Whither Our Gifts

Over at Hugh Ross’ site you’ll find a list of various theologians and apologist who support the so-called “Old Earth” creationist position. Now many of these men are no longer with us, while others a current leaders in the church. But I am firmly convinced that many of them do not fully understand what it is they are supporting, and realize that even within the OEC camp there is a slew of different views. But they all have one thing in common, they compromise the word of God. One can claim they are an inerrantist regarding scripture, as some of these do, yet that means little when you are promoting a view that directly undermines it.
The OEC view can only be held by the most tortured hermeneutic imaginable. It undermines the relationship of man to his fallen state and makes God the author of death and misery. But more than this it can only be accomplished by bringing outside opinions to bear on the text. The common understanding of the orthodox church from the beginning of Christianity was a literal six day creation. This is apparent by the way Genesis one is written, as a straight narrative, not figurative. That is not to say there is not figurative language used, but that the point of the passages are not figurative, but written to explain how God created the universe. It was only recently that this idea of “millions of years” entered into the church, and that from outside. Now you may think that we must change our understanding of Genesis, but as I’ve shown the “science” involved is nothing but a host of assumptions adopted solely to undermine the creation account in scripture.
I find it somewhat troubling that we will argue to the death over prophecy, which admittedly has a correct interpretation, but because of its nature is difficult and obscure. However when it comes to the direct and clear testimony of God as to how he accomplished his creation we’ll argue “well, it just not important really, as long as you believe in Jesus”. How fatuous is that? Ok, how about “Jesus wasn’t really born of a virgin, that was figurative” or “Jesus just spiritually rose from the dead, that wasn’t literal”. Now you’ll scream bloody murder. But if we are to take the same approach these people take with Genesis how can you argue against it? If science is the benchmark, then things like the virgin birth and resurrection cannot happen. You can only do so if you are totally arbitrary where you apply this magisterial use of science. What kind of testimony is that? A scoffer will rightly laugh in your face.
Now I cannot know what the spiritual state of these men are, but I can say that what they are teaching is heresy plain and simple. Man does not have dominion over Gods word, or the right to change what he likes to suit the prevailing fad. We are loathe in this modern age to use the term heresy, but that is what it is, a false teaching which directly contradicts sound doctrine. Many of these men have ministries which I admire and teachings in other areas which are sound, yet this one heresy is enough to disqualify them from our support. I suggest that you be a good steward of God goods and support those ministries which proclaim the whole of his gospel, including the unpopular areas of mans fall and Gods creative act. Withholding funds from those brazen enough to allow themselves to be listed as promoters of a heresy which denies God’s sovereignty over his word and creation seems like a good place to start. Perhaps some will repent and return to a proper view of scripture, but until they do not a dime!