From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Tue Sep 09 2003 - 12:39:44 EDT
Scott Jorgenson looks in on us from time to time. He said I could post
this to the list. I am also copying Joe Sebeny.
Burgy
-------------
Hi John,
My name is Scott Jorgenson. From time to time I've browsed the archived
ASA
email discussion, and today I saw your question:
------------------------
"Joe has made two claims, which may be true:
(1) Neither ICR, nor AIG, nor Morris nor Ken Ham, has ever asserted that
non-YECers are not Christians.
(2) Both ICR and AIG have explicitly said, in print, that they reject
such a
claim.
I am looking for literature citations which might refute (1) or support
(2)."
------------------------
So you know where I'm coming from: I am a 35-year-old American software
engineer and a long-time Christian with a passion for the sciences. I am
not
an ASA member nor am I a discussion list member, though if you'd like to
post
this to the list, you are welcome to. Like most in ASA, it seems, I've
come to
the conclusion that ICR and AIG are profoundly misguided in their claims
and
intentions, contribute to unnecessary division among believers, and
present
unnecessary obstacles to scientifically-educated seekers.
But I don't recall ever reading any plain, unhedged claim from ICR or AIG
along
the lines of (1) above, while I do recall very occasional publications
from
both along the lines of (2). For example, at the AIG Web site, see
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1152.asp by Duane Gish:
------------------------
"What is Required to be a Christian?
But can one really be a born-again Christian and an evolutionist at the
same
time? To answer that question we must first search out what the Bible
tells us
is necessary to become a Christian...
This appears to be the basic condition for being a Christian, to repent
and to
believe in the person and redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ, the
divine
Son of God, who shed His blood on the cross for our salvation and the
forgiveness of our sins.
Christians may differ on the interpretation of certain doctrines, such
as: ...
Does the Hebrew word yom in Genesis 1 denote a solar day, or may it refer
to a
long period of time? By what method did God create the heavens and the
earth?
These are important matters, and they have occupied theologians for
centuries.
But should one's salvation depend upon getting all the answers right?
Must that
be done to 'believe on Christ'?
No, not at all! ...
No, belief in the historicity of Genesis is not essential to our
salvation.
However, we must add that the biblical record and teaching concerning
origins
is a vitally important issue."
------------------------
So I do not see evidence that it is ICR's or AIG's position that
Christians
simply cannot be theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, etc.
Rather
what I see is evidence of a somewhat more nuanced position on their part
(hinted at in the last sentence of the above quote): they seem to
acknowledge
that sincere and convinced Christians can take a non-YEC view - BUT that
such a
view is unsupportable and dangerous. First, ICR and AIG seem to believe
that
non-YEC Christians are, intellectually, inconsistent, illogical and
untenable.
(This first charge doesn't bother me much, if only because we Christians
who've
made our peace with science tend to think the same of YEC'ers.) Second,
and in
my opinion far worse, ICR and AIG further seem to believe that non-YEC
Christians are being unfaithful to God in that aspect of their lives,
compromising with the world rather than transcending it. As a result,
they are
harboring something putrid that is a danger to their own faith and the
faith of
others they might infect. This is essentially a charge of unrepentant
disobedience to the Lord (ie sin) and that is why I find it so serious
and
reprehensible.
So the ICR and AIG position seems to be that while Christians can be
non-YEC,
they ought not do so - because non-YEC not only is intellectually
untenable,
but further allows sin to fester and potentially threaten (although not
in
itself revoke) one's salvation. For evidence that at least something
like this
is the ICR and AIG view, integrate across all of the following articles,
none
of which explicitly say you can't be Christian and non-YEC, but all of
which
stress the gravity of the "error" of being so:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-081.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-003a.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-177.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0821ross.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/theistic_evolution.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_whitcomb.a
sp
etc, etc
So I think you should re-direct the thrust of your questioning of the
upcoming
presenter in your neighborhood church - from whether he thinks a
Christian can
be non-YEC, to whether he thinks a GOOD Christian can be non-YEC. If you
expose his likely contempt for the notion, you will have made your point,
I
think.
(As evidence of widespread contempt in ICR and AIG for the non-YEC
Christian,
see not only the above, but go to http://www.answersingenesis.org and
http://www.icr.org and search on such turns-of-phrase as "professing
Christian", "so-called Christian", "half-born Christians" and (a favorite
of
AIG) "Churchian". Search for documents containing "Christian" and words
like
"compromise", "apostate", etc. You will soon have plenty of fodder with
which
to rightly charge ICR and AIG with division and uncharitable conduct.)
Hope this helps,
Scott
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 09 2003 - 13:07:27 EDT