of one hand clapping. I get that they do not agree with other positions, but they needed to seriously interact with them. I did not see this take place.

    The next chapter will be on Old-Earth creationism.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters
    (And I affirm the virgin birth)

  • #2
    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    What about YEC?

    Link

    ------------

    What do I think of the argument presented here for YEC? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    I am going through the book Three Views on Creation and Evolution and the YEC position is the first one. This one is done by John Mark Reynolds and Paul Nelson. Readers of this blog know I move somewhere between OEC and evolutionary creationism. For this part, I am only commenting on the chapter of Nelson and Reynolds (N&R from now on). I might say something on the responses to their essay and their response to the responses. Time will tell.

    So let’s start with the positives.

    I do appreciate that there doesn’t seem to be dogmatism on the part of N&R. They do condemn any name-calling on any side of the debate, even on their own. They also do admit that there are problems with their viewpoint that need further exploration and they emphasize scientific exploration.

    I also definitely agree with them that science should be open. Too many times, naturalistic assumptions that are simply bad philosophy can impede research. Whatever happened, it must not be XYZ after all, because that could lead to theistic claims. This was something that happened when science started to conclude that the universe had a beginning.

    That having been said, there were a number of problems in their essay that in some ways left me surprised. Let’s go over them.

    For one thing, I was surprised with how little argument there was on the main subject matter. It’s only towards the end of a long essay that they start making an argument for their position. Unfortunately, their argument was simply going with what they called a plain reading and nothing about the scientific arguments that they could use and no interaction that I recall with the contrary position.

    Now my problem with a plain reading is, plain to who? Why assume that the question that a 21st century American brings to the text is the one that the text itself is addressing? It could be that the author was writing to address scientific questions, but that needs to be argued and not assumed.

    If anything, I would be extra cautious about reading the Bible as a scientific text since the people it was written to did not think in those terms. These were not people who were going out and doing experiments, not because they would necessarily oppose that, but more because they were often just trying to survive. Science really got going when we had developed enough agricultural means that we didn’t have to work as long for food.

    Many times when a text has been read scientifically, it has led to embarrassment since the text was never meant to be that way. Let’s consider how the text tells us to love the Lord with all our hearts. Now we could say “This makes no sense. The heart is not an organ of love, but it is one of pumping the blood throughout the body and keeping it functioning.” Yes. We know that today, but even still, we often use that expression. There needs to be a reason given as to why one should think the text is speaking scientifically.

    Second, the writers seem to have a problem with secondary means. Psalm 139 tells me I was knit together in my mother’s womb. However, everyone would also know that was a nine-month process. God can be behind something and it be a process as well.

    Third, there were too many false assumptions on the part of N&R. When they spoke about theistic evolutionists, they often said that they cannot allow an act of God in any way into their system. Unfortunately, I know a number of TE’s who would have no problem with that. TE’s who are Christian do hold to miracles after all, such as the resurrection of Jesus.

    When I saw a statement like that on their part, I wound up getting dismissive. If you are presenting a case and claiming your opponents believe or know X, you’d better make sure they do. I’ve had a number of atheists tell me that I know XYZ, when I know no such thing.

    I also thought they were too dismissive of ideas such as God sustaining the universe. It was presented as if to say “What does this even mean?” and then it was not really discussed. For me, God’s sustaining of the universe is something incredible that shows how active He is in the universe. Elihu told Job that if God removed His breath, all life would perish.

    God’s sustaining the universe means right now, everything you and I do depends on Him. It means that the universe doesn’t exist on its own, which is something that I think is a problem for materialism. Existence is treated as if it’s a brute fact. Yes. The universe exists. How? It just does. What does it mean to exist? Why do you ask such stupid questions?

    By giving up this ground, I fear N&R have conceded too much to atheism with this position. Very few people today seem to have a doctrine of existence. Atheists often want to ask if God exists without first asking what it means to exist.

    Finally, N&R gave the sound of one hand clapping. I get that they do not agree with other positions, but they needed to seriously interact with them. I did not see this take place.

    The next chapter will be on Old-Earth creationism.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters
    (And I affirm the virgin birth)
    It would be so easy to comment in depth on nearly every paragraph, but this one stands out because I recently read something about the book.

    For one thing, I was surprised with how little argument there was on the main subject matter. It’s only towards the end of a long essay that they start making an argument for their position. Unfortunately, their argument was simply going with what they called a plain reading and nothing about the scientific arguments that they could use and no interaction that I recall with the contrary position.


    FWIU, N&R openly acknowledge that the scientific evidence "overwhelmingly" (their word) supports an ancient creation. That puts them in rare company among YECs. Most contend that the evidence supports a young earth -- if understood properly.

    One of the few who accept what the evidence reveals is Kurt Wise, a YEC who is the Director of Creation Research Center at Truett-McConnell College who has said:

    "I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young from scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant."


    Another is Todd Wood, a YEC "baraminologist" and Director of the Center for Origins Research and Associate Professor of Science at Bryan University, who wrote in 2009:

    Source: The truth about evolution


    I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

    Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

    I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)



    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    [*Emphases in the original*]

    He reiterated what he said roughly a year later.

    Whatever the case, it is nice to see that at least a few more are recognizing what effectively cannot be denied.



    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      The "science" aspect is not very important to me. I'm more concerned with the type(s) of literature the Creation Accounts are. If the authors intended them to be real "historical narratives," then they should be taken that way and believed, whether or not the contents are "scientifically possible."

      In particular, the accounts that are referenced in the NT and treated as real should be taken as such. If there were not a "real" Adam and Eve, then we have no reason to accept what Jesus taught as normative for marriage, there is no basis for the idea of "Original Sin," there is no need for a "new creation," nor to regard Jesus as the "last Adam" or the "one man" who undid the damage of the first "one man."
      Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

      Beige Federalist.

      "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

      Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

      Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

      Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

      Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

      Justice for Matthew Perna!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
        The "science" aspect is not very important to me. I'm more concerned with the type(s) of literature the Creation Accounts are. If the authors intended them to be real "historical narratives," then they should be taken that way and believed, whether or not the contents are "scientifically possible."

        In particular, the accounts that are referenced in the NT and treated as real should be taken as such. If there were not a "real" Adam and Eve, then we have no reason to accept what Jesus taught as normative for marriage, there is no basis for the idea of "Original Sin," there is no need for a "new creation," nor to regard Jesus as the "last Adam" or the "one man" who undid the damage of the first "one man."
        The first chapter of Genesis in particular is actually Hebrew poetry characterized by repetition and parallelism, hence is figurative and not a precise functional description of the method of creation.


        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #5
          Part Two

          Link

          -----------

          What do I think of Robert Newman’s view of Old-Earth creationism? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

          Regular readers of the blog know I’m someone who is on the fence in a way between Old-Earth Creationism and Fully Gifted Creationism, OEC and FGC respectively, using the latter term as that is the term used in part three and I wish to be respectful to the one who uses it. I have some qualms about what evolution can explain, but if I was convinced it was true, it would not change my interpretation of Scripture or my beliefs about Jesus.

          Thus, when I read Newman’s essay, I found much that i agreed with. I saw that he wants to be faithful both to Scripture and science. Regularly, it is said that if we are handling both correctly, they will agree. This should be a statement that all three camps in the debate should be able to agree to.

          I did like that he paid some attention to Genesis 1-2, but sadly again, not much. Now I realize the book is about creation and evolution and not necessarily Genesis, but if you’re talking about Christians, you eventually do have to get to Genesis if you’re talking about creation. Howard Van Till in part three will spend the most time on this, but again, he is sorely lacking in spending a lot of time on it.

          One major point of disagreement I had with Newman, however, is that in his chapter he talked about how he gets concerned when some Christians say the Bible does not have anything to say to us about science. Well, maybe it does. But then again, maybe it doesn’t. Why should I go to the text assuming that it wants to answer modern science questions any more than I should go to it to get a strategy guide for the latest video game or learn how to do algebra?

          Now I realize that seems a bit playful. After all, video games and algebra weren’t really in practice when the Bible was written, but yet in the same way, modern science as we know it wasn’t being practiced. Why should I think that Genesis is trying to give me a scientific account? It could be that it is, but that needs to be argued and not assumed. We have often thought some places in Scripture were giving scientific accounts and it has not ended well.

          Newman’s repliers seemed to be friendly to him and briefly, this is something I had a problem with in this book. It seemed that most every reply was from someone who held to the OEC position. J.P. Moreland was a lone exception who holds to it, but admitted that he sometimes thinks YECs have a good case. I would have either liked to have had the writers reply to each other, or else had a Christian who was YEC, one who was OEC, and one who was FGC all replying. The problem was you have four replies and all seem to come from the same camp.

          Overall, I don’t have much to say about Newman’s essay as I agreed with a good deal of it. For me, the question of whether evolution happened or not is a non-question and that will be covered more in part three where I do plan on giving some ideas that do give me qualms still about being willing to sign on the dotted line. At the same time, I realize I am approaching this as a non-scientist and there is only so much time to study any given field. I like to admire it as an outsider, but I don’t take parts in debates of science as science. The history and philosophy I will do, but not the data itself.

          In Christ,
          Nick Peters
          (And I affirm the virgin birth)

          Comment


          • #6
            Part Three

            Link

            -------

            What do I think of Howard Van Till's view? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

            This chapter is easily the longest one in the book, and that's understandable. Van Till is taking on a position that is seen as a negative in much of the Christian community. There are too many times when a Christian says that they are open to evolution and immediately the hounds of heresy come out ready to devour.

            So let's get some positives.

            First off, I fully agree with this aspect of Van Till's essay. We don't need to make it the point to anyone that they have to choose either evolution or Christianity. That does harm both ways. An atheist who is convinced by science, rightly or wrongly, that evolution is true, but is told he has to abandon that to become a Christian is not going to be able to easily do this.

            For the Christian, if they see evidence that convinces them that evolution is true, rightly or wrongly, they could be ready then to abandon Christianity. This is especially so if we don't give them reasons for thinking Christianity is true other than their emotional feelings. Now add in also that for young people in college, they could be more easily tempted to give in to strong sexual desire and have more emphasis to abandon Christianity.

            The focus of Christianity is not creation. It is Jesus. I would rather have someone have the wrong view of creation and the right view of Jesus, rather than have the right view of creation, such as a Jewish person who treats the Old Testament like Scripture, and is wrong on Jesus.

            Second, I appreciate his points on supposed gaps that we sometimes seem to want to see in evangelicalism. We often give the impression that the more questions science answers, the more God is out of a job, but what a poor view of God for both the Christian and the atheist. A God who is just a stopgap? Both the atheist and Christian have poor theology and yes, every atheist has a theology. They have a doctrine of the deity or deities they don't believe.

            Van Till says that a universe that has all of this seamlessness needs its own explanation. Something I notice in the book is I can't remember one time Aquinas is cited. For Aquinas, the idea of sustaining of the universe would be essential to him. The existence of God is shown by something as simple as change in the universe.

            I also appreciate that Van Till did spend some time in Genesis. I think he spent more than the others, but again, I wish he had spent a lot more. He did stress the importance of taking the text seriously.

            Some negatives here?

            I would have liked to have seen more of the evidence of evolution that he finds convincing, rightly or wrongly again. I do grant though that for those of us who are not scientifically minded, this could be difficult. We more often just hear that the majority, even Christian biologists, accept evolution, and this could be true, but I want to know why they do.

            Second, I want to know how prayer works in his world. Van Till believes in miracles, but he doesn't seem to explain them. What are we wanting God to do? Van Till can sometimes make God be too transcendent just as his opponents can overemphasize immanence.

            Third, I would like to have had something explained about the soul in creation. How does man get one? Now it could be that Van Till holds to anthropological monism. Okay. Say that then. If he doesn't, then explain what does happen.

            Overall though, I think Christians need to listen to this position and don't have the hounds of heresy come out. Making a war of science and religion only hurts both sides. These need to be viewed as allies and not as enemies and anyone who says they are enemies is doing a disservice to both. I am sure that is not the intention of many, but that is often the effect.

            Next time, I plan to give some concluding thoughts.

            In Christ,
            Nick Peters
            (And I affirm the virgin birth)

            Comment


            • #7
              Final thoughts

              Link

              -----------

              What are my final thoughts? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

              So having reached the end, I want to lay out some thoughts on the matter. While I have my views, I want to focus on what I think we should agree on. All of what I say will be that which I think should be agreed on by all Christians in the debate.

              First, whatever is shown to be true by science and Scripture should be accepted. Christians should have no problem with whatever method God chose to use. If the evidence showed He used evolution to create, then we accept that. If we find evidence that shows that the Earth is much younger than we thought, then we accept that.

              If we hold to inerrancy, this should not be a problem. We would realize that if Scripture is true then whatever is shown by science will align with it. To say otherwise is to keep going on with the outdated conflict hypothesis.

              Second, we should not try to fill in gaps with God. When the medieval scientists did their work, they were filling in gaps of knowledge and thought by explaining more, they were giving more glory to God. They were discovering how the creator chose to work and tended to want to use materialistic explanations. They really did not do appeal to miracle.

              If we put God in as just someone to stop a gap, then we have a very different view of God. We often have it that we think the universe can exist just fine on its own and is not dependent in any way on God, despite Scripture regularly telling us otherwise. This is where we get to the internet atheist idea that if evolution is true, God is out of a job. This is itself a theology that does hold that the universe can exist on its own. How it exists needs to be answered.

              Third, that doesn’t mean there could never be gaps where miracles could occur, but a miracle should not be occurred to just because there is a gap in knowledge. I would think we would need some indication from Scripture that a miracle took place and a problem clearly insurmountable by materialistic means. Unfortunately, no one will agree entirely on what that means, which means it is part of the debate.

              Fourth, we need to stop telling everyone why they’re holding the positions that they hold unless they say otherwise. Atheists will tell Christians they hold their views for a fear of death, for example. Christians will tell atheists they just want to live in sin. Now in some cases, this could be true, but we need to realize that saying that doesn’t deal with the arguments.

              Meanwhile, between us, something I saw in the book was various appeals to why someone held their view and the reasons were never good. It was a psychological motive that the other person would always deny. No matter who is doing this, it doesn’t help our debate any.

              Fifth, we need to realize there are going to be gaps in our knowledge always no matter our viewpoint. I said I would have some of my own questions for evolution and here is a big one I wonder about. I wonder how sexual reproduction came about. I can understand single-celled organisms reproducing by themselves. It sounds like a complex process, but that is within onesself.

              I have a hard time understanding how through small incremental steps a system evolved between the two sexes in species where they would reproduce in such a method. I would be willing to accept that this is just an unknown at the time, but for me, it is a big unknown. That brings me to my next point to discuss.

              Sixth, either way, we definitely have to avoid making people think, no matter their worldview, that they must choose between Christianity and science. When atheists tell Christians they have to accept either evolution or Christianity, a great many will choose Christianity because it gives them greater benefits in their lives and sadly will become hostile to science and not make great contributions that they could make.

              Christians, meanwhile, will not reach atheists if they say it has to be one or the other. This should be seen as an in-house debate. Whatever one thinks of evolutionary creationism, I really don’t think it should be labeled a heresy. Heresy is a very serious charge that puts someone outside of salvation.

              Ultimately, perhaps we should all just listen to one another more. Instead of saying why we think the other person believes X, let them tell us why they believe it. What is their evidence? Maybe we should then respond to that.

              I would like to see this debate get along better and have us realize we are Christians debating an issue that is really secondary. We all unite on Jesus, which is the most important aspect.

              In Christ,
              Nick Peters
              (And I affirm the virgin birth)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post



                The focus of Christianity is not creation. It is Jesus. I would rather have someone have the wrong view of creation and the right view of Jesus, rather than have the right view of creation, such as a Jewish person who treats the Old Testament like Scripture, and is wrong on Jesus.
                Unfortunately there are some prominent leaders of the YEC camp who don't want to base their faith on our trust upon Christ's message and promise of redemption and salvation but rather on how they read and interpret the first couple of chapters of Genesis, specifically the creation account. For them they seem to treat the first part of the Genesis as being the Bible with everything else that comes after as being unnecessary footnotes or an appendix.

                For example, the current grand poobah of the YEC movement, Ken Ham, has pretty much come straight out and said so -- at least the part about basing his belief on a literal interpretation of Genesis. In an article in The Christian Post entitled Ken Ham Accuses Evolution-Supporting Christians of 'Undermining the Bible' we can read the following in the opening (bolding added by rogue06):

                Source: Ken Ham Accuses Evolution-Supporting Christians of 'Undermining the Bible'


                Creationist Ken Ham has argued that the foundation of Christian faith rests in a literal interpretation of the Creation account in the Bible, as found in Genesis 1-11, stating that Christian leaders who do not interpret it literally are leading people astray.

                "Genesis 1-11 is like the foundation to a house. The whole structure stands upon it -- all of our major doctrines like sin, salvation, the coming consummation, marriage, and more are grounded in Genesis," Ham wrote Wednesday on Facebook.



                Source

                © Copyright Original Source



                On the aforementioned Facebook page Ham even concludes, "They no longer have a foundation to base their thinking on!" rejecting Christ as his foundation in favor of the beginning of Genesis.

                Sorry Ken but that is, as the great theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli put it when he said "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch" ("It is not only not right, it is not even wrong") --or as Asimov's axiom describes it, wronger than wrong.

                The foundation of Christianity is built upon Christ and his finished work on the cross, and definitely not upon how we should understand the creation accounts in Genesis. As Jesus plainly says about those who base their faith on something other than Him in Matthew 7:24-27:

                "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it."


                YECs in the mold of Ham seek to shift the focus from Christ and onto such things as the age of the earth and evolution. But our faith isn't built upon such things, rather it is built upon the resurrection of Jesus. For me this is the kind of false message that Paul repeatedly cautioned against when he warned about those preaching "another gospel" (II Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 1:8).

                Moreover, Ham is entirely in error in thinking that if you don't accept the YEC version of Genesis, including that the earth is only a couple thousand years old, that you'll start rejecting "all of our major doctrines like sin, salvation, the coming consummation, marriage." That is utterly false and nothing but a red herring of the worst sort, designed solely to distract attention from the fact that even a cursory examination of the evidence provided by God's creation reveals that the YEC interpretation is in error. Those making such a claim hope to instill fear so as to frighten people away from such an examination.

                I should note that while I think that the YEC approach is wrong, just because Ham is seeking to lead folks astray (and is held in low esteem by many in the YEC community for a number of reasons), that does not automatically discredit YEC or other YECs in general. It doesn't make what they believe evil and blasphemous.



                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #9
                  *sigh*

                  Well, Ham does have a point. If Jesus is the I AM who inspired Scripture, then Gen. 1-11 is part of His word, so it's part of the foundation we're to build on. Your quote from Matthew is about His word, not about His person. Sin, salvation, the nuclear family are all rooted in the first few chapters of Genesis. Even the consummation, when the dragon, the serpent of old, is defeated and access to the Tree of Life is restored is founded on the first few chapters of Genesis. Whatever the truth is about the length of time and the details of the processes, if there was not a literal Adam and Eve who were literally given dominion and created in the image and likeness of God, placed in the garden to guard and tend it, tempted by the serpent, sinned, and given the Proto-Evangel, none of what comes later really matters. If there was no Adam who blew it, there is no need for a Second Adam to fix it. If there was no serpent who instigated the Fall, there is no dragon to defeat.
                  Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                  Beige Federalist.

                  "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                  Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                  Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

                  Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                  Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                  Justice for Matthew Perna!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Scripture Verse: Matthew 7:24-27

                    “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    After a quick look I cannot find anything in His teaching that requires a belief in a young creation. And when the jailer asked Paul what was needed to be saved, he didn't bring up a "proper" understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 either.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment

                    Related Threads

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by Apologiaphoenix, Today, 09:28 AM
                    0 responses
                    10 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                    Started by Apologiaphoenix, Yesterday, 10:15 AM
                    0 responses
                    9 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                    Started by Apologiaphoenix, 05-25-2022, 09:05 AM
                    9 responses
                    71 views
                    2 likes
                    Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                    Started by Apologiaphoenix, 05-24-2022, 09:42 AM
                    19 responses
                    129 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post rogue06
                    by rogue06
                     
                    Started by Apologiaphoenix, 05-20-2022, 09:11 AM
                    0 responses
                    14 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                    Working...
                    X