A Letter Submitted to the Answers In Genesis Web Site
Sirs; I wish to respond to some of the criticisms you have made of "progressive creationism". Much of this comes in the wake of the Hovind/Ross debate, which I shall reference, but I want to primarily address some broader topics. I have numbered my points in this letter to facilitate its reading. [1] I personally am a progressive creationist. I came to this conclusion years before hearing about Hugh Ross or even being aware of such a school of thought within the evangelical community. I have been a Christian for my entire life; I was saved at five years of age. I believe in the God of the Bible and in Jesus Christ and His act of redemption on my behalf. I state this at the outset in order to point out what I find most disturbing about your literature on the AiG website and the comments made by Dr. Hovind in the Ankerberg debate. Dr. Hovind repeatedly referred to Hugh Ross as a "cultist" (a point that Dr. Safarti downplays in his commentary on the debate), a "heretic", and openly states (again repeatedly) that he suspects that Dr. Ross worships a "different God", a point he underscored over and again from the beginning of the debate by prefacing comments with the phrase "the God I worship..." (with emphasis on the "I"). Likewise, in an article on the AiG website entitled "The god of an old earth", Ken Ham iterates this point. I would point out that Mr. Ham even goes so far as to write "God" with a lower-case "g" in the text of the article, which I think is beyond disrespectful of fellow Christians, but, most alarmingly, he is willing to go so far out on a limb for his position that he takes the risk of committing blasphemy! This is an extremely dangerous thing to do, especially if he should be incorrect in his thesis that those who do not believe in a calendar-day interpretation of Genesis worship a "different God"; in such a case, he has shown disrespect not simply to progressive creationists, but to the very Name of God! Regarding this thesis, however, I personally find it very disturbing. Mr. Ham bases this position on the necessity for death of animals prior to the Fall of Man in an old-earth scenario, stating that he can't envision God creating a "good" world where animals suffer and die. Allow me to use an illustration: I was raised in Pentecostal churches, but I am currently a member of a Southern Baptist Church. My current church teaches the doctrine of Eternal Security (a.k.a. "once saved always saved"). They base their belief in this on their beliefs about the nature of God -- His mercy, love and the totality of Christ's Atonement. I fully believe in God's mercy, love and the Atonement, but I do not believe in the "once saved always saved" doctrine, because I believe that a number of verses in the Bible clearly teach that one may fall away from the Faith and thus be condemned. Now here's the point -- would the members of my church be justified in stating that I worship a different God than they because I don't believe the way they do on this one point, even though they may perceive such a belief as a slight on the Atonement? I certainly hope not! If this attitude were taken by Southern Baptists, they would have to consider most any other denomination to be an apostasy! This would certainly not be behavior by a church in keeping with Scripture -- let alone if they started publishing literature that referred to the "g"od worshiped by non-Baptist churches! (For the record, although it has occasionally been a source of heated discussion, my fellow church members have never accused me of being a heretic.) An even stronger example may be the doctrine of predestination believed by some Christians. We could apply the same rigor regarding the merciful nature of God to this issue that you apply to the death of animals -- do those who believe that God could predestine some for Hell believe in a different God? Are all Calvinists apostate? Therefore, I protest in the strongest possible terms your statement that progressive creationists, including myself, worship another God! Again, this is not only a divisive statement (whether made "with a heavy heart" or not), but it is flirting dangerously with outright blasphemy. [2] My second point is in part a reiteration of the first. I disagree with your implicit position that belief in a "young" universe is a foundational issue -- that is, a requisite for salvation. (Clearly this ties with my previous point, as anyone believing in the "wrong God" certainly cannot attain salvation.) My belief regarding the creation issue is that it is one that is secondary to salvation. Romans 10:13 states that "Anyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved." Now, to the extent that it is first necessary to establish belief in God before someone can be saved, I obviously am in agreement with you, and I do applaud your efforts to this end. It is simply that I do not believe it is necessary for new converts to be convinced of the "young earth" doctrine. If an "old earth" creationist is able to demonstrate God's existence through teleological evidences and thereby win individuals to Christ, how is this inferior to their being won over through being taught your doctrine? In effect, it seems to me that you are hinging your faith almost entirely on this one issue. It appears that if the "old earth" view were to turn out to be true, or if someone were able to prove to you beyond all doubt that the Earth was really billions of years old, you would be forced to renounce your faith in Christ. Personally, my faith is in Christ Himself, not in any one man's interpretation of one Scripture or another (including my own). Neither am I worried about a physicist or biologist somewhere proving that God doesn't exist. [3] This final point is more of a technical matter regarding one of your criticisms of progressive creationism. In response to dual revelation, in the article "What's wrong with progressive creation?", Mr. Ham asks the question "how can sinful fallible human beings in a sin-cursed universe say that their interpretation of the evidence is as perfect as God's written revelation?" First of all, regarding distortions in the natural record alleged by Mr. Ham in "The god of an old earth" ["When looking at this present world, these men weren't looking at the nature of God, but the results of our sin!"], it may be useful to note that Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:19-20 were both written after the Fall of Man, and both are written in the present tense (note also that Romans 1:20 begins, "For since the creation of the world..."). Beyond that, Mr. Ham's above statement stands in direct opposition to the Romans passage, "...His eternal power and His divine nature have been clearly seen... men are without excuse." Secondly, regarding the fallen nature of Man and his ability to interpret what he sees in the natural record that God created, is the same not true for fallen Man reading the Word of God? The Word of God is perfect, but men are not. We read the Bible and sometimes misunderstand it. Either way, whether observing the natural record or reading the Bible, we must deal with this filter of our fallen nature. Thankfully, we have the Holy Spirit to guide us in our understanding of the Scriptures, but cannot the Holy Spirit likewise guide people in interpreting the natural record? Romans 1:19-20 indicate a revelation and a sort of conviction that comes about from observing God's works ("God made it plain to them.... men are without excuse.") In fact, are differing interpretations of Scripture not what this entire debate is about to begin with? Saying that scientific observation and interpretation is no good because it relies on fallible human reason is therefore a hollow argument; the same fallible human reason can be argued, in the absence of the Spirit's guidance, to apply to interpreting the Scriptures. [4] In conclusion, the central point that I want to make is that my problem is not with what you believe regarding the age of the earth, etc. My problem is that you have a problem with the fact that I don't believe exactly the way you do on this issue. We can disagree on technical issues so long as we agree on foundational things. Certainly, if you believe progressive creationist teachings to be in error, you have the right -- and obligation if the error is of a serious enough nature -- to point it out. However, the demagoguery that you have undertaken in the articles cited above and in others is clearly out of line. Remember that the Apostle Paul warned us not to pass judgement on our brothers over "disputable matters" (Romans 14:1). As a courtesy, I plan to send a CC of this letter to Dr. Ross' ministry, and I plan to post it on my personal website. If you choose not to publish this letter on the AiG site for this reason, I would understand; that is not the purpose for which I write this anyway. Nonetheless, I hope that you will prayerfully consider these points -- especially the first. Tolerance is a word that has been abused and even redefined in today's secular world. But within the Christian community, let us practice true tolerance toward one another (Ephesians 4:2-6). God's blessings,
|