> >Fivefree@aol.com wrote:
> >From lurking on this list I can tell you that nobody I've read on this
> >list has a deep intimate relationship knowing the voice and presence of
>
> >the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit (they each have a distinctiveness
> >you know).
> How do you justify the statement above? You know absolutely NOTHING
> about my relation with the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit. Nor do
> you know anything about the spiritual relationships of any of the other
> members of this list.
> Your statement typifies my biggest complaint about YEC's: Not their
> science, but their presumed status as Guardians of the Orthodoxy who sit
>
> in judgement over all other christians. This, I believe borders on
> heresy and blasephemy, and I believe that one day they will stand before
>
> the throne of our Creator and answer for their arrogance.
>
> You have no conception of the hours I have spent on my knees before the
> Father regarding this whole creation issue. I am a rather fearful man,
> and desire fiercely to be accepted by others. And now I find that HE
> HAS LEAD ME to accept a position regarding the creation that stands
> outside the mainstream. I have sought his comfort numerous times having
>
> endured the barbs and arrows of both unbelieving scoffers at God's word
>
> AND the heartless uncharitable wounds of so-called brother's in Christ.
> Brothers who have scorned my position on these matters with a searing
> sarcastic vitriol uncharacteristic of a child of God.. No, I do not
> enjoy being in the minority position, but then neither did Jeremiah, or
> Ezekial; in this I find comfort.
I have found myself in a very similar position recently, having been
accused by some at church that I didn't believe the Bible is the Word of
God because of my stance on the age of the earth.
Although I ought to emphasise they have apologised and there has been
reconciliation.
I find these days that if one is doing a subject which is seen as
off-limits for a Christian (e.g. geology, or in my case, astronomy) then
certain questions will be asked.
When I discuss things with YECs who I know, often the issue isn't "how old
is the earth and the universe?" but "does this argument support a young
earth?" For example, these days things like a shrinking Sun or decay in
the speed of light become articles of faith, up there with the Cross, to
be accepted by faith. Pointing out that the evidence disagrees with it is
living by sight.
To me, that seems like running away from the world- there's something they
don't like, so deny its existence. Seems to have more to do with Eastern
ideas of the world being an illusion...
Even if everything is 6000 years old, we, as people of truth, don't need
falsehoods to back it up, and indeed we shouldn't use falsehoods to back
it up.
For example, we know the resurrection happened, and can argue for it as an
indespensible part of the Gospel. However, our defence of it has to be
based on truth. It would be no good going round telling unbelievers that
someone was recorded as being at the tomb when it happened- this would be
a lie used to defend the truth. In evangelism the end never justifies the
means.
Graham.