Theistic Evolution Openly Taught in Metro New York Presbytery

[bouletheou]

TE Wes White has discovered that Ron Choong, a TE from MNY Presbytery who teaches regularly at Redeemer, is openly advocating theistic evolution. And some of his exegetical conclusions are strange, to put it mildly.

Do you think this is acceptable in the PCA?

 

[Zenas]

Wow.

 

[Tim]

I don't think it is acceptable in any church. Or any school.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Are we really that surprised? Keller himself leans towards theistic evolution in some of his writings. If you are getting it from the pulpit, then people in the congregation are going to believe it.

 

[jjraby]

Conclusion: Adam was probably not the first human being but he was most certainly the first one being human.

yikes.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Nothing to see here...move along now...

 

[Curt]

Conclusion: Adam was probably not the first human being but he was most certainly the first one being human.

yikes.

There are many theologians who believe in pre-adamic hominids. If I remember correctly, F.F. Bruce is among them. That doesn't mean they're right.

 

[Marrow Man]

The tail wagging the dog.

 

[sastark]

Do you think this is acceptable in the PCA?

If this man is not corrected, then, yes, apparently it is acceptable in the PCA. Ought it to be? No!

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Do you think this is acceptable in the PCA?

If this man is not corrected, then, yes, apparently it is acceptable in the PCA. Ought it to be? No!

If the PCA doesn't deal with this, the other NAPARC churches should say something to her about it through official channels.

 

[MMasztal]

Acceptable? No. Especially not in a PCA church.

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:11 PM ----------

Conclusion: Adam was probably not the first human being but he was most certainly the first one being human.

yikes.

There are many theologians who believe in pre-adamic hominids. If I remember correctly, F.F. Bruce is among them. That doesn't mean they're right.

The problem then becomes that death existed before the fall. That, in my opinion, is the killer for that hypothesis.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Would a Framework view be able to get around the death problem?

 

[sastark]

Would a Framework view be able to get around the death problem?

That depends on just what the word "death" is really trying to convey to the original audience.

 

[MMasztal]

Would a Framework view be able to get around the death problem?

Not that I can figure. But one scenario might be God created the earth, etc., and tried it with dinosaurs just to see if he was up to the job. You know, creating a habitable planet is a tough order. Well, that experiment seemed to work, so he then thought about trying it with homonids, but he had to get rid of the dinosaurs so they didn't eat the homonids. [Oops, now we have death to deal with] God then made homonids, but realized he goofed and they weren't quite what he intended, so he got rid of them too. [the death thing is going to be a problem] Finally, God got it right and made the ADAM man and the story starts in Genesis.

Assuming this fairy tale is true and KNOWING the Bible IS true, especially about how death entered the world, I would ask why wouldn't God have removed the pre-Adamic evidence of life to avoid the problems pests like Darwin were going to start. Maybe God lacked the power to do so. Or why didn't he just reveal his experiment in the Bible anyway? Would it be that God would have to admit he made a mistake and contradict that whole omnipotent thing he wants his people to believe?

 

[Reformed Baptist]

As someone from a Baptist background, is there any General Assembly addressing this? I know subjects regarding Biblical inerrancy have been addressed. It would be nice to see the ARBCA Assembly (isn't this half-way to presbyterian govt. ha!) or some Presbyterian Assembly address this. If they have, I missed it.

 

[JonathanHunt]

Is this thread viewable to the outside world? I just wonder if it might be better off away from prying eyes.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

As someone from a Baptist background, is there any General Assembly addressing this? I know subjects regarding Biblical inerrancy have been addressed. It would be nice to see the ARBCA Assembly (isn't this half-way to presbyterian govt. ha!) or some Presbyterian Assembly address this. If they have, I missed it.

The OPC general assembly addressed the topic of creation.

---------- Post added at 01:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 PM ----------

Is this thread viewable to the outside world? I just wonder if it might be better off away from prying eyes.

I wish that Rev. Choong had kept these views of his away from prying eyes and brought them up to his presbytery instead of posting them for the world to read on his webblog.

 

[Reformed Baptist]

As someone from a Baptist background, is there any General Assembly addressing this? I know subjects regarding Biblical inerrancy have been addressed. It would be nice to see the ARBCA Assembly (isn't this half-way to presbyterian govt. ha!) or some Presbyterian Assembly address this. If they have, I missed it.

The OPC general assembly addressed the topic of creation.



---------- Post added at 01:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 PM ----------

Is this thread viewable to the outside world? I just wonder if it might be better off away from prying eyes.

I wish that Rev. Choong had kept these views of his away from prying eyes and brought them up to his presbytery instead of posting them for the world to read on his webblog.

Gotta love the OPC. They have been very strong and biblical in this day and age.

 

[SemperEruditio]

My apologies but can someone direct me to where theistic evolution is openly taught in the Metro NY Presbytery. Rev. Choong has made it clear what he believes but where is it that theistic evolution is openly taught?

 

[Zenas]

In that same vein, can someone show me where MNY has reprimanded TE Choong?

 

[jwright82]

My apologies but can someone direct me to where theistic evolution is openly taught in the Metro NY Presbytery. Rev. Choong has made it clear what he believes but where is it that theistic evolution is openly taught?

The blog in the OP quoted him as advocating that humans merely evolved from primates, it seems that he advocates something similer to the BioLogos group. Just for the record there is not one single shred of actual evidence that suggests that we evolved from primates. Evolutionists take evidence interpret it through the lens of their theory than turn around and try to sell it as evidence for evolution, this is always a circuler argument. For example the fossil record does one bone being barried deeper than another bone imply a genetic relationship between the two? NO! It does no such thing. That is a bad logical leap that begs the question. I am always amazed at how bad the reasoning is by evolutionists.

 

[Wes White]

Frank, doesn't posting your views on the internet constitute "openly teaching"? All these statements are public documents. In addition, you don't have to look hard. This is clearly being taught at Redeemer in NYC. Just do a search on "Ron Choong" and "Redeemer."

 

[SemperEruditio]

My apologies but can someone direct me to where theistic evolution is openly taught in the Metro NY Presbytery. Rev. Choong has made it clear what he believes but where is it that theistic evolution is openly taught?

The blog in the OP quoted him as advocating that humans merely evolved from primates, it seems that he advocates something similer to the BioLogos group.

His blog nor BioLogos are open forums of the Metro NY Presbytery. While Choong has made his thoughts public I still do not see where his ideas are openly taught in Metro NY Presbytery. The claim is that a Presbytery in our denomination is openly allowing theistic evolution to be taught. I am commanded and also chose to not to believe this without proof. Metro NY Presbytery now knows and I think should be addressing this. However my question is where is the proof that Choong is openly teaching theistic evolution in the Metro NY Presbytery?

Just for the record there is not one single shred of actual evidence that suggests that we evolved from primates. Evolutionists take evidence interpret it through the lens of their theory than turn around and try to sell it as evidence for evolution, this is always a circuler argument. For example the fossil record does one bone being barried deeper than another bone imply a genetic relationship between the two? NO! It does no such thing. That is a bad logical leap that begs the question. I am always amazed at how bad the reasoning is by evolutionists.

Thanks. Always good to be reminded what the record states.

 

[Tripel]

Where all is Choong out of line with the WCF?

 

[jwright82]

His blog nor BioLogos are open forums of the Metro NY Presbytery. While Choong has made his thoughts public I still do not see where his ideas are openly taught in Metro NY Presbytery. The claim is that a Presbytery in our denomination is openly allowing theistic evolution to be taught. I am commanded and also chose to not to believe this without proof. Metro NY Presbytery now knows and I think should be addressing this. However my question is where is the proof that Choong is openly teaching theistic evolution in the Metro NY Presbytery

I'm sorry I thought you were asking about the article in the OP not what he was teaching at his church. I got confused.

Thanks. Always good to be reminded what the record states.

Oh it goes deeper than that. I love to sit back and read evolutionists and count how many logical fallacies they commit in presenting their case. But you welcome.

 

[SemperEruditio]

Frank, doesn't posting your views on the internet constitute "openly teaching"? All these statements are public documents. In addition, you don't have to look hard. This is clearly being taught at Redeemer in NYC. Just do a search on "Ron Choong" and "Redeemer."

Found it...or at least what I think it would be. All the ACT courses seem to have the same description but by the title I assume this is where theistic evolution would be taught.

School of Gospel Foundations - redeemer.com

Now has the PCA put out something like the OPC about creation? I gotta go pick up my beautiful bride and attend a convocation so no time to google for now.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Where all is Choong out of line with the WCF?

For starters, he is out of line with the WCF where he points out that the WCF is wrong according to his interpretation.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

TE Choong made those statements in 2006. Why in the world is someone just now noticing this?

Frankly his "Theistic Evolutionary" views look to be the least of his problems with the Westminster Confession according to that blog post.

 

[Zenas]

Why is this man in the PCA?

 

[Willem van Oranje]

TE Choong made those statements in 2006. Why in the world is someone just now noticing this?

Frankly his "Theistic Evolutionary" views look to be the least of his problems with the Westminster Confession according to that blog post.

My guess is that no one was reading his blog until now.