Widespread belief in a young universe causes "deep concern for the church not only in America, but also worldwide"

I think we need to choose the leaders we follow carefully. Unfortunately, too many people take what Keller or Piper say as Gospel truth. Would that the church was not so much, “I am of Paul and I am of Apollos.” Then these leaders would be merely leaders to be reckoned with and considered, not the gurus that others have made them.

The comments section on the quoted post is interesting. Several remarked to point out that the Biologos folks seem to want to paint belief in young earth creationism as though it were some kind of heresy, some kind of step down the road to apostasy. I’m not surprised to see people embrace old-earth adaptations of Genesis 1, but I’m surprised to see these men try to frame the issue as though the traditional 6 day creation week view was something new and dangerous.

It used to be that anyone not holding to the belief in a literal 6 day, young earth creation model, was unorthodox. Now it seems as if the newest trend among many scholars is to look at it the other way around.

It seems to me like this is an attempt on the part of Christian scholars, to distance themselves from those who hold to a traditional biblical view, and to make themselves appear more attractive to the world.

It used to be that anyone not holding to the belief in a literal 6 day, young earth creation model, was unorthodox. Now it seems as if the newest trend among many scholars is to look at it the other way around.

There was always room for both a young and old earth view within conservative Christian scholarship. Even the Fundamentals that Sharper Iron has been publishing demonstrate that.

I’m not surprised to see people embrace old-earth adaptations of Genesis 1, but I’m surprised to see these men try to frame the issue as though the traditional 6 day creation week view was something new and dangerous.

Sad to see the marginalization of the Young Earth Creationists……

Dr. Keller hosts a Biologos event, talks with students at Columbia University only to muddy the waters further on homosexual sin. One does begin to wonder where Dr. Keller is going with all of this.

Biologos is a very dangerous group of men & women who have no qualms of throwing Biblical Authority under the bus as well as question Paul’s ability to write what the Holy Spirit desired. On top of this, there was at least one man willing to make the logical conclusion (if Paul is speaking in part due to cultural upbringing and is in error) that Jesus was just a part of his culture and probably wrong on creation.

Theistic-evolution has many difficulties and sadly the biggest one is Scripture itself. Exodus 20:11 claims that the six days of creation were literal unless we want to think that God tricked Moses or simply spoke to them what they wanted to hear. I have yet to hear a good strong persuasive argument made on Exodus 20:11 that it does not mean what is simply read. The only argument someone tried to make was that the word “make” and “create” in Hebrew are so much different that they cannot possibly mean the same thing. Sadly, the person was unaware that God used both terms in Gen. 1 when making man as well as in Is. 43 talking about creating and making in the same verse.

Troubling indeed!

any ideas of what said in these meetings? - i didn’t see that in the links?

i think that matters.

We have a summary, but not much in the detail department.

Given data that was presented at the meeting—which convincingly showed that almost half of America’s protestant pastors hold or strongly lean toward a belief in a universe less than 10,000 years old—there was a deep concern for the church not only in America, but also worldwide. This time, leading evangelical Christians left with not so much a statement as an urgent desire to bring about change. The church of the coming decades cannot divorce itself from matters about which there is scientific certainty.

Some more discussion here: http://michaeljkruger.com/biologos-theistic-evolution-and-misplaced-con…
But it looks like everyone is working from the same Biologos newsletter article, which was pretty sketchy.

I was recently looking at William Lane Craig’s website. And I was disappointed with what I saw. One of his articles was about homosexuality. And in it he writes that being a homosexual is not a sin. It is only a sin to be a practicing homosexual. I thought that was rather outrages. It is like saying that having a heart full of lust is not a sin, only committing adultery is sin.

This seems to be a new trend in the thinking of so called christian intellectuals. Why does it seem that everyone is so afraid to speak out against homosexuality? Once again, it seems like these men prefer to be friends of the world, rather than obedient to God.

[christian cerna] I was recently looking at William Lane Craig’s website. And I was disappointed with what I saw. One of his articles was about homosexuality. And in it he writes that being a homosexual is not a sin. It is only a sin to be a practicing homosexual. I thought that was rather outrages. It is like saying that having a heart full of lust is not a sin, only committing adultery is sin.

This seems to be a new trend in the thinking of so called christian intellectuals. Why does it seem that everyone is so afraid to speak out against homosexuality? Once again, it seems like these men prefer to be friends of the world, rather than obedient to God.

I think the practice of homosexuality is a sin and those who are attracted to those of the same gender are messed up in some way. Just like a lot of struggles, some people can merely contain the problem while others can actually overcome their attraction and be drawn to the opposite gender. Yes, God can transform people amazingly, but “what he does for others” he may NOT “do for you.” Sometimes, if we direct people toward all or nothing, we end up with nothing.

Some alcoholics get saved, throw away the bottle and are done. Others struggle for years before they are done.

One alcoholic I know got saved 40 years ago, threw away the bottle and was done. But he could not lick smoking, hard as he tried. Finally, just 5 years ago, he had a stroke, and, because he was in Intensive Care and then in the hospital for weeks, he licked the habit (more out of force). One size does not fit all. I think the same is true with the enslaving sin of homosexuality.

I have also seen this happen a number of times: a Christian man is married to a woman for years and then leaves his wife for a man. And I have seen Christian women do the same for women. Now whether they are regenerate or not is obviously a matter of debate. But in some of these instances, people at least thought they were. Women are more prone to return to a man in time compared to men who take the gay route.

The question remains, then, should a converted homosexual who has no or little draw to the opposite gender marry, or stay celibate? I think, in many cases, people that struggle and do marry make it. We only hear of the failures. Yet think how rough it is on the spouse and kids in a family where mom or dad has left for someone of the same gender. That’s why I think many converted homosexuals need to be especially ready to marry (their heterosexual attraction must be real), and they certainly need to share their background with their spouse to be. Still, when all is said and done, there is much we do not know.

So I think we have to take people as far as they are ready and able to go. Many of us are only halfway transformed in many areas, whether it be patience, self-control, and certainly love. And, in time, as we walk with the Lord, we grow. Sometimes we expect too much all at once. It took 400 years to conquer the promised land.

Post removed because it was in the wrong thread.