Health of the Church - Liberalism and Hugh Ross

In the introduction to this section, CAT makes the claim: “[YEC] are rightly concerned for the long-term health of the Church”[1]. This is a very interesting claim in the light of the thousands and millions of people who claim to come to faith in Christ because of the efforts of RTB in searching for the harmony between scriptures and the record of nature. This is particularly true of scientists and intellects- groups that YEC have found to be unreachable with their teachings. Those who were already Christians, because of teaching like those of Hugh Ross, they are now able to worship and love God with ALL their mind, heart and soul. Something YEC teachings were incapable to proving (see our bios). The arguments presented here in CAT are base on the common YEC equation:

An Old Earth = Darwinism = Naturalism = Evolution

This all too common YEC claim is address best by RTB [2].

RE: Path of Confusion
The claim here is that many Christians, once they have embraced the RTB creation model, have found themselves sliding down the slippery slope of liberal exegesis. If anything, the opposite is generally true, as many claim to some to faith because of RTB. a step in the right direction. I personally, find it is YEC dogma and insistence that my OEC interpretations of both the record of nature and scripture are heretical to be my greatest source of doubt and confusion.

RE: Damage in the Church
Yes, there claims are one of the few I have seen in CAT that rings true. Churches and institutions that embraced Darwinism over the Bible have indeed traveled the slippery slope of Biblical liberalism, but to level this charge against Hugh Ross and RTB is again using the fallacious equation:

OEC = An Old Earth = Darwinism = Naturalism = Evolution

Again, this all too common YEC claim is address best by RTB [2].

RE: Schools and Seminaries
CAT levels the claim that: “Because many church authorities have accepted the millions-of-years-of-death-before-Adam scenario, most Christian schools and seminaries have failed to teach the overwhelming evidence for fiat creation and opposing evolution." Remember the very purpose of this book is to thwart the teachings of Hugh Ross. Even a casual reading of RTB material would show that this claim is not at all applicable. In fact, RTB has a larger cache of evidence for divine design on the part of the God of the Bible, BECAUSE RTB uses mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific research as a pillar for its case (first pillar being scriptures). As an interesting aside, I have seen YEC point to the Cambrian Explosion [3] as evidence against Darwinism (which it is) but out the other side of the mouth, reject the geological evidence for the existence of the event (see [4] for an example).

RE: Next Generation of Leaders
If there is really an alarming percentage of next generation pastors, and lay-leaders accepting that evolutionary theory and Christianity are compatible, they are not this from Hugh Ross, RTB or OEC in general. If anything, I would submit they are “settling” for such a compromise because YEC models are incapable to holding up to the weight of evidence against them in the record of nature.

RE: Increasing Liberalism
If seminaries that are open death existing MYA before the fall are indeed moving to liberalism, it is because they are embracing evolution and not a creation model such as the one being developed and passing the rigors of scientists and theologians like the RTB creation model.

As a final note, CAT makes the statement: “Not only are people losing faith in the Bible’s accuracy, but the truth of the gospel message is being lost!” This claim is base on the YEC tenant that animal death before the fall undermines the atonement. This error and leap of logic has been address in previous postings (look for the label "death(animal)". But the basic problem is not making the distinction that Christ died for humanities sins and not animals sins (which they are not capable of). In other words, Jesus did not die for your puppy.

Final Observation:
As a final observation, I find it interesting that this book (CAT) and many YEC organizations spend much of their time and resources directed at Dr. Hugh Ross. Dr. Ross is constantly singled out in these criticism (or attacks) but not other Old Earth Creationists. Not their organizations. Not even Reasons to Believe. Not even the other scientists and theologians on staff at RTB- just Hugh Ross.

Footnotes
[1] CAT pg 23
[2] See RTB website http://www.reasons.org/about/8_myths_about_rtb.shtml (accessed 7.8.2007)
[3] Cambrian explosion" refers to the period- about 530 MYA- when the earth was changed from nothing in animal life forms to more advanced, wormlike organisms to a diversity encompassing all the major animal groups. All thirty of the more complex animal phyla alive today (including our own, the chordates) and thirty other phyla now extinct suddenly, in geologic terms, appeared in the Cambrian era.
[4] http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/kids.asp (accessed 7.14.2007)

Trust in God’s Word

The basic argument utilized by many YEC is something like:

“Our interpretation of Genesis is the only literal interpretation. Genesis is true. So our interpretation is correct”

This is just not a good or convincing reasoning able to persuade anyone outside 3rd grade playgrounds. I am reminded of A. A. Milne’s “Winnie the Pooh” where Pooh uses the following reasoning: “[This is true] or my name isn’t ‘Winnie the Pooh’! Which it is, of course, so there you are”.

RE: WRONG ALL ALONG?
CAT makes the (sarcastic) claim regarding YEC points:

"[PC] contradicts all of these beliefs, and claims it has finally discovered how to correctly interpret Genesis- after thousands of years of misunderstanding… If that is true, then one wonders what else Christians have seriously misunderstood” [1].

There are many claims made “based on the Bible” by Christians throughout the ages that have to been flat out wrong. The short list is:

1. Eternal security- Some Christians have studied the Bible say that one cannot lose their salvation others claim that one can. They both cannot be right.
2. Millennialism vs. Amillennialism – Is there a literal Kingdom to some or is the Church the fulfillment of the Kingdom- both conclusions reached by serious Bible scholars but they both cannot be right.

The example I wish to highlight is modern Israel. For over a thousand years, the vast majority of Christian, looking at the state of world Jewry and the Diaspora in their days, interpreted passages that speak of a restored Israel as being impossible [2]. They claimed that such passages must really mean the Church and declared these as being the “orthodox” and “literal” view. I would submit that 1947 proved them all wrong, yet such interpretations still prevail today. Therefore, it is possible for the “majority of Christians” to be wrong in interpreting the Bible. If something major like God’s promise to the Jews (starting at Genesis 12 and going on until Revelation 22) can be misunderstood by “Literalist-Christians”; how much easier is it for Christians to get something as small as one chapter of Genesis wrong? While Christians do have a corner on the market of truth claims, that does not mean that Christians are always right!

RE: Genesis is Trustworthy

The claim here is- if Genesis cannot be trusted as “literally” true, how can one trust the rest of the Bible? I feel that I have already made a case in the pervious section, but let me just remind us that it is not a question of Genesis being reliable, but which INTERPRETATION of Genesis is reliable- 24 hours days, day-age, myth, etc. [3]

RE: Jesus Trusted Genesis

The claim made in CAT is that Jesus trusted the Book of Genesis because He quoted from it. Jesus’ citations of Genesis had nothing to do with interpretation of the lengths of the “days” of Genesis. CAT goes on to claim that since “God is not a God of deception” then it must be that each of the Genesis 1 “days” = “24 hours periods”. But God also tells us that people are without excuse in knowing that there is a God because of the calling card he has left with the record of nature (Psalm 19:1 and Roman 1:20). If YEC interpret Genesis correctly, then how can people be “without excuse” when all the disciplines of science, since it has examined creation for the answer to its age, independently and consistently come up with the answer that the earth is older than 6000-50,000 years? The OEC view is that there is no deception in either the Scriptures or Creation. Both are revelations form God and reliable, but both are also subjected to misinterpretation.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] CAT pg 23

[2] Ezekiel 37 is a prime example.

[3] For a good treatment of the issue of “literal” interpretation of “day” see: http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue07/index.shtml#creedal and http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html (accessed 7.6.2007)

WHY WOULD AN ALL POWERFUL GOD NEED BILLIONS OF YEARS TO CREATE THE WORLD?

Here CAT page 22 item 8 resorts to emotional, “logical” arguments to state their case. In this entry I will try to quickly address each question raised:

“If Christ is all of these things [All- POWERFUL, ALL-KNOWING, ABSOLUTE PERFECTION], He is certainly capable of creating the world in one blinding instant.

This is a very weak and emotion based argument. True, He is indeed capable of creating the universe in an instant. I dare say, in the light of His power and transcendence, that really six-days are just as much “over-kill” and unnecessary as 13 billion years. Yes- God could have done it all in six-days, six-hours, six-minutes, six-nanoseconds. But that is not the point. One can fill all the volumes of all the books in history with what and how God “COULD” have done things. The point is, “How DID God do it?” And the record of nature shows that He did take billions of years and not billionths of a second to create this universe as concluded independently in every major discipline of science. Meanwhile, OEC makes the strong case that the Bible supports this time-frame. [1]

Why would such a Creator use a slow process rife with dead ends (repeated animal extinctions) and new starts?
Excusing the pun, but these “dead ends” are not what they seem to the casual observer. Again, while maybe God COULD have done it differently, the reliable record of nature (Romans 1:20) shows that God pretty much did it as is observed by the main-stream study of His creation with respect to time scales and order of appearance.

One reason for billions of years of past life before the advent of humans was to prepare the earth for human civilization. The lives and deaths of plants, animals (even bacteria)- buried and subjected to high temperatures, pressures, and the actions of plate tectonics- has left the earth with an immense supply of biodeposits. Most people are aware of petroleum products- oil, natural gas, and coal. These God created resources power modern civilization and make our lives good. The Bible even mentions the benefit of these before the flood (contradicting the YEC assertion that oil deposits are the result of the flood) [2]. Also, past living organisms are responsible for the vast stores of limestone and marble (formed from the shells of countless mollusks, corals, etc.). From past bacteria comes many of the concentrated metal ores found in the earth. Without all these biodeposits, modern civilization would not be possible. In fact, RTB contends that modern communication methods and transportation (which depend upon these biodeposits) fit well into God plan to fulfill the Great Commission globally today. This alone is a great reason why God spent so much time (our time, not His) preparing the earth for human arrival.

Another reason God reason for God taking so long in creating the universe, is hinted at the in Scriptures (examples Isaiah 65:16-18 and Proverbs 8:27-31). God enjoyed creating, and most would agree- when something is enjoyed and a delight it is savored.

Last, Psalm 104:29-30 hints that God did use creation-extinction in the process in creating, “When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth.”[3].

“Why stretch the process over the lifetimes of millions of generations of animals- all this before getting to the point, the creation of man?”

Reading all the Bible has to say about God’s career as Creator one gets a different conclusion. We are not the “point” of the creation. The point of the creation is for His glory. Many OEC would argue that Revelation 21 and 22 are the end-point of God’s creation, when God fully reveals His glory and majesty, and not the advent of humanity.

“The Creator doesn’t need time; He doesn’t need to experiment. PC stains God’s true glory, majesty, and power- the very characteristics that define [H]im.”
Again, the question is not, “did God NEED the time?” The real question is “Did God TAKE the time?” The earth as He created it can only support so much biodiversity at a given time. I would contend that God really showed His glory, majesty, and power by taking billions of years. Using different eras and eon of creation and preserving these to point to His past miracles; displays the diversity and depth of His creative “imagination” from the past to the present.

In summary, according to the best examinations of the record of nature, God exquisitely fine-tuned the characteristics of the Earth for 4 billion years before the advent of humanity. This resulted in the maximum diversity of life, which translates into a rich abundance of natural resources (biodeposits) for humanity. COULD God have done it differently? Sure, He could have done most anything, including NOT create us. But that is not the question. The question is “DID He do it differently?”

FOOTNOTES:
[1] This will be shown in others postings but one can also go to: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html (accessed 6.30.2007)
[2] This is indicated by the existence of pitch (a petroleum product) existing before the flood in Genesis 6:14
[3] The key to seeing this is the Hebrew word used for “created” is “bara”. This has meaning of creating something brand-new, never seen before.