Hi Joshua,
I agree with points 2 - 5 that follow the above point, but point 1 seems like an overreach to me. Evolution does not require a rethinking of Romans 5 under your scenario, but Genesis is still going to require some rework. After all, the order of creation in Genesis 1 does not match the order of the appearance of phyla in the fossil record, and the days could not have been literally 24 hours each, etc. Unless by “traditional” you mean something very different than what the vast majority of theologians believed about Genesis 1 - 3 over the first 1800 years of church history.[quote=“Swamidass, post:147, topic:35961”]
there is real and uncomfortable gap to bridge for the theological leaders. They have to find ways to build trust with YECs in the constituency. This is one reason why ID does so well with them, and why they often adopt anti-evolution rhetoric. ID and anti-evolution rhetoric has a “function” here, it gives them a way to signal that they are making a stand on the same side as YECs against evolution. This is one reason that pure pro-evolution appeals will always fail here. Something has to be given that can replace the ID-anti-evolution function they have come rely upon. Something has to be substituted in its place, or the coalition crumbles.
Here, a strong Gospel focus is the best response. It is theologically founded and is the true source of Christian unity. If you ever get a chance to watch my recorded talks, you will see me inserting the Resurrection of Jesus into the center of the conversation. This is intentional. Leaders are often truly amazed how well I am treated and accepted by their YEC audience because of this. YECs that follow Jesus respond to the Gospel. They hear the voice of Jesus, and they accept me as one of their own.
[/quote]
On the other hand, I nominate this for “Quote of the Year”!
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter