Preserving the Truth: An Interview with Mike Harding about the January Conference
A Fresh Look at Biblical Separation
Q: My impression is that the Preserving the Truth conference is a brand new event. Am I right about that?
A: Yes!
Q: Where did the idea for a “Preserving the Truth” conference come from and why that particular emphasis?
A: The idea for this conference originated with myself and a group of pastors that I have worked with over the years. We are concerned that the next generation of young ministers appreciate the principles and applications of biblical separatism without falling prey to the doctrinal error that exists in some quarters of fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Every other year Dr. Doran has an excellent missions conference for young people entitled SGI (Students for Global Impact) which we strongly support. We thought this conference could provide a complementary emphasis for our college students, singles, and ministerial students during the off years.
Q: There are already lots of conferences going on. What’s different about this one (in addition to differences you may have already mentioned)?
A: We are attempting to provide an avenue to teach biblical separation in the context of a sound, biblically accurate, theologically astute environment. We have invited some very bright and articulate separatists who have years of ministerial experience such as Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Mark Minnick, and Bruce Compton as well as younger separatists such as Matthew Postiff, Scott Aniol, Mike Riley, and Chris Anderson.
Q: I noticed that the subtopic/theme of the conference is “A symposium on biblical separation.” Why that particular topic as a starting point and what can you tell us about the “symposium” format?
A: All the speakers will be invited to participate in a discussion time regarding the specific topics addressed during the conference. Furthermore, the topic of biblical separation will be applied to specific areas including the gospel, personal holiness, non-cessationism, the translation debate, the disobedient brother, and worship.
Q: I expect to hear this criticism eventually: would it be accurate to say this is a conference by and for Calvinists? What would you say to those who cite that as a problem with the event?
A: The theological framework for the conference is baptistic, dispensational, and Calvinistic. At the same time all of our speakers are strongly opposed to any form of hyper-Calvinism.
Q: Some of this information is at the website, but for those who don’t find their way to it, what are some of the subtopics that will be addressed under the “biblical separation” heading?
A: Dr. Matthew Postiff will address the importance of young earth creationism. I anticipate that a literal interpretation of the Genesis account will be “re-interpreted” by those in religious circles once known for their conservative, separatist principles. The subject of worship will be addressed by Chris Anderson and Scott Aniol from a conservative framework. Though we don’t believe in traditionalism, we are concerned that an overt pragmatism and experience-oriented worship will do great damage to the Christian church. Regarding apologetics, most believers have bought into some form of evidentialism and have unwittingly forgotten the most fundamental presupposition of our faith—that the one true and living God has self-attestingly revealed himself through the sixty-six inscripturated books of the Bible. Mike Riley, who is finishing his doctorate on this very subject, will address the separatist implications of both positions.
True separatists are also concerned about identifying a genuine disobedient brother. This is a difficult topic with far-reaching implications. Dr. Bruce Compton has done excellent exegetical work on this subject and will present his findings. In addition, he will speak on the significant dangers inherent in non-cessationism. Additionally, Dr. Doran is very concerned that some separatists have ignored the doctrinal aberrations involved in the translation debate. He will address where the lines should be drawn and how we should react to those who have clearly stepped over the lines.
I have asked Dr. Minnick to address the issue of the gospel itself. I am convinced that the biblical concepts of belief, repentance and the person and work of Christ have been compromised today. We can’t have gospel-driven separation unless we can define the gospel carefully and completely. Finally, Dr. Bauder will address the issue of a fundamentalism worth saving in two general sessions. The obvious implication is that there is a type of “fundamentalism” not worth saving.
Q: At the conference website, I noticed some perks for young guys—discounted registration, free housing—and I see at least one “younger” guy on the speaker schedule (Chris Anderson). Has there been an intentional effort to bring younger and older together at this event? How important is that in your view?
A: We have purposely invited four younger men to speak in order to encourage our younger men in college, seminary, and ministry. I have a heart for these men and appreciate them very much. We are presenting young men who love God, love truth, and work hard in their ministerial preparation. May their tribe increase!
Q: Do you think the conference has much potential to draw folks who don’t necessarily consider themselves “fundamentalists” and stimulate their thinking about biblical separation?
A: I certainly hope so. The doctrine of biblical separation has been greatly neglected. My desire is to expose men even from different circles in order to encourage them to become biblical separatists.
Q: I see that Kevin Bauder is scheduled to do two sessions on “A Fundamentalism Worth Saving.” Do you believe fundamentalism is still disintegrating and degenerating or has it finally “hit bottom” and begun to develop in a more positive direction—or what? What’s your estimation of its condition and future?
A: I am a fundamentalist. However, I agree that the “movement” has lost definition and purpose. Nevertheless, I personally believe that fundamentalism both as a movement and an idea is worth saving. Most important, however, is that the ideas championed by historical, biblical fundamentalism continue to be proclaimed with a spirit of godly aggressiveness and also be protected with a passion for biblical separatism.
Q: There has been some controversy about Calvary Seminary’s decision to invite Mark Dever to speak at their Advancing the Church conference. What are your thoughts on that?
A: My opinion is that Mark Dever has written some excellent material regarding the local church, is known as a serious expositor of God’s Word, has a conservative approach to worship in his church, and has taken some difficult stands within the SBC. On the other hand, I was very disappointed with his interview on Christian “rap” and his bizarre comment regarding the sinfulness of including millennial views in one’s church constitution. Mark represents some of the best men in the SBC; however, there are too many problems with the SBC for me to invite one of its pastors to my pulpit.
I have read Dave Doran’s explanation of why he is speaking at Tim’s conference, and I accept it. I believe Dave is a man of discernment. My greater concern, however, is the growing acceptance of the missional church model for church planting. I believe it will lead to the social gospel. Dr. Doran and the DBTS professors are addressing this issue at the Mid-America Conference on Preaching this October. This conference is a must for pastors.
Q: One of my concerns is how to reach fundamentalist believers and leaders that are, shall we say, “to our right,” and influence them toward a better biblical balance. Do you have any thoughts on that?
A: My greatest concern for our fundamental brethren is that they become careful students of Scripture, better expositional preachers, take systematic and exegetical theology very seriously, and be more fair minded toward good theologians who are not in our circles. Biblical separatism has its foundation in exegetical, biblical, and systematic theology. Without that foundation one has no idea what violations are worthy of separation. Thus, some to our right are very sincere in their separatist stand; nevertheless, in some cases they are taking their stand on very tenuous ground.
Q: Whom do you mainly hope to reach with the conference? Can you give me a brief profile?
A: The conference is for everyone. We would be thrilled if those who have attended SGI would also attend PTC. I think our conference will contribute to an excellent balance emphasizing both truth and mission.
Q: Any final words you’d like to aim at folks considering attending to persuade them to come?
A: The men speaking at our conference have the ability to help us understand the nuances in the fundamental and evangelical world. Impulsive and uninformed responses to the current ecclesiastical landscape produce compromise on the one hand or extremism on the other hand. We hope to avoid both. Our speakers are the kind of men who will encourage us to be separatist theologians and mission-minded servants, believing that biblical truth is our ultimate guide.
Mike Harding Bio
Mike Harding (MA, MDiv) has served as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Troy, Michigan since 1985. He holds BA and MA degrees from Bob Jones Univ. and MDiv and ThM degrees from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. He and his wife, Jennifer, have four children.
- 73 views
[Caleb S] A while back I was utterly blown away by a thread or front page article that basically called “Dispensationalism” the ultimate theology. Now, I’ve studied it, read the books; but NEVER would I ever call dispensationalism the chief theology. When I saw that thread it struck me at utterly wrong headed (sorry to whoever wrote it).Caleb,
I think that would be me ;)
http://www.sharperiron.org/why-i-am-dispensationalist
If you have time, please go back and read my article, especially points 6 and 7. I do not think that my article contradicts the essential points you are making.
Of course, I disagree with you on the importance of a literal hermeneutic. If you do not understand the text with certainty, then logically you could not approach the text to learn more about God, etc.
The other sub-points you make are between you and God. You will have to decide for yourself what you believe and why — then stand on those issues as you understand them from Scripture. 0:)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
My concern with those who have denied a literal six day creationism is along two lines:
1. Against the Hugh Ross types (day-age) - I have strong disagreement with the concept that science is the 67th book of the Bible, along with the problem of animal death before the fall. Ross has to create a different redemptive history that explains moving from a good universe to a perfect universe, as opposed to a perfect universe falling and being redeemed.
2. Against the modern evangelical movement within OT studies (denial of Adam’s existence) - If you deny the historicity of Adam (and thus that sin brings physical/spiritual death), then you have no basis for the death of Christ being an actual propitiatory, atoning death.
These are serious theological problems that are easily solved by a literal reading of the Old Testament accounts on creation.
Credo Ut Intelligam
I have read Dave Doran’s explanation of why he is speaking at Tim’s conference, and I accept it. I believe Dave is a man of discernment. My greater concern, however, is the growing acceptance of the missional church model for church planting. I believe it will lead to the social gospel. Dr. Doran and the DBTS professors are addressing this issue at the Mid-America Conference on Preaching this October. This conference is a must for pastors.I know I’m showing my ignorance, but what is the “missional church model”? How is it different from any other kind of church planting?
Alot of the trouble with evangelical trendiness is that certain buzzwords become prominent for a while. If you are not embracing them, you’re seen as out of touch, stuck in the past, etc., but if you do embrace them you often have to redefine them biblically, so… I say, why bother.
In this case, I think “missional” is a term some use innocently enough because it’s a cool word right now. Others mean something distinctive by it and the “something distinctive” is not, in Harding’s view (or the DBTS folks, apparently) good.
(By “something distinctive” I mean something newfangled as opposed to plain ol’ New Testament church model… let’s call it the “PONT model” make it sound cool and start a trend!)
So I hope to get an opportunity to learn a bit about it. I can’t get to Detroit this month though, unfortunately.
Anybody want to blog the MACP conference for SI?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer][dmicah]First…Paul Scharf may have been correct when he said that i had too much coffee before i wrote that response. Re-reading, i must apologize for sounding snarky. i don’t know how to roll out smiley faces and such :-). i am serious in my disagreement for a conference of this nature, but the titles were certainly tongue in cheek.
I think you’ve misread these guys. Do you know them? I’d just say go and see. You may be very surprised. This is not the obsess-on-the-past corner of fundamentalism.
As for promoting things Jesus did not promote and leading with things Paul taught as a last resort, I think this partly misjudges Jesus and Paul but mostly misjudges these fundamentalists. What they lead with is what they’re doing the other 363 days of the year. This conference is aimed at particular problems and approaches them differently than they’ve been approached a good of the time in the past. It’s aimed at the future.
“To highlight our doctrinal purity”… do you think that might be a slightly cynical way to characterize their motives?Preserving Your Pulpit: Using Theology to Limit the Size and Influence of Your ChurchI’m not sure what you mean by this one. The theology is erroneous? The delivery is boring? Barring that, how can theology limit the influence of a church? Size.. alas, yes. It can limit that! But influence and size don’t correlate because “influence” occurs when ideas are dismissed and rejected as well as when they are welcomed and embraced. The task is to expose folks to “all things that I have commanded you,” and the results are not really our department.
I know none of these men personally, only through their writings, and they are very conservative men. My issue w/a conference of this nature is that leading with the topic of separation, interpreting current issues through the matrix of separation, focusing on separation, having a passion for separation is an incorrect starting point on the map. Therefore, I don’t need to know them personally, I know their frame of reference. The interview and their website indicates a major disconnect with reality. People are searching for the matters that unite, not that divide. The heartbeat of traditional separatism is pride. I am not saying these are proud men or that they are traditional militant separatists. I am not saying separation from heresy and sin are unimportant. But rallying a group of people around ecclesiological separation is not what Jesus did.
My overarching point has to do with the reasons younger fundamentalists recoil from these things. We understand that Jesus’ great commission actually does imply separation. By making disciples, men/women become set apart to God, away from evil and worldliness and those who would preach a self-serving false gospel. Yet, the mission of this conference as stated on their website is “presenting accurate theological positions on important, current doctrinal issues from a biblical, separatist viewpoint.” The What Is PTC page goes on to deliver an academic oriented description of its purpose. My passion on this is for those who care to step back for a moment and see how magnificently devoid of spiritual power this appears to be. From their website “Our conference will endeavor to bring together some of the brightest and best biblical separatists, young and old, in order to address these issues.”
This sounds nothing likeAnd I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Cor 2:1-2 ESVI am not trying to be cynical. I can only go on my lifelong experiences with those who trumpet the subjects of doctrinal purity. Their Christianity is usually characterized by looking with disdain on those who approach topics like creation or eschatalogy with varying viewpoints, sneering at others’ statements of faith, or dripping condescension with statements like “he does a lot of great stuff, but i’d never have him in my pulpit because of XYZ.” This is why I speak of separatists claiming a corner on truth. This is why I speak of separatists highlighting a powerless theology that relegates the Holy Spirit to its rightful place…a study in Pneumatology, thereby limiting the size and influence of their church. The Spirit will not work where he is not allowed. Like Apollo Creed said in Rocky III, “Don’t tell me what you think, go out there and do it.”
Remember, i am a separatist. Ecclesiologically, I have no problem slamming an evangelical preacher like Furtick who recently put on a 24 hour preaching marathon that invoked God’s power while selling Furtick’s book QVC style. Yet I have learned many things from watching his ministry. Though I’ll hang out with non-Christians who enjoy intoxication, smoke like chimneys, curse like military personnel, and engage in other nefarious behavior, personally, I will not maintain friendships with Christians who revel in sinful behavior. My lines of demarcation are different than many traditional conservative fundamentalists, but I still separate from that which is unholy.
What I cannot accept, and why so many of my generation have blurred the distinction between a fundamentalist and an evangelical, are those who have commandeered militant and aggressive separation with strictly regulated theology and immaculate doctrinal statements as the clarion call of the body of Christ. I recognize the two-edged sword. But there is a nuance to it. I am a separatist because I cling to the power, purity and presence of Jesus, and take action based upon this. I am not a separatist because I define all of the other folk as wrong, or not as fundamental/mature as me. And that is what I see when I see Preserving the Truth conferences. I foresee a lot of talking, back-slapping, glad-handing, education honoring and self-congratulatory teaching that unintentionally converts the gospel of reconciliation into a gospel of separation.
I’ll finish my diatribe by saying that I appreciate that these men hold God’s Word in high regard and preach Jesus as the way, truth and the life. However, I think it is going back in time, and a mistake to lead with the doctrine of separation and focus on elements of theology rather than the God of the theology.
[Becky Petersen] I know I’m showing my ignorance, but what is the “missional church model”? How is it different from any other kind of church planting?Here’s a good place to start in understanding Missional.”Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America” (The Gospel and Our Culture Series) Darrell L. Guder (Editor), Lois Barrett (Editor).
Also Tim Keller: http://www.redeemer2.com/resources/papers/missional.pdf
If there ever was a day to downplay doctrinal precision, the current day does not seem to me to be it.
leading with the topic of separation, interpreting current issues through the matrix of separation, focusing on separation, having a passion for separation is an incorrect starting point on the map.They are not “leading with the topic.” There are already conferences on missions, church planting, etc. going on. There is no conference on separation, especially one bending over backwards to root solidly in careful exposition of Scripture. So this is filling a void, not lifting a topic above all others.
Mike specifically mentions the every-other-year Student Global Impact conference and explains that PTC is intended to complement that. SGI has been going on for years. As has the Mid-America Conference on Preaching… both in the same basic neighborhood.
Clearly separation is not “leading” in this case. It is not the “starting point.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
To add to Steve’s post, another and more accessible resource (meaning you don’t have to buy it) is Ed Stetzer’s blog (edstetzer.com) where he has a number of articles on what it means to be missional, including a series on http://www.edstetzer.com/the-meanings-of-missional.html The Meanings of Missional . You can also read Francis Dubose The God Who Sends, or Charles VanEngen, God’s Missionary People. Guder is considered a high missional proponent, while Dubose and VanEngen would be low missional and mid missional. These categories of low, mid, and high have to do with the relationship of the church, world, and mission.
The essential idea is that of being sent (which you can see in the title of the book Steve mentions). In being sent, the general idea is that God is a missionary God and the church joins God on his mission. The mission itself is variously conceived (from “high missional” to “low missional”), but it generally holds the idea that God is on mission redeeming and restoring his creation. This is connected almost unanimously with the Kingdom of God. There is almost always a social justice aspect of some sort tied to it, and usually (though not always) an emphasis on gospel proclamation. Usually, missions is a subset of mission.
It is often connected with the sending of Jesus and John 20:21 (as Steve does). Christians are sent into the world like Jesus was sent into the world. This is sometimes cited as the basis for “cross cultural ministry.” In this some form of incarnational ministry is prominent, which is that the idea that our lives should incarnate the gospel, or that our lives should “show and share the love of Jesus,” or that living lives of love and kindness are just as important as proclaiming salvation in Jesus alone. They would say that it is hypocritical to proclaim salvation in Jesus from sin without working towards social justice and repairing the brokenness of sin. Again, there are varying conceptions of how this incarnation should look, and how it is connected to the gospel itself (identical, essential, parallel, necessary but unconnected, etc). For some (such as Keller on the conservative side and McLaren on the liberal side) it involves some corporate attempt to repair and restore social structures that perpetuate things like racism, poverty, etc.
Another of the key ideas is that every believer is a missionary to his own community. It is not the job of the clergy, but the job of everyone.
Christopher Wright is another fairly well known proponent of the idea. He says (and he may be quoting someone else, I can’t remember, or I may have my citations mixed up), It is not that the church has a mission; it is that the mission has a church. In this scenario, mission is broader than the church, and for some (towards the high missional end) mission can take place apart from or outside the church; in other words the church is unnecessary for mission. In some ways, this latter group come close to the social gospel emphasis, that reconciliation is more horizontal than vertical.
So in a nutshell, missional is pretty broad and can be dangerous in the hands of some though it is not necessarily so.
I have a couple of articles on this at my blog, and some others that I am holding off on publishing for now. Some may disagree, which is fine. You can google “missional” and find a lot of perspectives on it.
[CAWatson] Dr. Davis,I understand and share your concerns and firmly hold to fiat creation, historical Adam (because Jesus and Paul do), etc. My point is simply that a YEC is not the only valid evangelical interpretation of Genesis 1-2 and adds to the text and to authorial intent. I don’t care if someone holds to YEC but it doesn’t come from the text. An emphasis on the age of the earth misses the point of Genesis, distracts from the message of Genesis. In my opinion it’s the wrong battle to fight. There’s nothing to gain by arguing for a young earth in the face of science when (and this is important) the Bible doesn’t present that kind of evidence. Supposed evidence has to be imported into the text. I don’t know how old the earth is, whether 10,000 or 10 million years old. Some seem to think they know and that we need to take a stand on that! I don’t because I can’t support it biblically. Others think they can. I am not unable to be convinced but remain unconvinced of the arguments (appearance of age, etc.) at this point. I do know that God created all things, provided redemption after the Fall, and will in the end bring about new creation.
My concern with those who have denied a literal six day creationism is along two lines:
1. Against the Hugh Ross types (day-age) - I have strong disagreement with the concept that science is the 67th book of the Bible, along with the problem of animal death before the fall. Ross has to create a different redemptive history that explains moving from a good universe to a perfect universe, as opposed to a perfect universe falling and being redeemed.
2. Against the modern evangelical movement within OT studies (denial of Adam’s existence) - If you deny the historicity of Adam (and thus that sin brings physical/spiritual death), then you have no basis for the death of Christ being an actual propitiatory, atoning death.
These are serious theological problems that are easily solved by a literal reading of the Old Testament accounts on creation.
Credo Ut Intelligam
Steve
[Steve Davis] I don’t care if someone holds to YEC but it doesn’t come from the text. An emphasis on the age of the earth misses the point of Genesis, distracts from the message of Genesis. In my opinion it’s the wrong battle to fight. There’s nothing to gain by arguing for a young earth in the face of science when (and this is important) the Bible doesn’t present that kind of evidence. Supposed evidence has to be imported into the text. I don’t know how old the earth is, whether 10,000 or 10 million years old.Let’s think about this for a moment…
If 10M years occurred before or during the creation “week,” then we have death before sin and the gospel is lost.
If 10M years occurred between the Biblical fall and the calling of Abraham — at which point everyone pretty much starts to agree on dates — then the Bible (or at least Genesis) becomes a book of absolute absurdities.
If you accept the Noachian Flood, the need for 10M years is instantly petrified.
If you reject the assumptions of atheistic evolutionism (which is not science but a set of presuppositions based in faith every bit as much as any creationist has), the need for 10M years vanishes again.
And Steve says that YEC is distracting from the message of Genesis?!? Try again, friend!! You’ve been watching too much N.T. Wright!! :Sp
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Christopher Wright is another fairly well known proponent of the idea. He says (and he may be quoting someone else, I can’t remember, or I may have my citations mixed up), It is not that the church has a mission; it is that the mission has a church. In this scenario, mission is broader than the church, and for some (towards the high missional end) mission can take place apart from or outside the church; in other words the church is unnecessary for mission. In some ways, this latter group come close to the social gospel emphasis, that reconciliation is more horizontal than vertical.I’ve read all of Christopher Wright’s work and don’t remember him saying that mission can take place apart or outside of the church. Do you have a source for this? In all of his works that I have read, he is very God-centered and church centered. He does allow political, social, and economic dimensions as part of mission, but with evangelism as ultimate and always connected to the church. Also, I feel we fundies throw around the social gospel term a little too loosely these days. The social gospel of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s is much, much different than what Christopher Wright is advocating in his book Mission of God and his role in chairing and influencing the upcoming Lausanne conference on evangelism.
[Larry] In some sense, missional is the new buzzword that incarnates 1 cor 9:22 … It is all things to all men. When someone says they are missional, you have to find out what they mean by that.Thank you, Larry, for the explanation and the links to read. Buying a book isn’t hard, but the time it takes to get it here can be something else unless I want to pay a lot.
To add to Steve’s post, another and more accessible resource (meaning you don’t have to buy it) is Ed Stetzer’s blog (edstetzer.com) where he has a number of articles on what it means to be missional,
:)
I’ve read all of Christopher Wright’s work and don’t remember him saying that mission can take place apart or outside of the church. Do you have a source for this? In all of his works that I have read, he is very God-centered and church centered. He does allow political, social, and economic dimensions as part of mission, but with evangelism as ultimate and always connected to the church.No, I am not saying that Wright does that. I am saying that those on the “high missional” end do that. Wright is not one of them. I think Guder would be, probably. There are many who conceive of the work of the kingdom being done outside the church and separate from the church. Back at Madras in 1938 (I think) Stanley Jones complained that the mission was being too closely connected to the church. The church was relative while the KoG was absolute, and therefore mission can’t start with the church. (You can read a bit about that http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1573&C=1519] here .)
But my reference to Wright was only the reference that “The church doesn’t have a mission; the mission has a church.” I believe that is in the first few pages of “The Mission of God.”
Also, I feel we fundies throw around the social gospel term a little too loosely these days. The social gospel of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s is much, much different than what Christopher Wright is advocating in his book Mission of God and his role in chairing and influencing the upcoming Lausanne conference on evangelism.You are probably right that we throw it around too easy, but again, don’t forget the distinctions I am making (that others make) between high, mid, and lo missional. And don’t forget that there are many who believe that the gospel is more about reclaiming social structures and redeeming people from social oppression than it is about individual personal redemption. I don’t know anyway to describe other than a social gospel.
[Dr. Davis] YEC … adds … to authorial intent.Where’s the authorial intent clause in/about Genesis?
[ibid.]. . the Bible doesn’t present [YEC] evidence. Supposed evidence has to be imported into the text.Assuming this is true (meaning assuming that the author of Genesis intended to tell us absolutely nothing about time frames or the specific mechanism by which we received the earth we now have), then the what you assert above is also true of Theistic Evolution.
I have no reason to think that you aren’t as vociferous with people who would import TE evidence into Genesis. Fair enough.
It does seem to me, however, that some TE proponents and even “origins agnostics” are more comfortable with the TE framework simply because it isn’t as offputting to the pagans who are increasingly idolizing science.
[DavidO]Correct. You have no reason to doubt that I am equally or more vociferous toward TE (not with the people but the theory). Actually I am not vociferous at all toward young earth creationists or their view. I have much more in common with them on Scripture than with TE proponents. I look forward to Preserving the Truth, how they defend YEC, and learning from that, although I’m not sure I should show up. But Mike Harding is a good friend, still, I think :bigsmile:[Dr. Davis] YEC … adds … to authorial intent.Where’s the authorial intent clause in/about Genesis?[ibid.]. . the Bible doesn’t present [YEC] evidence. Supposed evidence has to be imported into the text.Assuming this is true (meaning assuming that the author of Genesis intended to tell us absolutely nothing about time frames or the specific mechanism by which we received the earth we now have), then the what you assert above is also true of Theistic Evolution.
I have no reason to think that you aren’t as vociferous with people who would import TE evidence into Genesis. Fair enough.
It does seem to me, however, that some TE proponents and even “origins agnostics” are more comfortable with the TE framework simply because it isn’t as offputting to the pagans who are increasingly idolizing science.
Correct: What I assert about timeframes and YEC importation into the text is “also true” of Theistic Evolution. Genesis does not teach TE. Even if TE were demonstrated to be true, it was not Moses’ intent to teach about those processes.
Steve
Discussion