Thanks for the correction, @Vanengelen. Didn’t have my commentaries to hand so was going from memory. Have corrected my post. 
1 Like
The problem isn’t so much whether or not they are actually lying, but the fact that they are perceived to be lying by those they are teaching.
As I said, teachers are in a position of trust. Their students have a reasonable expectation that they have performed due diligence in making sure that their facts are straight. For example, no pastor or teacher should ever be making claims that can be falsified with nothing more than a back-of-the-envelope calculation involving nothing more than GCSE-level (junior high school) maths. Professional scientists and engineers have an even higher level of responsibility here, because they have been extensively trained in the subject (or related subjects) and because their pastors and leaders will be looking to them for guidance.
One confounding problem is that some YECs have some pretty skewed ideas of what does or does not constitute lying. Some YECs seem to view it as an entirely spiritual problem, primarily on the basis of passages in the Bible that talk about the devil as the father of lies, but lying does have a very practical and material aspect to it as well. Misrepresenting evidence is lying, as too is not having accurate measurements, and YECists often seem to overlook that fact. Especially when the evidence and measurements come into conflict with their young earth doctrines or otherwise tell them things that they don’t like.
I understand what you’re talking about, but I don’t really follow the line of thinking that describes it as “setting science up as the ultimate measure of truth.” Maybe it’s just a case of semantics, but what they seem to me to be doing is what I would describe as “hard” Biblical inerrancy—insisting on the Bible as the ultimate source of truth to the extent of letting it dictate to us what results our science experiments should give us, and if they don’t give us those specific results then we need to change the experiments so that they do, even if it means that the Bible’s own demands for accurate and honest weights and measures go out the window. In fact it’s a common refrain from YECs: “science must fit Scripture” or “science must compromise itself to fit Scripture” are things that they say time and time again. This being the case, what they’re doing is the exact opposite of making science the ultimate authority, because they’re denying it any authority that it has.
1 Like
Hmmm… I don’t think that’s correct as I’ve heard it said a few times that God’s grace is such that it’s possible that we are better off after being restored from sin than if we had not sinned to begin with.
Either way there is nothing to indicate their earthly life would have been temporary if they had not sinned.
1 Like
It was a two creation model from the beginning – the first was destined to futility and death from the start, and Jesus was never Plan B.
2 Likes
Yes, we’re more thankful and appreciative and our love more intense. Or will be when we know as we are known.
This is where the language gets difficult. What’s seems clear from the Bible is that man was tasked with spreading the garden throughout the world which was in a state of disorder. And that we now have blessings in Christ and hope for a new (and better) creation that we would not have had if Adam did not sin.
It’s also clear God wasn’t surprised or caught off guard by man’s original loss of paradise. Pretty neat how so much of the biblical narrative pictures a return to the garden for God’s people.
Back to the question of the unstable YEC family. It’s clear that the YEC vs TE position depends on how they read the Bible. The next question is if it wil help this family if they read the Bible less litterally. Or will that make that they don’t trust the Bible at all. Since it seems ( to them) that you can make everything of it. How to avoid that clif?
1 Like
A better analogy would be that the difference between you and your sister is that she built her house on the rock while you built yours on sand.
The question is where the idea that the scriptures have to be scientifically accurate comes from, and it doesn’t come from scripture, it comes from scientific materialism. Scripture’s concept of truth doesn’t require that at all, so by introducing it as a requirement they are imposing science as a standard that scripture must meet, and are thus forcing the scriptures to fir science.
That they then turn and use this idea about scripture to oppose science they don’t like doesn’t affect the fact that their concept comes from imposing an exterior worldview onto the scriptures: cognitive consistency isn’t a hallmark of quite a lot of human thinking! They’ve accepted the proposition that science is the measure of truth, and having accepted that they are left with no choice but to force science to conform to the scriptures because if it doesn’t then the premise that science is the measure of truth fails. That they thus try to force science to fit the scriptures is a not unreasonable result of requiring the Bible to speak with scientific authority.
1 Like
It will help if they understand that the Genesis Creation accounts weren’t written to satisfy the curiosity of people who believe that scientific accuracy is a foundational requirement of truth. The reason they treat it literally is that they’ve bought into the proposition that in order to be true something must be 100% scientifically accurate. But that’s a criterion we don’t find in the scriptures! There’s no need to force scripture to speak science, so it can be appreciated as the ancient – and often masterful! – literature it is.
I’ve seen people’s eyes light up when I tell them what the first Creation account is about when you stop reading it as a scientific account – three stories in one, all three very powerful.
How to avoid the “cliff”? Two ways: remind them that Jesus rose from the dead, and that He is Truth; how the different parts of the Bible were written and what kinds of literature they are doesn’t matter, because Jesus is where truth starts; and that stories are always supposed to be read as the kind of literature the author meant them to be – so you don’t get to read them however you want, you have to read them as what the Holy Spirit and the writer had in mind.
For older folks it could be pointed out that down through the centuries many saints and theologians and preachers have made interesting things of it, like treating the life of Abraham and the story of Joseph in Egypt as allegories, but they always found that the scriptures were talking about Jesus – so keep the focus on Jesus and don’t sweat the rest.
2 Likes
In the Netherlands the vast majority of the people (millions) haven walked your path and ended in agnosticism. Since it has no logic for them.
Your syllogism is: Jesus is Rock therefore His Word is sand.
This breaks the rules of proper reasoning.
As others have mentioned, I think it comes down to humility. One of the first hurdles is accepting that YEC v. TE is not a salvation issue. You can be either and still be saved. The second hurdle is the humility on the part of parents that they may be wrong, and allow their children the room to find their own path. If they demand that their children choose between YEC and being a Christian then they are setting up some of their children to leave the faith.
Quite frankly, it comes down to one of the most basic foundations of family. You love your family even if you don’t agree with them. You hope that your family blossoms and finds happiness in life, even if they don’t follow the exact path through life that you chose.
7 Likes
Good points. Strengths of relationships and humility are major.
2 Likes
No, because if you don’t have Jesus at the center of your theology but have made something else your foundation then your foundation is sand There is no founding on the Word if you don’t put Him in the center.
This would correctly illustrate my syllogism:
Jesus is Rock therefore ignoring His Word is sand.
3 Likes
That certainly seems to be Jesus critique of his critics:
“You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” (John 5:39-40 NIV2011)
1 Like
I completely agree. But have problems to understand the consistancy of your stance. I assume that for you there is no foundation in the word, if you read Genesis in the same way as Jesus did. I would think the opposite.
Hey @Vanengelen, was your comment above for me or for @St.Roymond? Thanks.
I think @St.Roymond. However reflecting on the communication, I think it is necessary to define what we mean with words like ‘foundation’, ‘Word of God’, ‘Jesus as person’, ‘word of Jesus’, ‘Jesus is the Logos’, ‘all things are made by the Logos’ etc. But at the other side, this might be a bit to much.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.