Are YEC's and literalists harmful to the faith?

[undone]

I remember a post from a few months ago by AK asking if an evolutionist would be more apt to consider the Christian faith if they learned about it from a Theistic Evolutionist, or Old Earth Creationist rather than a Young Earth Creationist.

I've heard others, like Myco, adamantly state that YEC's are damaging the credibility of the faith.

You may have seen me (a YEC) post that because those other world-views have too many holes of their own, why should I give up my world-view?

My own experience with talking to and/or debating online unbelievers (especially evolutionists) is that even if I were to bend my interpretation of scripture and adopt some of their world-view, I have yet to see one check that objection off the list and either move onto the next thing or get saved. My understanding is that it does happen, but is extremely rare.

I've also heard from Secondeve that because so many Christians hold so many different views and translations of bible text, that this is just as damaging if not more than the Genesis story alone.

So, is there any truth to the notion that YEC's and literalists are damaging to the faith?

I personally don't think so. My faith is what it is. I didn't become a Christian because of the Genesis or Old Testament stories. I am a Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ and what the New Testament says about him.

What about you? What do you think?

[WayneB]

What about you? What do you think?

My personal opinion is that many people who lack faith will use whatever excuse they can muster to continue in their disbelief. They will always point at something a believer did or didn't do. That's why so many unbelievers come to the boards and don't stay long before they get banned. They want an excuse to remain in their unbelief. They want to be able to tell all their friends (and justify themselves) that they were banned from a Christian discussion board.

In Matthew chapter 19, the disciples and the Lord were discussing who would be saved. Have you ever thought on what Jesus told the twelve? He told them that they would sit on twelve thrones alongside the Son of Man and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. I wondered (and still do) what this means in context but it seems to me that it is pointing out... who better than His followers to reflect Christ and remove the excuses of those who die in their unbelief? The unbelieving Jews are without excuse. Many were well versed in Scripture. Many were well aware of the words of the prophets. Many experienced God's festivals and celebrations all pointing to the coming of the King. Yet they refused to follow Him? They refused to accept the Son of Man? The twelve, who were simple fishermen and common men mostly, had no problem recognizing the Christ and therefore all excuses are removed from the others.

So it doesn't matter whether or not you are a fundamentalist or a YEC or OEC. It doesn't matter whether or not you are a literalist. Those who choose to remain in their unbelief will do so regardless of your position on these issues until one day, when they truly open their hearts and mind and seek God...not like the rich man who in his arrogance thought eternal life was something to be earned (Matthew 19)...but like the Cannanite woman, a person of faith and humility who just wanted a touch of God's grace. [Matthew 15]

In Christ,

wayne

Edited June 26, 2007 by Wayne B.

[Redwolf]

I remember a post from a few months ago by AK asking if an evolutionist would be more apt to consider the Christian faith if they learned about it from a Theistic Evolutionist, or Old Earth Creationist rather than a Young Earth Creationist.

I've heard others, like Myco, adamantly state that YEC's are damaging the credibility of the faith.

You may have seen me (a YEC) post that because those other world-views have too many holes of their own, why should I give up my world-view?

My own experience with talking to and/or debating online unbelievers (especially evolutionists) is that even if I were to bend my interpretation of scripture and adopt some of their world-view, I have yet to see one check that objection off the list and either move onto the next thing or get saved. My understanding is that it does happen, but is extremely rare.

I've also heard from Secondeve that because so many Christians hold so many different views and translations of bible text, that this is just as damaging if not more than the Genesis story alone.

So, is there any truth to the notion that YEC's and literalists are damaging to the faith?

I personally don't think so. My faith is what it is. I didn't become a Christian because of the Genesis or Old Testament stories. I am a Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ and what the New Testament says about him.

What about you? What do you think?

I don't think they damage the faith. This is a wicked attempt to get the believer to question his faith.

Personally, I look at the creation story a bit differently. When it says 'in the beginning', we don't know whose becginning. And looking at the world described as dark and filled with water, also suggest we don't know whose beginning.

We look at it and it says it was dark and waters covered the face of the deep and then God said 'let there be light'.

Right after that, I'm willing to wait for HIM to open all mysteries and we will understand it all at last. In the meantime, we have better things to do then to try and prove creation and Creator God. It will never happen, because it would collapse HIS house built on faith.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

I believe that Jesus Christ was and is the ultimate Literalist. He believed every Word of God and by it He was literally raised.

Brother Wayne,

Your assessment is spot on. It is not the Creation story that will Save. It is Jesus Christ and acknowledging the fact that He is God and has the Power as God to do such.

Peace,

Dave

[Lekcit]

The short answer is, that in addition to there being zero empirical evidence for a young earth, to believe it, two things must be true: 1) God is a deceptive God. That's because the sum total of everything we know about human history points to an older earth.

Where? Show me, from Scripture where this is shown to be true. Because in all of my studies, there is no place in Scripture that would even begin to teach an old earth. In fact, if you do as Martin Luther and adopt the view of sola scriptura then you would eventually end up adopting a young earth view because Scripture taken alone always teaches a young earth.

[georgesbluegirl]

That answer saves the choir, but frustrates the atheist, and keeps him from asking the second question.

Nicely put.

(Although I am a Christian who does not believe in YEC, so "because the Bible says so" isn't the be all and end all of this issue for me, either ).

[undone]

The short answer is, that in addition to there being zero empirical evidence for a young earth, to believe it, two things must be true: 1) God is a deceptive God. That's because the sum total of everything we know about human history points to an older earth.

Where? Show me, from Scripture where this is shown to be true. Because in all of my studies, there is no place in Scripture that would even begin to teach an old earth. In fact, if you do as Martin Luther and adopt the view of sola scriptura then you would eventually end up adopting a young earth view because Scripture taken alone always teaches a young earth.

Ah. But scripture is for the believers. Its the unbelievers (unsaved) that we must worry about. Consequently, as they will tell you, they need a faith first, and then the bible will make sense to them. Prior to that, one needs to speak a language they understand. While you can't argue someone into the kingdom of God, you can open their minds and their hearts may follow. My point is, the bible is not yet a useful tool for the unbeliever to understand the world, therefore, we must speak in terms that at least make sense. Certainly explaining the meaning of Christ's sacrifice is one way. However, in other instrances, as I noted, when everything that we know the world through contradicts a young earth, I don't see how you get the unbeliever to ask the first question, "who is this Christ", if the previous questions (age of the earth) seem completly illogical. I've not heard any other explanation for a young earth, outside of, "because the bible says so". That answer saves the choir, but frustrates the atheist, and keeps him from asking the second question.

Myco, this question is not in anyway intended to put you on the spot, but have you had any success in leading a science minded unbeliever to Christ? Or, maybe better put, what has your experience been when talking to someone (especially around your particular social circles full of scientists) about your faith using your worldview?

[Guest shiloh357]

What about you? What do you think?

My personal opinion is that many people who lack faith will use whatever excuse they can muster to continue in their disbelief. They will always point at something a believer did or didn't do. That's why so many unbelievers come to the boards and don't stay long before they get banned. They want an excuse to remain in their unbelief. They want to be able to tell all their friends (and justify themselves) that they were banned from a Christian discussion board.

In Matthew chapter 19, the disciples and the Lord were discussing who would be saved. Have you ever thought on what Jesus told the twelve? He told them that they would sit on twelve thrones alongside the Son of Man and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. I wondered (and still do) what this means in context but it seems to me that it is pointing out... who better than His followers to reflect Christ and remove the excuses of those who die in their unbelief? The unbelieving Jews are without excuse. Many were well versed in Scripture. Many were well aware of the words of the prophets. Many experienced God's festivals and celebrations all pointing to the coming of the King. Yet they refused to follow Him? They refused to accept the Son of Man? The twelve, who were simple fishermen and common men mostly, had no problem recognizing the Christ and therefore all excuses are removed from the others.

So it doesn't matter whether or not you are a fundamentalist or a YEC or OEC. It doesn't matter whether or not you are a literalist. Those who choose to remain in their unbelief will do so regardless of your position on these issues until one day, when they truly open their hearts and mind and seek God...not like the rich man who in his arrogance thought eternal life was something to be earned (Matthew 19)...but like the Cannanite woman, a person of faith and humility who just wanted a touch of God's grace. [Matthew 15]

In Christ,

wayne

Precisely. One does not need a YEC to reject Christ. That is just an excuse. No one rejects Christ, ultimately, on an intellecutal basis. The Bible reveals a moral law giver that tells us we are sinners in need of a savior. The Bible offends human pride. The whole young earth vs. old earth issue is irrelevant. Jesus presents Himself to us as Savior and Lord and the hope for a fallen, broken world, steeped in sin. The question is, what will you do with Jesus. The Bible does not stand or fall on one's theory of creation. It stands or falls on who Jesus is, and His resurrection from the dead. Everything else is really just background noise by comparison.

[systemstrike_7]

I remember a post from a few months ago by AK asking if an evolutionist would be more apt to consider the Christian faith if they learned about it from a Theistic Evolutionist, or Old Earth Creationist rather than a Young Earth Creationist.

I've heard others, like Myco, adamantly state that YEC's are damaging the credibility of the faith.

You may have seen me (a YEC) post that because those other world-views have too many holes of their own, why should I give up my world-view?

My own experience with talking to and/or debating online unbelievers (especially evolutionists) is that even if I were to bend my interpretation of scripture and adopt some of their world-view, I have yet to see one check that objection off the list and either move onto the next thing or get saved. My understanding is that it does happen, but is extremely rare.

I've also heard from Secondeve that because so many Christians hold so many different views and translations of bible text, that this is just as damaging if not more than the Genesis story alone.

So, is there any truth to the notion that YEC's and literalists are damaging to the faith?

I personally don't think so. My faith is what it is. I didn't become a Christian because of the Genesis or Old Testament stories. I am a Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ and what the New Testament says about him.

What about you? What do you think?

I certainly don't think that a believer in a young Earth is damaging to the faith. That is just absurd. I think when it comes to disputes such as this, it is merely important that you are confident in your faith. It kind of goes with the whole Calvinist, non-Calvinist thing. Whatever makes you comfortable.

Now, if there came along some indisputable proof that the world is older than the YEC claims, then yes, I believe the YECs must give up that belief. But I doubt that day will ever come. There will always be an argument against it. (I'm not a YEC; and I haven't decided if I'm a believer in theistic evolution yet.)

If we can all have a strong foundation in our faith, I don't think how old the world is will matter much in the end.

[undone]

Myco

All science and medicine must collapse because the laws that we have identified that govern the world no longer apply, and therefore, everything we know about our world is false.

Science and medicine will "collapse" - do you really believe this?

Why would I write it if I didn't?

This appears to be a very emotional and narrow-minded worldview (IMO). I think many members of the science community take a much more tolerant and certainly a much less extreme view than many on this board who feel threatened by "biblical literalists". I would offer the following (pro & con) article from the New York Times science page a few months ago as evidence of such tolerance. The reaction of many scientists to a "young earth creationist" who became a scientist appears to be more reasonable than the emotionalism exhibited by the above poster.

Read the article more carefully than you did. This is a guy who compartmentalized his beliefs--a hall mark of scientists who are immature Christians. His position is exactly what my position was at the same stage of his life. He says he is a YEC (I wasn't a YEC, but couldn't reconcile the bible with science, so I kept them separate), but then writes in a manner indistinguishable from the people you label as athesist and Darwininists, or whatever you call them. Rather than "separating the paradigms" he should be saying they are in confllict and try to sort them out. Instead, he punted. Seems to me he has a problem with honesty. Which position is true, the 65 MYO mosasaur or the 6000 YO earth? He's got thetools to decide.

Regarding the reaction of the scientific community