We all tend to live in our own bubbles. It can be really scary when your bubble is breached. When Donald Trump was elected President, it became clear that many white evangelical Christians were willing to overlook Trump's habit of telling lies and record of racism because they believed he would eventually help get rid of abortion because he claimed to be a Christian. Jemar Tisby. at the time wrote an opinion piece about so many white Christians would support racism and how it made him feel "unsafe". When James White (a Reformed Baptist Theologian/Apologist) read his words it really rubbed him the wrong way, prompting many a Twitter battle between some white Christians and Black Christians. James White and others like John MacArthur see the criticisms of racism brought by black Christians like Tisby and Thabiti M. Anyabwile as divisive and unproductive in spreading the Gospel and leading people to Christ. They argue that being Christian transcends race. However, the reason they can ignore the inequities and prejudices endured by black people in America and around the world is because they don't got to live with them. I have heard James White and John MacArthur have harsh words for all people who call for the repentance of White Christians and change in how White and Non-White Christians interact and the power dynamics in Church. They argue that they embrace socialism, Critical Race Theory, Social Justice, and Black Liberation Theology. Many Evangelicals have signed a formal statement - Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel - explaining they disagree with their perceived shift in the church toward social justice.
One problem is the definitions of Social Justice does not match what neither what I nor any Black Christian would say it is or what accountability we have to one another when it comes to respecting each other despite the color or skins. They argue against the crazy people who say that white people should put themselves in servitude to black people to pay penance for racism and slavery. Men like Jemar Tisby and Thabiti Anyabwile are not arguing for this at all or changing the Gospel message in the slightest. See the following video below in which Anyabwile defines the Gospel message.
However, given that many black Christians do not have a background in Reformed Theology, Anyabwile is uniquely qualified to discuss some insight on that and I found his viewpoint helpful.
Interesting? There are increasing reports of Muslims around the world having unexpected dreams of Jesus telling them the He loves them and this is leading them to Faith in Christ becoming Christian. Sounds like the God I serve.
I love to listen/watch Justin Brierley's Unbelievable? podcast. He always having engaging conversations/debates. This one is no different. This one has Young Earth Creationism (YEC) vs Old Earth Creationism (OEC). Ken Ham vs Jeff Zweerink.
This is by far not the first time I've seen Ken Ham debate this. And he seems intractable as ever. It's like he does not listen to any viewpoint other than his own. Don't get me wrong. I do think that Ken Ham loves God and that he is a real Christian although I disagree with him on his conclusions. My biggest problem with him is that he does not see that other Christians can love God, respect the Bible, and yet disagree with him. For Ken Ham, his Young Earth Creationism is a litmus test for orthodoxy. He doubts your sincerity and your salvation if you disagree with him on the age of the earth. This is not a salvation issue. As Frank Turek once pointed out, Jesus is not going to kick you out of heaven if you get this wrong. But I want my views to be true.
In addition, I see no reason to conclude that believing the Bible means denying science or common sense one way or the other. Although I do not agree with Ham that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, I also know that does not mean that Ham , or those who agree with him, are stupid and/or evil. Simply put: the conclusions you draw depend on the assumptions you make. Ham's conclusions are based on his Biblical interpretations that I do not agree with.
Ken makes some of the following assumptions. Green means that I can see how one can see that. Red means I think he is reaching.
1. The six days of creation are six twenty-four hour days like we experience now.
The Hebrew word "yom" was translated "day" but at it's core it means "a period of time". God is all powerful. Any period of time would have suffice. 1 Billion Years. 1 trip around the sun. 1 second. Or even 1 attosecond, God can do whatever He wants to do - even six twenty-four hour days. The Bible does not clearly tells us how those periods were measured. Given that there is no mention of "evening" on the 6th day, the terms "evening" and "morning" may be symbolic. I don't know and no one can honestly say they know.
This is where science comes in. It can help us understand what God did and how God did it.
2.The genealogical lists in Genesis list every individual in the line
Given that all the other genealogies in the Bible demonstratively do not include every single people in the line, there is no reason to think that the lists in the Bible are complete. It is a newfangled idea to list everyone in a family tree because back in Biblical times each genealogy has a point that is not to show just who was related. You can see this by just comparing different list. For example look Jesus' line in Matthew vs Luke vs the lists of Kings in the Old Testament. You will see that some are longer than other because each list was making a different point. We cannot use those years to count the age of the Earth.
3. Accepting an Old Earth model means accepting macro evolution
No reason to conclude that.
4. The Old Earth model represents people compromising the word of God to fit in with the world.
No reason to think this is true for everyone.
5. Ken Ham disagrees about when and how the Bible should be taken literally and worries that people would be tempted to compromise on other parts of Scripture if they are good with compromising on this one.
This is why we need to pray and follow the truth, not stick to what makes you completely.
6. We don't need Hebraic and Greek Scholar to be the final authority on what the Bible says because we can read and understand the Bible for ourselves.
I agree because we are responsible to know God for ourselves.
7. Implying that there was never anything that died (animals as well) before Adam's disobedience in the Garden, plunging the world into the inevitability of sin and death.
This one has a theological bent built on the doctrine of Original Sin. While I accept the doctrine of Original sin, I think Ham is also assuming that an Old Earth means that macro Evolution must also be true and all living things evolved from a single lifeform while all others died out because they could not adapt to the changing world. I'm not willing to buy that. Truth is I am only sure that the Bible istrue but it does not give us enough to jump to conclusions when it comes to the timeline. We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden and we don't really know if the animals were eating one another or not. More revelation and facts are needed.
On the other hand, Old Earth Creationists (OEC) must also make assumptions, as well as scientists who study other fields. Some assumption that are sometimes made in OEC include:
1. The speed of light is constant no matter where you are in the universe, how fast you are moving yourself and has always been the same.
This is a standard scientific assumption. It's the insight that Einstein had that lead him to postulating Special Relativity. And it can be bolstered by experimentation. In college, I observed this in several experiments and the speed of light was near constant. I'm willing to base my life on this one. Why not? Our technologies that harness electromagnetism definitely are based on this idea,
2. The amount of Uranium 238 equaled the amount of Uranium 235 in the earth's crust when the earth first formed. And their decay rates have remained constant.
Because we know the ratio of Uranium 235 to Uranium 238 in the earth's crust today and the rate of decay for both based on the half-life of each element, we can calculate the age of the planet if we assume both elements were in equal amounts in the beginning, I go along with this until either the assumptions are proven wrong or a better theory comes along. Besides, it makes the math work out.
