From here:
The reason why I engage in these discussions is very simple: I want to remove the stumbling block to the Gospel message that is being created by a dogmatic presentation of Creationism. Not the belief in a young earth and creation without evolution per se, but the “either/or†teaching that comes with it. I am not here to argue for an old earth or evolution, necessarily, but against the false dichotomy that so often comes along with Creationism. More and more people are being taught that an old earth/evolution and Christianity are wholly inconsistent and that if you believe one, you can not really believe the other. Such a blanket statement puts two very distinct groups in crisis and I am convinced that souls are being lost to the Kingdom as a result. This may sound a bit over-dramatic, but I have seen too many people distracted from the Gospel message by this issue.
Creationism (generally of the young earth variety) is one of those issues that has assumed center stage for many Christians. If we believe that the gospel is the center of Christiantiy, and is that which saves, and reconciles the sinner with God then the gospel should be the primary focus of our churches, ministries, and lives.
43 Comments(+Add)
Good post, Tim. It is something that really bugs me, too. I think there is room for grace on each side of the issue, but it really seems that Young Earther’s tend to be the most dogmatic about this.
The thing that bugs me is that they really are using the same arguments they’ve been using for the past 10 or 15 years, and many of them are pretty easy for anyone with a science background to refute. They tell high school kids to use these against there teachers or professors when they get to college, and they end up getting laughed out of class. It’s not because they’re Christians, primarily, but because they are using weak arguments.
Those kids can either go one of two ways, then, I’ve found. Some of them will lose all respect and trust for the Church and anyone associated with it, because they fell lied to. Others will remain dogmatic about it, and get the attitude that professors know nothing. I don’t know which is more dangerous, but I think in either case the results are somewhat similar. Many young Christians feel they can’t be in science field without compromising their beliefs, so the church ends up actually turning over more ground. On the other side, if people feel they were lied too by the church, then it is hard for them to move past that cynicism. In both cases, I believe the church ends up losing ground in the field of science because it has turned this into an issue that issue more about power and politics than science.
By the way, here’s a link that presents alternatives to young earth creationism from a Christian perspective.
“I am convinced that souls are being lost to the Kingdom as a result.”
That must be the supreme issue in all we do. It is at the core of the election controversy and it is also at the core of the shallow message controversy. My first day in Bible college my Survey of Genesis teacher said,
“If you do not believe in the 24 hour ceation day you will have trouble understanding the whole Bible”.
Having been saved 1 1/2 years I thought he was right. I do not believe it today. I believe Sunday took three weeks, Monday and Tuesday were created together in 9 minutes, Wednesday took four years and 1 day, Thursday and Friday took 37 minutes, and Saturday is still being created as we speak.
I have the Hebrew to back me up about this but I’m sure you guys won’t listen to me and twist Scripture.
And the most underused phrase in the entire evngelical world is,
“I’m not sure about that.”
What a wimp!Â
Â
This gets back to the mistakes made in the cultural transition to a “modernist” society over 100 years ago, where key Christian leaders (such as Spurgeon) pitted Christianity against the arrival of Modernism, creating a false dichotomy between religious truth and scientific truth. This, in turn, has marginalized Christians in many discussions and forums where the gospel message needs to be heard.
The question is, are many Christians now repeating the same exact mistake as the world moves to a postmodern view?
Listen guys, it has been my personal experience that the scientific arena is no hotb ed for evangelism. Darwin or creationism or old and new earth are mainly arguments, I have heard scientists who have gotten saved and it usually isn’t because of their science or the church’s treatment of it.
Preach the gospel, live like Jesus, pray like Elijah, and in all things – love.
Here’s the thing I struggle with; I believe in a young earth. The “scientific arguments” I hear against it seem to me to go against Scripture so I don’t accept them. I don’t argue back about the whole thing. I just don’t see how or why I’m expected to allow science to trump my view of Scripture.
Science has changed its mind on a ton of things over the years. I do believe that the idea of evolution was championed by a man with an agenda. (Darwin). At the end of the day, I don’t think it’s a salvation issue but I do wonder why we assume science is what should rule the day. Is there tension in the young earth theory? Probably, but there’s tension in almost every Biblical truth. (For a nice little example of that, look at the all the back and forth on election/free will). 15 years ago I was laughed out of a room because I said that sex created emotional bonds between people that were best served in marriage. The laughter doesn’t change the fact that I believe I was right. Maybe instead of teaching our kids cool arguments for a young earth we could teach them a lot of other things (not the least of which is to expect to get laughed at over certain things), I agree.
I guess I just see a lot of room for grace on both sides and I’m concerned that we’ve allowed science to dictate (to some extent) how we interpret the Bible.
Besides which I’ll tell you about some evolution I don’t believe in: Anthony Morrelli as a QB. It’s like he gets worse each week! ICK
Rick you’re not saying, “LOVE WINS” are you?
While I disagree with the statement, “I am convinced that souls are being lost to the Kingdom as a result”, I do agree that this is not an idea (old earth vs young earth) we need to die for.
At my church this past summer, we had a “Tough Questions” series. Basically, each Sunday, a pastor took on a hot topic, such as suffering, hell, other religions, etc. When the pastor dealt with creation, at the end of the service he had two elders do a question/answer sesssion. One of the elders is a scientist and an old earth guy. The other elder was a young earth guy. They didn’t have a debate, they spent the time sharing how the two, as Christians, can coexist.
After collecting mountains of empirical evidence, and using my multi-faceted intellectual prowess, and after evaluating the subject through the prisim of Einstein’s relativity, I have come to this one unassailable conclusion.
“I’m not sure about that.â€
I have footnotes and bibliography upon request.
Joe,
I hear what you’re saying. The only thing I would say is that it really wasn’t until the last 150 years that Christians made the age of the earth any type of issue.
I would agree science has been wrong before (as well as Christians), but I don’t think we should pitch faith and science against one another. I think even if someone believes in an old earth or evolution, they can say it all points to God’s glory.
The other thing I would add is this. I’ve heard Christians say things like, “evolutionary science has no practical application in the real-world”, and the fact is that’s just untrue. Many breakthroughs in medicine and biotechnology are related to evolutionary concepts in molecular biology.
I guess I can’t claim to be unbiased, because that’s what my wife’s PhD will be in, so I’ll throw that it. She is not, to the best of my knowledge, a Godless heretic.
The reason that I disagree with the statement, ““I am convinced that souls are being lost to the Kingdom as a result†is because, no matter what, man is still responsible for his own decisions. If he is rejecting Christ because of dumb Christians, he is still answerable to Christ. Not that this is an excuse for Christians to do dumb things.
Joe,
Oh, and I would agree that Anthony Morelli seems to be de-volving into an ape-like state.
I don’t think its a direct 1:1 ratio in the “losing souls” department. But I do think it happens in that it pushes people away from the church in general. Those that are drawn to the hard sciences feel like they have to decide between the two.
And this is where Bell would have been better served with his question of importance. Instead of the virgin birth he could have used young and old earth and even evolution, the virgin birth does make a substantive difference.
Well Phil, She married you so that says something about her ***ahem*** discernment. At least she didn’t go to ND.
She wasn’t accepted into ND due to her questionable relationships.
There are all kinds of ancient creation accounts that feature pantheons of gods being born and having dominion over certain phenomena. That is what myths do: They develop as a way to try to explain certain events. The big difference between the gods and creation accounts of myth and that of the true God is that God created everything all by himself, alone.
Genesis presupposes God’s existence; it’s not trying to convince the reader of God’s existence. Therefore, I’d be careful about putting (i.e., I would not put) a literal 6-day creation hurdle in the way of someone coming to Christ. Instead of saying, “how can you trust the Gospel if you can’t trust Genesis and a young earth?” I would say because you believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you can believe the rest of what the bible has to say.
I haven’t had a chance to completely work this through, but I’ve been thinking about some of the parallels between Gnosticism and this tendency to major in the minors. In some ways, it turns the God of the Bible into a god of fine print. And then, in some type of ascension or enlightenment, only those who can “best” understand and interpret the fine print can set themselves up as an arbiter of the fine print. If you want the approval of the arbiters, you’d better toe the theological line per the fine print or you’re a false convert.
“I haven’t had a chance to completely work this through, but I’ve been thinking about some of the parallels between Gnosticism and this tendency to major in the minors.”
And that is exactly what my son and I were discussing yesterday. And it is not just confined to accepted minors, it can also go to being dogmatic on the things of the Spirit that are unclear and not conected to redemption.
For example one side says that God is three distinct persons, another side says He is one person revealed in three manifestations. And what is the difference? It changes nothing and the Bible is unclear as to the complete revelation. We do know that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God and with that “amen”.
And different streams claim an experience of revelation apart from salvation. The charismatics have an experience of the Spirit and the reformed have a mental experience of further doctrinal revelation. One experience we should all have is a complete and utter surrender to our Master in all His fullness and a rejection of the things of this world.
So your gnosticism observation, sandman, is something to ponder.
I am a young earth guy… can you believe it?
Now, saying that I am not wasting my time trying to convince someone that I am right…
For example in another area… Jonah.
I can waste hours debating whale vs fish. If fish what fish is big enough? Can a person survive 3 whole days in the belly of a fish? Would a person if they survived, be bleached white as I have heard preached so many times?
Now, I may take it “literal” but to assume someone else will is a bit of a waste of time again…
Now I can focus on the story… and in that story the person can still listener and learn and understand the point of the story… as in the case of Jonah, that God is compassionate, and that God’s people need be like their God. Also that even a prophet of God can miss the point.
But, to focus on a fish… well…
I can focus on the stories of Genesis… and in the stories through out some science which is fine, but to focus solely on science to convince someone to believe the story, again misses the point. If I can’t get the person to believe it was 6 day creation, still tell the story of the creation and God’s preparing a place for man…. and that man fell into sin and needs a savior.
I do not write off science, but I will not focus on it. I know of pretty smart guys who are believers that do not see it literally yet they are still brothers as we focus on Jesus.
Be blessed,
iggy
Sandman,
I think you may be on to something with the Gnosticism comment. I think anything that tries to separate the physical reality (i.e., scientific observation) from spiritual reality. Of course I’m not saying we should say scientific observation somehow trumps what is spiritually revealed, either. It’s just that we don’t need to fear science that can in the end give us better view and appreciation of God’s creation.
I think one reason I am drawn to the Christus Victor view of the Atonement is because it is, in my opinion, a more holistic explanation of salvation.
You know, iggy, I’m still too young for wrinkles, but when my hands have been in water for a time, they start to prune. I tend to think the world may not be so much old (billions and bllions of years) as it is flooded. And re: Jonah, a whale shark is the largest fish on recrd and could possibly fit the bill, though they don’t eat people.
Amazing…they find ice on Mars and some scientists are all excited that there may be life on Mars. We live on a planet with 70% of its surface coved by water and those same scientists will howl in derision at the very concept of a global flood.
Phil, for as much as I am an artist, scratch the surface and you’ll find a scientist. The way I negotiate science and the supernatural is this: Science (at least to the degree we can embrace it) is a method, not the method. It’s a misapplication of science, I think, to try to use science to explain why we’re here, or use the bible to explain the physics of how a 777 is able to take flight.
Hurray! I get to use my “Wrath of Kahn” example in context!
At one point in time I was a theistic evolutionist and old earth adherent. Then I had an epiphany while watching the “Wrath of Kahnâ€. In the move the Federation had created a “Genesis Device†that was able to completely reform the molecular makeup of an entire planet in a matter of minutes. Now for any science fiction movie to be believable they have to be able to successfully suspend the viewer’s disbelief. So in this case could I buy that 400 years in the future our technology could create such a device? The answer was yes. I could buy in to the probability that 400 years from now mankind could manipulate matter in that fashion. Then I really did get an epiphany. “John, if you believe MANKIND could technically advance far enough to be able to completely reform an ENTIRE planet in less than a minute could not GOD make it in six days?†And that’s what changed me to a Genesis literalist and I have Captain Kirk to thank.
HJ – very sound Biblical exegesis indeed. Kirk? The Genesis account is so nebulous and very unspecific that even a literal account has some overviews.
Rick,
The “Wrath of Kahn” reference always wins many brownie points with teh Purpose Driven crowed. It’s so “relevant”. You can even use the clip right of the movie!
Houston John: that argument is actually a pretty old one, called the “omphalos” argument, or the “appearance of age” argument. The problems with it are serious, in my opinion.
First, it is not a matter of what God can do, since we all agree that God is able to do what He likes. He can have made it in six seconds, or one timeless instant, for that matter. So, it is not an issue of God’s power, but God’s choice.
Second, I can fully accept the idea of God wanting to create the world as we have it all at once for “maturity” sake, creating a universe and planet that is fully functional and ready for Mankind. But if He did this, would He also create so many “scars” of age? Evidences of things that never happened? Evidence of ages that never existed? It would be like planting into a instantly mature Adam memories of a past life he had never lived.
In short, the earth and universe does not look in the least like it went through a series of hoops, which could have happened very quickly or over a long period of time. It has all the evidences of that very long period of time that would not exist if it had just happened quickly (without God “planting” them there for some reason).
If we all accept that the evidence is overwhelming that the earth looks billions of years old and that our current life evolved over that time from earlier life forms, then we have two choices as Christians:
1. God created it all very recently, but intentionally in a way that would look and feel and act in every possible way as if it was actually billions of years old with evolution as the means of developing life, with all the “deception” issues that arise.
2. That the literal historic narrative way of reading Genesis is not how it was intended to be read. The Bible is entirely true, but it was not written in that literary genre.
As always, I say “remember geocentrism”.
HJ – relevant to the 1980s!
–1. God created it all very recently, but intentionally in a way that would look and feel and act in every possible way as if it was actually billions of years old with evolution as the means of developing life, with all the “deception†issues that arise.–
May I offer a third option…
That God created all things recently, but that men who have an agenda to call into question the existence of God have taken the evidence and tried to make it fit their “earth is billions of year old” assumption.
Jazz,
Even ‘young earth creationists’ cannot explain starlight that has to be millions of years old to be seen right now. For me, it is the balance of ‘the evidence of creation’ as described by Paul, which gives evidence (which is different than proof) of its Creator. So, did God create starlight ‘in transit’ from all around the universe (all the way back to its first recorded use, about 4,000 years ago (give or take)) 6,000 years ago in 6 literal 24-hour days- or did he create it over a period of time – consistent with Genesis, but not in literal days, but in figurative ones?
Either way, the importance of the Genesis account rests in Genesis 1:1. In the beginning, God created.
That God created all things recently, but that men who have an agenda to call into question the existence of God have taken the evidence and tried to make it fit their “earth is billions of year old†assumption.
Umm… no. The evidence is quite clear.
–, did God create starlight ‘in transit’ from all around the universe (all the way back to its first recorded use, about 4,000 years ago (give or take)) 6,000 years ago in 6 literal 24-hour days–
I saw an interesting response once to that. Assuming God created Adam as Genesis says, how old was Adam when God breathed into him? How old did he seem to be? In real time, Adam was in some respects a newborn, but by Genesis God created Adam and later the woman in a mature state. I’m not sure what exactly that looked like, but let’s say that they looked like people in our 20-40 year range.
So, if God in creating man started with mature beings, and it may be safe to say such was also the way with animals in general, then it may be posited that God in creating the universe as a whole also began it in a mature state.
If that is so, then evidence like light is not ‘lying’, any more then Adam’s apparent age in his first moment of life puts the lie to his real age.
While I’m certain this post was more about a dogmatic view and less about proof I would like to suggest a book.
“Genesis Unbound” by Dr. John Sailhamer
An excellent read from a scientist and hebrew linguist.
Chris -
Excellent addition – one of the Amazon reviewers gives this synopsis:
I can see this as being another possible interpretation, which fits more with balancing the ‘evidence of creation’ with ‘evidence of scripture’ than young-earth and some other theories (which are all just that, theories).
jazz -
Certainly, God could have created all of these things in ‘mature’ state, but it still begs the question of why He would create in such a way that would purposely detract from the ‘evidence of creation’ in a manner inconsitent with His other supernatural works. [As it is, every supernova and galaxy is more than 6,000 light years away, which begs the question as to whether any of these actually exist, since what we "see" of them is often more than 1,000 times older than a 'young earth'.]
To go back to my original posit in this thread – this was never an issue (young earth vs. old earth vs. evolution vs. etc.) until the church pitted itself as being opposed to modernism, setting up the false dichotomy of scientific truth vs. religious truth. In reality, I believe there is no conflict, because the Creator of both is the Creator of all…
Jazz, you are forgetting that the vast majority of scientists in the relevant fields who are Christian also accept that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution is how God did it. Obviously, they do not have the agenda you talk about. It is not a worldview issue, but a matter of proper exegesis and proper science working together. Both can be at fault, so we need to look objectively at which is more likely to the be the case in a given situation. Here, it is dramatically more likely that the fault lies in the over-literal interpretation of Scripture rather than a false interpretation of nature.
Just like with geocentrism.
Two things:
First- Joe, as an ND alum, I take almost as much offense from your comments as I do from the current state of our football team.
Second – In my humble opinion, it is more important to believe that God could have created the world in six, twenty-four hour days (or six minutes, or six nanoseconds, or in no time flat) than it is to believe that He actually did. I agree with Rick that the most underused phrase in theological and doctrinal discussions is “I don’t know.”
Now, let’s not have anyone claim that I am saying that we can’t know anything or that the Bible isn’t clear on anything. I am just saying that there are things we don’t know and may never know, and part of faith is being okay with that.
ah shua….deal with it.
We must forgive Joe, Shua, in football he is one of the non-elect and it bothers him. Of course Pen State looked like their season is going nowhere. Don’t mock…weaker brother and all that ya know.
Rick,
I have a tape of that ND/Penn State game from this year if you want to see it. I.E.
SCOREBOARD
Joe:
Don’t make come down there.
That tape is about as authentic as the claim from the Lions that they don’t do steroids!
I also want it known that my initial comment was on point, and that I did not intentionally hijack this thread. However, as Rick will, I’m sure, be quick to point out, it must have been destined to happen.
In further discussion of the actual topic, I heard it described very well by a new friend last night. To paraphrase (since we all know, Rick, that paraphrases are more helpful):
There is absolute truth that never changes. We may not be able to understand all of the facets of it, or to reconcile all of the truth that is there and doesn’t change. Where the relativists get it wrong is when they assume that because we cannot get a handle on the Truth, or understand all of its facets, that it is not there.
I find no problem in knowing that 1. there is an absolute truth to the situation, and 2. I may never understand or know it. But, I will keep trying to understand.
Perhaps now would be a good time for ND fans to take a vow of silence.
The word relevent should be defined as communicating an eternal truth via a cultural environment that can be helpful in accommodating a complete understanding of that same eternal truth.
What some relevent adherants do, maybe without desiring to, is change the essence of that truth either wholly or at least in part and intensity. So after years of morphing releventism about certain truths the truth begins to shed its spiritual quality and begins to be only understood attached to the culture and not in its pristine substance. In short, the truth has changed.