Is This New?
- Thread starter No Other Name
- Start date
- Status
pianoviolin
Puritan Board Freshman
He took that back within the last year and said that he has more in common with Baptists (like sola fide), although he could be far more charitable. I love my Baptist brothers and sisters (my mom attended a wonderful Baptist church in Chicago after graduating college) and generally find Baptist churches to have the most loving people. However, there is a growing concern among Gen-Z Presbyterians/Reformed (including more conservative ones) over the loss of classical Calvinism, a nuanced approach to the doctrines of grace, Reformed sacramentology, and revivalistic/Baptistic influences, etc.
[automerge]1745613819[/automerge]
I’m not sure why he’s so sympathetic to Romanism and still does Protestant apologetics at the same time. If he cleaned up his act he could be a pretty decent Gen-Z apologist.
[automerge]1745614161[/automerge]
I don’t believe in TE, but are there not forms that are in error and others (in their logical conclusions) that lead to heresy?
Creationist positions:
1. YEC 6/24, Earth does not appear old
2. YEC but Earth appears old
3. OEC day-age
4. OEC gap or framework
Theistic evolution:
5. only plants have evolved significantly. (Ken Ham is YEC and allows for rapid plant evolution)
6. humans are separate creations, animals have evolved
7. humans are evolved creations (with literal Adam/Eve)
8. humans are evolved creations (w/o literal Adam/Eve)
9. evolution happened without any input from God (more like deistic evolution / full-blown Darwinism)
I am currently wrestling between positions (2) and (3). Would (5) be acceptable? I feel like (6) is a serious error, (7) is borderline heresy, and (8) and (9) are heretical (especially (9)). From natural revelation alone I think one can surmise that God created the heavens and the universe and that human beings are special creations that could not have evolved from other life forms.
Last edited:
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
No. There not "forms" of theistic evolution that are less heretical than others. Your categories are confused, but that happens a lot out there in the noise of creation science. I can qualify later. And I am unsure whether to answer you here or in a split thread.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
Didn't he also plan on going to a PCUSA seminary?
JvMill
Puritan Board Sophomore
I would be interested in this
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
He wants to enter the ministry. I can't imagine the PCUSA letting him go to a biblical seminary. In fact, I can't imagine teh PCUSA ordaining him at all.
Let's pray something nudges him so hard he goes to the "technically mainline" RPCNA or ARPC, where he can be properly instructed by God-fearing elders
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I’ll give him this . He’s willing to go after rogue pastors, pastors who were at Trashconference, who have heretical views on the Trinity
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
I am hardly online weekends. So I probably will not be back long enough until Monday. In the meantime, @RamistThomist is giving lots of info here and is well appreciated as always.
pianoviolin
Puritan Board Freshman
The sad truth is that he’s far too conservative to be ordained in 80% of PCUSA presbyteries, being against women’s ordination, homosexuality, and the platform he has. (The exception being more conservative Presbyteries like Nevada, San Diego, Beaver-Butler, Huntington, Redstone, Sierra Bianca, and the Korean PCUSA Presbyteries. He is probably too liberal for the Korean Presbyteries in my opinion - the PCUSA refused to recognize the “National Caucus of Korean Presbyterian Churches” because too many of those churches oppose women's ordination to the eldership). He could probably fit in ECO or something like that (a socially conservative, moderately evangelical denomination that caters to upper class sensibilities re evolution, architecture, etc.).
However, due to the pastor shortage, there are some PCUSA presbyteries that are accepting pastors ordained in the PCA (e.g. Rev Tarter at First Presbyterian Hollywood, see byFaith: Historic PCUSA Church Calls PCA Pastor). I think if someone’s conscience isn’t hurt by joining the PCUSA, the remnant there needs conservative pastors like Rev. Tarter. While I wouldn’t join a PCUSA church, not all presbyteries are the same and I feel like different people are called to different things.
[automerge]1745690222[/automerge]
He has some strange and logically inconsistent views -- he won't attend an ARP church because he disagrees with Marrow theology (despite being in the PCUSA!). If he ends up living in a region where all the PCUSA churches are liberal (by that, I don't mean conservative/moderate broad eva type churches, but truly liberal churches promoting homosexuality, abortion, etc.), he will go to the RPCNA.
I think his ideology (over-elevation of the historic, institutional church) clouds his thinking and he needs to become more mature. In the current situation that he's in (short of going to a NAPARC church), he could do well to learn from other PCUSA "conservatives" in the Fellowship Community / Presbyterians for the Kingdom -- that while not really confessional and more broad evangelical -- are more grounded in biblical Christianity.
Last edited:
Jake
Puritan Board Senior
I believe Ken Ham advocates for 5 and 6, though he doesn't call it evolution per se. If you visit the Ark Encounter you see that the animals on the Ark are mostly not animals which exist today due to rapid evolution within "kinds" since the Ark. At the same time, Ken Ham does believe strongly in a 6,000 year Earth/Universe, such that this all happens on a very short timeline.
Many great Reformed theologians and pastors believed in some form of OEC starting in the 19th century when we started getting evidence that the Earth at least appeared old, and many pointed out that there were some earlier theologians who held some of the same parts of their theology here even if there wasn't a reason from natural revelation to consider it. Some even were at least okay with some form of evolution. The PCA and OPC both have position statements okay with OEC though not every church and presbytery are. My own denomination is vague and only requires believing in Adam and Eve as direct creations of God. There are many OEC professors at major Reformed seminaries (RTS, CTS, WSC, WTS for sure).
The line between generally accepting an old earth and accepting theistic evolution does require nuance I believe. Older YEC advocates believed that all life forms were all the same species in the Garden as they are today. Nowadays, especially with Ken Ham and AIG who is the leading group here, it is only believed that vaguely-defined "kinds" are the same but there can be many species within those kinds. In fact, I think an OEC like Hugh Ross is actually less open to speciation than Ken Ham is.
Similar to how the quoted posts puts it: I think the biggest dividing line is not in some form of evolution (change over time) but over (in degrees of seriousness):
1. Whether Adam and Eve are literal figures (most dangerous form of TE)
2. Whether Adam and Eve are unique creations
3. Whether Adam and Eve are the literal parents of all mankind.
4. Whether animals are in the same species today as they were in the garden (many YEC are okay with this)
Further, I would argue that the last on your list, which could also be called "evolutionism: accepting that unguided evolution led to all life on earth" denies God as creator, and is not even theistic evolution.
Last edited:
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
I’m not sure I’d call #5 evolution unless he’s suggesting that God created only a single plant and that evolved into all plants. Creationism allows for a sort of “evolution” within kinds (a biblical category, not a modern scientific one). We can all agree that God didn’t create labradoodles 6,000 years ago. Whether He created one dog/wolf kind is debatable. But He certainly did not create a single mammal kind. I think we have to apply a similar hermeneutic to plants.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
