Is defending a 'young' earth necessary?

[lilpixieofterror]

Thanks, C123.

Only to 'these people' does one have to go out of the way to point out the obvious.

Jorge

Don't want to answer the question, I understand... it would expose your dishonesty and we can't have that.

[rogue06]

Notice how Jorge implies that YEC is a critical belief of Christianity and is a requirement for being a Christian. Nice, do you always try to pull the wool over people's eyes and hope they are too dumb to spot you trying to do this? Perhaps you should answer this question first:

Is YEC a requirement for being a Christian?

You say it isn't, but than you make post like the above one that say otherwise, so what is your answer?

Recently on a different website I started a thread called "YECs: Do you have to believe in a young earth and reject evolution to be a Christian?" Most of those who responded either gave very evasive answers (which you had to press them for) or worked very hard to change the subject. Two gave direct answers which were no.

Here is the post:

Source: YECs: Do you have to believe in a young earth and reject evolution to be a Christian?

IMHO, after reading numerous posts from the YECs that post in this section (Evolution and Intelligent Design) it seems that most (but not all) of them think that in order to be a True Christian™ you must first bow before the altar of YEC dogma. They tell us that if you don't think that the earth and surrounding universe are only a few thousand years old and that life cannot change, adapt and diversify over time (i.e., evolve) then you can't be a Christian.

The question that immediately springs to mind is did Christ say that? No He did not. Well then, did any of the Biblical authors say such a thing? Again, no. In fact I have yet to find anything in the Bible that even remotely suggests such a thing. Moreover at no time or place have these beliefs been considered anywhere near to being essential to the Christian faith.

It is not part of any creed nor has it even been brought up for discussion at a Council or Synod. Further, it should be noted that none of the great Reformed confessions make any comment on the matter of the nature of creation. Not the French Confession (1559), the Scots'Confession (1560), the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1563, 1571) or any of the others. They may stress the sovereign action of God in creating all things but the universal absence of any reference connected even remotely to the issue of the days of creation or the processes involved establishes that it was not a confessional issue in the slightest.

I cannot say with utter certainty but I believe the same is also true for the Roman Catholic Church (the last few popes have even endorsed Theistic Evolution) as well as the Orthodox churches.

And the reason that it has never been a matter of definition is because it was not a matter of controversy or even a point for discussion, despite the varying views in exegetical history. There have always been widely divergent views regarding this subject and not once has it been thought necessary to form a single orthodox view^[1].

The closest this ever even came to taking place was during the 1982 International Council on Biblical Inerrancy where the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was crafted by a group of largely very conservative evangelicals. There the father of the modern creationist movement, Henry Morris, sought to include a 144-hour creation as an essential component of a fundamentalist belief in inerrancy. It was rejected by every other member. None thought it was necessary.

So anyone who insists that one must accept YEC dogma is shifting the foundation of our faith from Christ and onto the age of the earth and what has happened to life after it arose. This contradicts what the Bible teaches which is that the foundation of our faith ought to be built upon Christ and His finished work on the cross -- not upon the age of the earth or whether life has evolved.

For instance pay especially close attention to what Jesus says about those who base their faith on something other than Christ:

Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash." --Matthew 7:24-27

Essentially what some YECs are doing is adding to Scripture -- something we're repeatedly and explicitly told not to do (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; cf. Revelation 22:18-19).

For instance, in I Corinthians 15:14, Paul informs us that

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

But folks who insist that we should follow YEC tenets in order to be True Christians™ seem to think that Paul got it wrong and seek to "correct" him by adding to it, essentially changing what Paul wrote to

And if Christ has not been raised and if life changes over time and the creation is more than a few thousand years old, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

Likewise, when Paul informs us in Romans 10:9 that

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

These same YECs again seek to "correct" Paul by adding to his message so that it reads something like

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead and disagree that the creation is more than a few thousand years old and that life changes and adapts over time, you will be saved.

Similarly when Luke tells us in Acts 16:31 that Paul and Silas told their jailer that...

Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.

...they "really" meant to say

Believe in the Lord Jesus and that life does not change and adapt over time and that the creation is only a few thousand years old, and you will be saved, you and your household.

Moreover these YECs seem to think that Christ Himself got it all wrong or misspoke when he said in John 3:5

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

So they seek to change it to

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, and believes that the earth is but a few thousand years old and that life does not change or adapt over time he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Likewise a little further on at verse 16 where Jesus tells us

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

These YECs again want to correct Him by adding what He must have forgot to include

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him and that the earth is only a few thousand years old and rejects the idea that life changes and adapts over time should not perish but have eternal life.

Finally, did Peter say anything about a young earth or denying evolution in his confession recorded in Matthew 16:16? No, he said that "You are the Christ, the son of the living God" and did Jesus rebuke him and say, "No Peter, thou must first believe in a young earth before you can be my servant"?

And speaking of Peter, look at the reaction to his sermon recorded in Acts 2 after the Holy Spirit visited him and the other apostles as they were staying in Jerusalem. The listeners asked him how they could be saved to which Peter replied in verses 38-39

Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.

But once again most of the YECs here seem to think that Peter, like Paul screwed it up and its up to them to correct his supposed error and add to the message.

By continuing to demand that one must also comply with YEC dogma such folks are putting "an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way" (Romans 14:13).








1. And please note that nobody thought that not taking the creation account in a woodenly literal and simplistic manner was somehow equivalent to calling God a liar.

© Copyright Original Source

When you got past the responses from the trolls the thread actually resulted in some very interesting discussions.

[Cow Poke]

Maybe there's some history or undertones here with which I am not familiar.

I personally don't believe somebody has to agree to MY exact interpretation of the Bible to be saved, or that they have to agree and understand EVERYTHING in the Bible in order to have Salvation....

And, Jorge - your definition of "proper" is rather convoluted. If a believer does not believe in your interpretation of a young earth, does that mean he's "serving anti-biblical, anti-Christian agendas"?????

REALLY?

[Jorge]

Notice how Jorge implies that YEC is a critical belief of Christianity and is a requirement for being a Christian. Nice, do you always try to pull the wool over people's eyes and hope they are too dumb to spot you trying to do this? Perhaps you should answer this question first:

Is YEC a requirement for being a Christian?

You say it isn't, but than you make post like the above one that say otherwise, so what is your answer?

READ MY LIPS: I have answered that question at least 30 times (likely more than that number) dating back to my entry at TWeb, over 11 years and 15,000 posts ago. My answers never amounted to a hill a beans for you people so why would I think that this time around it would be different? All you do is ignore the answer and then repeat the same question over and over again, using that age-old tactic of cheap, crooked lawyers.

Jorge

[Cow Poke]

READ MY LIPS: I have answered that question at least 30 times (likely more than that number) dating back to my entry at TWeb, over 11 years and 15,000 posts ago. My answers never amounted to a hill a beans for you people so why would I think that this time around it would be different? All you do is ignore the answer and then repeat the same question over and over again, using that age-old tactic of cheap, crooked lawyers.

Jorge

Wow... yeah, I guess there's a lot more history here than I was aware.

[lilpixieofterror]

READ MY LIPS: I have answered that question at least 30 times (likely more than that number) dating back to my entry at TWeb, over 11 years and 15,000 posts ago. My answers never amounted to a hill a beans for you people so why would I think that this time around it would be different? All you do is ignore the answer and then repeat the same question over and over again, using that age-old tactic of cheap, crooked lawyers.

Jorge

Wrong again Jorge. As Rogue has so pointed out before (and you just ignore it), you seem to flip flop between the two positions and never seem to remember when you do this. Why don't you remember that? Oh, that's right, because I suspect we know the real answer... only those who agree with Jorge are True Christians^TM and anybody who disagrees is (at best) a distorted Christian who is too stupid to understand the great Jorge. Must be grand to always know the right answer and know that your views are always absolute truth.

[Cerebrum123]

OK, what did I miss?

You know what, it's just not worth it at this point. I would only be misrepresented, and possibly even purposely so*.


*Not by you CP, but there are many others here who have done that one a regular basis. So much of that, and blatant ignoring of my main points that I just gave up. Unsubscribing.

[Juvenal]

Wow... yeah, I guess there's a lot more history here than I was aware.

Check this:

... 15,000 posts ...

Jorge is the Mickiel of TWeb's Nat. Sci. forum.

Why don't you ask him if defending his diploma mill PhD is necessary for his faith, too?

[Cow Poke]

Jorge,

I think you are being unnecessarily divisive.
There are SOME things that I consider "essentials" that would keep me from having fellowship with others who claimed to be believers.

Why is it necessary to attack anybody who doesn't agree with your specific view of Creation?

What do you hope to gain by that?

How does this square with repeated calls in the NT for unity - even Jesus said "by this shall all men know you are my disciples", referring to loving one another.

[Cow Poke]

Check this:



Jorge is the Mickiel of TWeb's Nat. Sci. forum.

Why don't you ask him if defending his diploma mill PhD is necessary for his faith, too?

It's coming back to me.

[lilpixieofterror]

You know what, it's just not worth it at this point. I would only be misrepresented, and possibly even purposely so*.


*Not by you CP, but there are many others here who have done that one a regular basis. So much of that, and blatant ignoring of my main points that I just gave up. Unsubscribing.

Cere, ask yourself this question... why should I or others take Jorge seriously when:

1. He just calls us a bunch of names.
2. Implies we're not 'True Christians^TM' or 'compromised Christians' for not being YEC's.
3. Says anybody who isn't a YEC is just too dumb to understand?

Have you ever seen myself, Rogue, Jim, or many others imply YEC's are compromised Christians or are just too dumb to understand?

[Jorge]

Maybe there's some history or undertones here with which I am not familiar.

I personally don't believe somebody has to agree to MY exact interpretation of the Bible to be saved, or that they have to agree and understand EVERYTHING in the Bible in order to have Salvation....

And, Jorge - your definition of "proper" is rather convoluted. If a believer does not believe in your interpretation of a young earth, does that mean he's "serving anti-biblical, anti-Christian agendas"?????

REALLY?

There is indeed a history -- a very long history -- that applies here. Now, you were certainly "here" (at TWeb), but that doesn't mean that you were involved in the discussions (I cannot remember) and so on that basis I cannot/will not accuse you of anything. The same cannot be said of certain 'others' here.

As to the questions at the end of your post (above) : the answers cannot be given with two characters or even with two pages of characters. Let me just say this:

First, it is not "MY" interpretation. Every time I hear that thrust at me I have to restrain myself (as I am now doing) from thinking the worst.

Second, there is a huge amount of ignorance on this matter, even amongst veteran evangelicals. Ask yourself, is it possible (just possible) that a person believes the wrong thing (false doctrine) and as a result supports wrong, even evil, agendas? As a specific example: suppose (just suppose) that the Earth really was created less than 10,000 years ago. If that is in fact the case (just supposing, okay?) then every Christian that presently supports "billions of years" is allying him(her)self with the anti-biblical, anti-Christian agendas of Atheists/Humanists/Materialists, agreed? They don't KNOW that they're doing this and they certainly wouldn't be doing it if they knew, but they don't know and so they are unwilling allies of the "enemy".

Better?

Jorge

[Jorge]

Cere, ask yourself this question... why should I or others take Jorge seriously when:

1. He just calls us a bunch of names.
2. Implies we're not 'True Christians^TM' or 'compromised Christians' for not being YEC's.
3. Says anybody who isn't a YEC is just too dumb to understand?

Have you ever seen myself, Rogue, Jim, or many others imply YEC's are compromised Christians or are just too dumb to understand?

At'ta way, Terror!

Apply that age-old strategy of vilification and character assassination! That way you don't even have to defend your position, you can win by default on the basis that your opponent is "scum" and so no one has to take him seriously.

Yuck ... thank you so much for living very far away from me!

Jorge

[Jorge]

Check this:



Jorge is the Mickiel of TWeb's Nat. Sci. forum.

Why don't you ask him if defending his diploma mill PhD is necessary for his faith, too?

Apply to yourself --- with a double-dose --- my last post directed at Terror.

Jorge

[rogue06]

Jorge,

I think you are being unnecessarily divisive.
There are SOME things that I consider "essentials" that would keep me from having fellowship with others who claimed to be believers.

Why is it necessary to attack anybody who doesn't agree with your specific view of Creation?

What do you hope to gain by that?

How does this square with repeated calls in the NT for unity - even Jesus said "by this shall all men know you are my disciples", referring to loving one another.

Unfortunately for those YECs in Jorge's mold^[1] it seems that for them the Bible consists of the first few chapters of Genesis with the rest merely being footnotes or an appendix.

They do see this as a matter that one's salvation rests upon. They're far more interested in the ages of the rocks rather than the Rock of Ages (I know that's trite but accurately reflects the situation).

I've always leaned toward the sentiment expressed in the oft quoted maxim that is usually, but incorrectly, attributed to St. Augustine: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas ("In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, diversity [or liberty]").

While it appears to have been a view that Augustine held^[2]] it appears to originate with the Catholic Archbishop of Spalato, Croatia (on the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea) a Marco Antonio Dominis in 1617. Shortly thereafter the Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a. Peter Meiderlin) said essentially the same thing.










1. And most that I know are not like that.

2. As can be seen by the following remark by Thomas Aquinas in his unfinished masterpiece, Summa Theologica (1274):

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."