|
Debate on the Age of the Earth
c o n t i n u e d . . .
Dear Paul,
The essential Truth of Christianity is that Jesus was both God and man, fully divine and fully human, and that through belief in Jesus, we are admitted into the presence of God. Do I accept the Scripture as the absolutely true Word of God? My answer is an uncategorical yes. Can I prove to a non-Christian that the Scriptures are True? No. Faith is belief in things without proof. If we could prove the Scripture to be true, there would be no need of faith.
Returning to my original statements. I show Christianity by demonstrating agape (love expressed as service to others without expectation or hope of reward). James 2:14-17 (Good News Paraphrase): My friends, what good is it for one of you to say that you have faith if your actions do not prove it? Can that faith save you? Suppose there are brothers or sisters who need clothes and don't have enough to eat. What good is there in your saying to them, "God bless you! Keep warm and eat well!" – if you don't give them the necessities of life? So it is with faith: if it is alone and includes no actions, then it is dead.
When one attempts to scientifically prove the age of the universe, the overwhelming majority of the evidence, theory, and conjecture leads an honest and unbiased researcher to the conclusion that the universe is very old, on the order of 15 billion years or so. This is clearly in conflict with a literal reading of the Scripture. I don't argue the issue. In fact, to argue this is in violation of the very commandments of Scripture. If a scientific type refuses to accept my words, I refer back to the following:
Matt 120:14 – If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.
Mark 6:11 – If anyone will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.
Luke 9:5 – Wherever they do not welcome you, as you are leaving that town, go and witness to others.
My spiritual gift is service and so I witness the Good News by serving others. Still others are given gifts of tongues, interpretation, healing, etc. etc. Each person must understand the gift they are given and use that gift for the glory of God.
I can, with God's help, prove to non-Christians that the Scriptures are true; but, only if they first feel the power of the Spirit calling them to believe. Someone who has hardened his or her heart against the Spirit will not believe no matter what "proofs" are offered. I know, because I was just such a person once.
You mention a number of creation science proofs. I could, with very little effort, find an equal or greater number of anti-creationists rebuttals to your proofs. What purpose would that serve? None, as far as I can tell.
You and I have different approaches, different gifts of the spirit, but the same goal. One gift is not greater than another, only different. Jesus came to preach to the sinners not the saved. Rather than consuming your energies attempting to convert me, you should be taking the word out into the world.
God's blessings on you Paul.
Dear Tim,
I don't know any place in the Bible where it indicates that there is an "essential Truth of Christianity." Please show me.
Continuing with my line of reasoning...the problem with man trying to pick out such an "essential" truth from God's word is that it implies that other parts of the Bible are nonessential, unimportant, or unnecessary. You may not mean it that way, and you may accept all Scripture as "absolutely true," but the end result is that you are telling believers and unbelievers alike that there is no need to pay any attention to all those "unessential" verses – especially the ones that are "scientifically untrue."
Overlooked is the logical conclusion that this means that much of Jesus's life would be scientifically untrue as well. Therefore, why believe in Christ or anything at all that the Bible has to say? I have heard several people voice this conclusion over the years.
The claim that you can bring people to Christ by showing them that Christ lives in you is empty if there is no rational basis for believing that Christ is who he says he is. We may as well have faith in Buddha. Converting others by the "Try it, you'll like it" method will get some converts (This is the main method that is used by Mormons), but they are unprepared to respond to the humanists, evolutionists, atheists, and anyone else who has a logical or scientific argument against Christianity and the Bible. They also have a tendency to leave the Faith – especially when they reach college.
You can prove to non-Christians that the Scriptures are true. John the Baptist, Jesus, and the disciples used Scripture to prove that Jesus was the Christ (See for example, Acts 2:14-41 and Acts 18:28). By doing so, at the same time they are proving that the Scriptures are true. Also, when miracles were preformed in the Bible, it proved to the audience that the Scriptures were true (See for example, John 2:22 and John 1:38). The same goes for fulfilled prophecy in the Bible (See for example, John 13:19 and Luke 24:25-27). The prophets of the Bible had a perfect track record of fulfillment. That should be more than enough proof that the Scriptures are true (See Deut. 18:21-22).
Faith, as defined by you as "belief in things without proof" is not exactly the biblical definition. Rather, it is, as Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith (Greek: pistis: ‘conviction of the truth') is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence (Greek: elegchos:: ‘a proof that by which a thing is proven or tested) of things not seen." If faith was believing in something without any evidence whatsoever, then that is what we call "blind faith." God doesn't ask that of us. Instead, we have faith in something because we have sufficient proof not to believe otherwise.
However, faith also always has an element of trust (of which the Bible has a lot to say). If something that someone says or does is proven to be correct, we tend to put our trust in that person in other areas as well. The more that person is proven correct, the more we trust them. Children trust their parents because they have proven themselves trustworthy (for most families hopefully!)
Since God our father has done so many things that have proven to be true, He asks of us to have complete trust (faith) in Him on all matters, even on things that aren't normally provable, like future events like the Judgement, or historical events like Creation or the Flood. In fact God says that if we don't have faith, that means that we are attempting to walk by our own wisdom when it is impossible to do so on such matters.
Because His ways are so much higher than our ways, we could not possibly know or understand everything (Isaiah 55:9). Therefore we have to have faith (trust). That many people don't believe and have faith is because their pride prevents them from seeing the clear and sufficient proof that God has provided (Psalm 10:4).
Another problem with churches or Christians defining what the essential truths of Christianity are is that they are in the dangerous position of relegating a tremendous amount of biblical doctrine to the "nonessential trash can." Such things have already happened to "nonessential" biblical teachings like the virgin birth, the resurrection, Jesus's sinlessness, God's omniscience, miracles, and many other doctrines where God has made no distinction of being of any less importance than the others. Your particular version of what is essential also negates the importance of General Revelation (knowing God from His creation; see Romans 1:18-20). Many examples in the Bible show that God's creation give proof of God and His attributes. If, as you seem to be saying, the apologetic of Creation itself is nonessential, then the Apostle Paul was wasting his time in trying to convert the Greeks by starting with Creation in his evangelistic sermons to the Gentiles (see Acts 17:22-31 and Acts 14:15-18).
The Creationist Movement's purpose is to reinstate "creation evangelism" as it once was. The Bible shows that when Christians evangelized the Jews, they started with the fulfilled Old Testament prophecies about Jesus. But when they evangelized the Gentiles, they started with Creation. The point is that in order to win people to Christianity, you start at where they presently are. Most Gentiles were not familiar with the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, let alone believe in their God. It is only logical that Paul started out with evidences of God from Creation. Likewise, it is obvious today that most people do not subscribe to the Bible as the Jews once did. May I suggest that the method that would be most effective in bringing the "Gentiles" to Christ today would be the same method that Paul used. Christians should start believing and using Genesis to reach people. Creation Evangelism today is being used to do just that with huge success. If Christians have doubts about the usefulness or truthfulness of Genesis (or any part of Scripture), and retreat to some "modernist" view of the Bible, then our appeal to people becomes severely limited, as church attendance statistics have already shown.
Evangelizing people by showing people that Christ lives in you is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Such a method of evangelism has been used in Japan and other "difficult" countries" for many years and the results have been minimal. Creation Evangelism has been shown to be quite useful in such countries because it starts at the beginning where the facts of nature can be easily agreed upon with all peoples. You say that "...the overwhelming majority of evidence, theory, and conjecture leads an honest and unbiased researcher to the conclusion that the universe is very old...." "Evidence," is objective and as I claimed before, the majority of evidence is in favor of a young creation. I can prove it to anyone by having each side lay their evidences on the table and then count who has the most. A simple count shows that "youth" wins over "old" age by at least eight to one. We can look at some of these evidences if you wish. Obviously one has to also consider the "quality" of the evidences as well as the "quantity." Here again, I believe that "youth" wins out. The quality of evidence is more subjective but it can be objectively determined to some degree by counting the number of known assumptions that are supporting each argument, the reasonableness of those assumptions (as determined by observations or experiments), and the number of ad hoc arguments that are used in denying opposing arguments. Scientists who do not have an agenda freely admit the shaky nature of their evidence for old age.
For example, William Stansfield, previously of the University of California, said, "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.'" (The Science of Evolution, New York: Macmillan, 1977, p. 84)
Of course most scientists have constructed theories and conjectures that are based on an assumed old age of the universe. They are against anything that might suggests that the world is young or anything that which might give the Bible credence.
When someone tries to present evidence contrary to the prevailing view, much is made of the fact that "...no scientist believes that any more." But, one should realize the number of people who believe something to be true or untrue is not the basis for truth. Galileo, Einstein, Plank, and many other researchers stood nearly alone against scientific opinion in their day.
Today, we can see the same thing happening with Louis Frank and his discovery of small comets. His claim hat small comets composed of water are entering the earth's atmosphere on the average of about 850,000 tons a day, have been met with scorn, ridicule, and ostracism from the scientific community. Challenges to popular theories and conjectures are generally feared by scientists. As one reviewer said, "If the contents of the papers [of Louis Frank] are correct then half the physical science books in our libraries will have to be destroyed."
To the Christian however, the fact that science may be against the literal teaching of the Bible should mean little. Science works on the principle that we are always advancing our knowledge. What was true yesterday may not be true tomorrow.
It is interesting to note that almost all of the arguments for evolution that were presented at the Scopes Trial 74 years ago, are now no longer believed or used by most evolutionists because they have been disproved. Some Christians back then were overwhelmed by this arsenal of "proofs" that the evolutionists had, and became convinced evolutionists themselves. But all they had to do is wait a few more years and science would have come around to their side! That is where faith comes in! Trust that the God who made both the Bible and Nature would not make them contradict each other. Trust God that He knows more than man and that his word will not come back to him void. (Isaiah 55:11).
Tim, you use the words, "...honest and unbiased researcher...." more than once in your letters. I don't believe there is an honest and unbiased person on earth. Just because the popular image of a scientist is a person who wears a white lab coat and objectively measures what is observed on his instruments, doesn't mean that he doesn't prefer to use that data to reach preferred conclusions. Peer review in science is noted for keeping out ideas that are not "status quo." The history of science is also replete with examples of politically motived theories, outright fraud, doctored data, and dishonest tactics. People are prideful, they want power, money, and fame, and they hate to be wrong. Scientists are not immune from these same shortcomings, as any Christian should know.
I don't think your use of Matt 10:14, Mark 6:11, and Luke 9:5 will stand up under scrutiny. It is not a violation of Scripture to argue for God or the Scriptures with unbelievers. You can't open the Bible without reading about somebody making a case to someone for believing and obeying God. But it would be an inefficient use of our time to keep arguing with someone who has no interest in learning truth. That is what commentaries on these verses say. Also the verbs in these passages are in present tense, which in the Greek mean "occurring, continuing, or repeated action." Their rendering would then state, "If anyone continues not to welcome or hear you...." Note also that Jesus is talking to the Apostles in the early part of His ministry where their mission was to the Jews only. Jesus stressed that time was short and that they were to spread the news of the Messiah as quickly as possible and not spend a lot of time in places were they were not welcome.
Tim, in looking over your past letters, it seems that you are convinced that evolutionists have the facts on their side. If you only listen to the evolutionists, I can see where one can get that idea. But, if you have not also balanced it with some writings of some knowledgeable Creationists, then you may not be seeing the whole picture. I can recommend some very thought provoking Creationist books if you wish. I have been to several public debates between intelligent and articulate representatives of both positions, both on the topic of creation/evolution and the age of the earth. In all cases, the Creationists have come out being the winners. And even evolutionists will admit to it. Dedicated evolutionists today highly recommend that no evolutionist should debate a Creationist because they will probably get beaten. That seems to be a strange statement, if in fact evolutionists have the facts on their side!
I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Paul McDorman
Paul,
Matthew (New King James Version) 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
1 Cor (New King James Version) 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you - unless you believed in vain. 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
15:14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15:15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up--if in fact the dead do not rise.
15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
The Great Commandment in Matthew is that we go and teach others to observe all the commandments as Jesus did. How did Jesus observe the commandments and teach others? By example. By being servant to all.
Then in 1 Cor 15, we are told that the first thing to be preached is the Gospel (Good News) that Christ was raised from the dead. Why are we to preach this? Because if that one single "essential" is not true, then all the rest of our preaching is meaningless. We can debate over Genesis being an allegory rather than literal fact and it does not change the meaning and intent of the rest of Scripture. We can argue about any number of stories in Scripture and it does not change the "essential" truth of the Resurrection. The problem then is how to get a person to accept the Truth of Jesus and the Resurrection. You have chosen to use "creation
evangelism" as your tool for making disciples. That is well and good if God works through you in that fashion God grants to each person gifts of the spirit with which that person can go and witness to others. My spiritual gift is service and so I witness the Good News by serving others. Still others are given gifts of tongues, interpretation, healing, etc. etc. Each person must understand the gift they are given and use that gift for the glory of God.
I can, with God's help, prove to non-Christians that the Scriptures are true; but, only if they first feel the power of the Spirit calling them to believe. Someone who has hardened his or her heart against the Spirit will not believe no matter what "proofs" are offered. I know, because I was just such a person once.
You mention a number of creation science proofs. I could, with very little effort, find an equal or greater number of anti-creationists rebuttals to your proofs. What purpose would that serve? None, as far as I can tell.
You and I have different approaches, different gifts of the spirit, but the same goal. One gift is not greater than another, only different. Jesus came to preach to the sinners not the saved. Rather than consuming your energies attempting to convert me, you should be taking the word out into the world.
God's blessings on you Paul.
Dear Tim,
I don't feel that I am consuming my energies on you Tim. I realized a while back that I would probably never change your mind, but still, I have learned much from our correspondence, and I hope you have learned something too.
The Epistles were written primarily to exhort Christians to stay on the right track and not depart from sound biblical doctrine. That was my intentions with you. Nevertheless, we have probably come to an impasse on most of our issues (However, I am still waiting for a response from you on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and I would like to see some of those "anti-creationists rebuttals" that you have.).
My original concern came when I read your statements on the chat web site. You posted a rebuke (in front of a potentially huge audience) to those Christians who take God as His word (that is me, plus many thousands of other Christians in the world). You stated that believing in a literal Flood should also make one to believe in a flat and stationary
earth (Not shown by the verses you presented, by the way!). The implication of your remarks is that Christians should interpret "scientifically improbable (or impossible)" Scripture figuratively so that intelligent people would not be offended.
By interpreting such passages figuratively, without any grammatical reason for doing so, is dishonest:
"It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of the Genesis record, without regard to all of the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created heaven and earth in six solar days, that man was created in the sixth day, that death and chaos entered the world after the Fall of Adam and Eve, that all of the fossils were the result of the catastrophic universal deluge which spared only Noah's family and the animals therewith." (Pun, Pattle, "A Theory of Progressive Creationism," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, vol. 39 (March 1987), p. 14) Dr. Pun is Professor of Biology, Wheaton College.
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and
animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the ‘days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know." (Barr, James, Letter to David Watson, 1984. Quoted in That Their Words May Be Used Against Them, H. Morris, p. 375. Barr is Professor of Hebrew Bible, Vanderbilt Univ., and former Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford University, Oxford, England.)
I replied to you that to the unbeliever, and to the Christian with doubts, by interpreting such passages figuratively, you are giving him permission that he can also take Jesus' resurrection figuratively, or anything else in the Bible for that matter. In effect, your method of hermeneutics makes God's eternal Word entirely dependent on the continually changing "scientific facts" that scientists happen to believe in at the time (most of whom do not even believe the Bible!). Then you agree with Davis Young that Christians who take the Bible literally are doing Christianity harm, but you are not?!
Your and Dr. Young's concern for the intelligentsia is misplaced (Have you read Morris' book Science, Scripture, and the Young Earth in which he answers Dr. Young?). We know from 1 Cor. 1:26 that not many of these types are called (not that we shouldn't try). As Jesus said in his parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Lk 15:31).
The fact also remains that more and more scientists are coming over to our side because they see the scam (I can't think of a nicer word) that evolutionists are trying to pull on the public. But our real concern should be to the common man who is losing faith in God's word because he feels that he can no longer trust it. He is the one that looks at the comments on this web site, and then listens to his preacher say that parts of the Bible probably never happened. And then we feel bad because America is becoming secularized!
If Christians don't defend the literal truth of all of the Bible, then Christians will eventually succumb to a moral relativism that we have already seen take over Europe. The corrupt effects that evolution has had on societies is a whole topic in itself, but I can't fail to stress its importance to Christ's Church!
"Christianity is – must be! – totally committed to the special creation as described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with its full might, fair or foul, against the theory of evolution....It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None."
"What all this means is that Christianity cannot lose the Genesis account of creation like it could lose the doctrine of egocentrism and get along. The battle must be waged, for Christianity is fighting for its very life...Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthy life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!" (Bozarth, G. Richard, "The Meaning of Evolution," American Atheist, Feb. 1978, pp. 19, 30).
I think the enemy understands the issues far more clearly than fellow Christians do.
Concerning your "essential truth," I think you must be referring to the "Gospel": Strong's Greek Lexicon: "euaggelion: 1) a reward for good tidings 2) good tidings 2a) the glad tidings of the kingdom of God soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Jesus the Messiah, the founder of this kingdom. After the death of Christ, the term comprises also the preaching of (concerning) Jesus Christ as having suffered death on the cross to procure eternal salvation for the men in the kingdom of God, but as restored to life and exalted to the right hand of God in heaven, thence to return in majesty to consummate the kingdom of God 2b) the glad tidings of salvation through Christ 2c) the proclamation of the grace of God manifest and pledged in Christ 2d) the gospel 2e) as the messianic rank of Jesus was proved by his words, his deeds, and his death, the narrative of the sayings, deeds, and death of Jesus Christ came to be called the gospel or glad tidings." I don't disagree with you if you want to use that word to describe what is essential. But if that is your intention then your usage is much too narrow. "Gospel" is an idiom that includes a whole panoply of thoughts, images, and definitions. See, for example, Colossians, chapter 1 in the NIV version:
"13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. 21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation -- 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant."
From other verses in the Bible, we can glean additional images. The Apostle Paul could probably go on and on in describing the nature of Christ and His work. Early on in the Church, the term "Gospel" came to mean all of the things that Christ is and has done for mankind. This was because it would take too long to describe all these things in writing and in conversation.
Again, I don't think that one can find anywhere in the Bible where essentials and nonessentials to the Faith are described. I have found in Matthew 23:23 that Jesus does talk about the "weightier matters of the law." But he gives no indication that some are not essential. Jesus, in Matthew 22:37,38, also talks about the first and great commandment. But again he doesn't mean that the others are not essential. He is pointing out that the other commandments are based on the first commandment.
As far as teaching others by example, as you say, Jesus did teach by example (The word is used in that sense about 4 times in the NT). And we can't help but to be an example to others. But that is not the primary method of teaching that is described in the Bible. If it was, most people would be dead before they were introduced to Christ by someone's example. Simply "telling" others is the foremost didactical method used by Jesus and his disciples. Other words that are used in the Bible give additional insight as to how Christians are to teach: exhortation, rebuke, advice, warn, speak, preach, parables, etc.
Hope to hear from you again.
For Christ,
Paul McDorman
Dear Tim,
I would like to publish our correspondence that we had on the age of the earth in a Creationist newsletter. Would you agree to such a thing?
Regards,
Paul
Paul,
You may publish our correspondence. I have not said anything to you in these letters which I would not hold up in public.
In a previous letter, you asked me to give you the rebuttals for the various creationist arguments. Rather than attempt to recreate all the writings that I found, I will refer you to http:\\www.talkorigins.com. I found a number of rebuttal arguments on that site and links to several others.
Blessings to you,
Tim
|
|
