Strictly speaking, OEC simply means old earth creationism/creationist. In other words, this is the belief that God created the universe and that the universe is billions of years old, not thousands of years old as YEC’s would have it. In this sense, it would include EC’s (evolutionary creationists). However, for some people at some times, OEC is the term used to describe the non-EC OEC’s - in other words, people who accept an old earth but who resist evolution (e.g. Hugh Ross).
It’s not so much that I dislike ambiguity, it’s that I love truth. So, if something is ambiguous, I don’t want to be thinking it’s not. Thanks for navigating me through this.
No problem, Mike, and thank you for your patient persistence. I didn’t really phrase it as such earlier, but now I’ll just come out and ask… Would you accept Evolutionary Creation as a viable position for a Bible-believing Christian? I’m not asking if you accept the model, just asking if you could accept that another brother or sister in Christ could hold to such a position? And while I’m in the asking mood, have you found anything in your participation in the forum that has been helpful in defining or explaining the position?
Yes, of course, Without a doubt and without hesitation. And I have felt this way long before I ever came to the BioLogos website. In fact, I have held this view throughout my Christian experience. In point of fact, it was reading “the Trilemma” in C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity that marks the pivotal moment in my life - turning from self to Christ at the age of 27. That evolution-believing Englishman ruined my secular complacency with the force of his logic which, of course, was powered by the spirit of truth that guided him. Christ was with him and I - of all people - could and would never deny that.
The issue for me is not at all a matter of salvation, but of truth and of conscientious obedience to Christ. For years, I’ve more or less dabbled in grappling with the issue, mainly avoiding the subject because I deemed it a distraction to more important issues. As I’ve said, however, it is in watching my grandchildren be pummeled with this issue constantly from all sides that has provoked me to wrestle with this issue until I come up firmly on one side or the other.
I have learned many helpful things here, and have enjoyed, and been edified by, many of the interactions, but, alas, all of the benefits have been relatively minor. Regarding the major purpose for which I came, I have been, in the main, disappointed. I don’t blame anyone for that. It’s not anyone’s fault…unless it’s mine.
I’m not quite ready to give up here. As long as each new day brings me a sense of how I can approach the topic with a fresh question or fresh angle (at least fresh for me) I’ll keep pursuing an answer. When the freshness gives out, I won’t continuing taking up space here.
If I’ve not fully answered your questions, give me another shot.
Personally, I think a conservative perspective that wouldn’t condemn us liberals would be refreshing and valuable. I hope you stick around! Thanks for your answers to my post and your contributions in general, even if you haven’t found exactly what you’ve come here to look for.
I think you are attempting to split the difference here with this wording … but I don’t think English semantics will really provide you with a workable refuge.
If it were literally true that you could accept the prevailing Geologist views without changing your theology, you are either doing something very different from the other YECs I know … or you are incorrectly categorizing what you call Theology.
If you were to ask a trustworthy YEC friend why he would never consider adopting Old Earth Geological conclusions, what would he say to you? What is it that keeps him from seeing the Earth as billions of years old … instead of 5000 years old? Now … is what you think he would say different from what you would personally say? What is the difference between what he says and what you say?
If we start with just a little bite-full, maybe we can get to the bottom of this odd way you have for describing your predicament.
I don’t know. I suppose it could be different from one person to another.
Again, I don’t know what someone else would say. I only know what I would say, and I have been sharing that openly here in this forum.
I really don’t get the point of this exercise.
Are you frustrated because my views defy easy categorization? I can’t believe I’m that unique, but you act as if I’m something you’ve never encountered or, more likely, something you’ve encountered but that is trying to camouflage itself. I don’t know how to be more plainspoken than I am.
What is it about accepting geological Old Earth conclusions that you think would change the nature of a person’s faith in Jesus?
I thought we’d already established in this thread that people define theology differently. If you think I define the word theology erroneously, that’s your privilege. It’s also my privilege to be uncowed by that.
Since you believe all history is written by the prophets and must therefore be true I see no way for anyone to provide you with the interpretation that you are looking for. I hope you never take up Biblical Archeology and discover just how much of this “must be true” history is actually wrong.
If you have one, but are unwilling to share it with someone who is in good faith and genuine need asking for it, then I truly am perplexed. Jesus said to us, “Freely you received, freely give.” I am asking not just on behalf of myself, for I am not the only one who would benefit. Are you really saying that you have a rational interpretation of the Genesis creation account consistent with an old earth and with the rest of the Scriptures, but which you are unwilling to share here?
Yes, that is what I am saying. I said the same to you in a PM, which is what made your public call-out of me as some kind of impostor very strange, especially since I was in the midst of composing a PM to try to help you out when it appeared! Given the circumstances, I cannot trust that whatever you freely receive from me will not be freely given to the Internet, but fear not. In a year or two, you can purchase your copy like everyone else.
In the meantime, I’m going to take my leave from BL for awhile. I’ll pop in from time to time to pester old friends, so don’t think you’re rid of me for good!
So, you are telling me that I can publish an article saying that Mike Gantt communicated to me personally that believing the Earth is 5 billion years old wouldn’t affect his Christian theology one little bit !
Would you say that is a fair way to summarize your position? I think we would find that many Christians would be relieved to know that they can now be Old Earther Christians without causing problems for their faith!
But if this is not a correct statement, what exactly is wrong with Christians adopting an Old Earth view of the Earth?
You can certainly say that he doesn’t see how it would.
My position on what?
It would probably require some adjustment to their hermeneutics and exegesis, and maybe their cosmology and even some other things…but I don’t see how changing one’s view of the age of the earth from thousands of years to billions of years would alter one’s theology or faith in Christ.