Churchians?

[Dee Dee Warren]

I don't really have the time to address this but since it is troubling me, and I prefer to point out flaws on my own side of issues when I see them, I am distinctly not comfortable with the blanket use of the term Churchian to refer to someone who is not YEC. Is it sometimes accurate? I am sure it is, but I am also sure there are YEC Churchians, cause there are many persons in Church who's devotion is to the Institution and not the Person of Christ.

However, I have never used that term, and to be honest rhetoric doesn't get under my skin much.... I am a brawler, but lately seeing that term just does not do it for me.

I feel as strongly about eschatology as some do about creation issues. I feel just as stronlgy that the logical consequences of denying the time statements leads to all kinds of Biblical denial. I can point to apostates and atheists who become so because they believe Jesus was wrong in what he said. Does that then justify me coming up with a new name for futurists other than futurists or Christian or brethren?

Now, yes, I know the analogy does not sit on all fours. Yes I know the OEC have their own issues where they have done things less than charitable... but I am looking in my own backyard.

But remember in essentials unity.... liberty and charity for others.

[jason]

.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 11:12 PM post located here
jason:

I've learnt to expect no better from heretics who would apply such a label to a christian believer,

Like your hero Hugh Ross, you call YECs heretics (Ross compared us to the Judaizing heretics who added circumcision to the conditions of salvation and the Gnostics). But of course Jason and Ross love to play the martyr attacked by these mean ole YECs.

... and cast doubt upon there salvation while talking out of the other side of there mouth that this is not a salvation issue. The label can not be taken in any other way than to imply the person is not saved.

The label "Churchian" should be taken by what it says -- someone who attends a church. Such a person may or may not be a Christian. I've already said repeatedly that OECs and TEs may be Christian, and ICR and AiG say the same thing. But some anti-YEC churchians I doubt are Christians at all, e.g. a leading Australian TE who thinks that Jesus was mistaken about Genesis, but we know better than Jesus because we have the light of science.

So draw your own conclusions.

That Ross and his dupes are hypocrites. You did tell my to draw my own conclusions

And I can point to others who abandon the faith because they have come to the conclusion that YEC is the only possible understanding of scripture.

A likely story. They are using it as an excuse, just like they use compromising churchians as useful idiots to attack Christians. And YEC IS the only possibly understanding of Scripture if we let the text speak for itself as opposed to imposing outside ideas from uniformitarian "science". That's why it was the universal view of the church from the Church Fathers to the Reformers.

I can certainly point to those whose faith was shipwrecked by churchians who told them to trust "science" over Scripture.

But a century from now we will see it for the heresy it is becoming.

What, are you calling YEC a heresy? Like I said, there's one rule for YECs and another for their enemies. The latter are only too happy to slag off at YECs but squeal like stug pigs at the slightest counterattack by YECs.

Sorry ...

No you're not.

Got to take a stand against something that, based on the use of language by many of its leading proponents, is adding to the requirements for salvation.

Like who? I'm sick of your accusations, so put up or shut up!!

They claim it is not so, but then again Arius did not seek to undermine the divinity of Christ either.

Yes he did -- read your history. He said Jesus was created. Athanasius rightly said that there was a time when God was not creator, but never a time when He was not Father of the Son.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jason you are a bold-faced hypocrite. Your post was completely out of line and frankly utterly disgusted me, and I have reported it and ask that all the responses here be removed so that we can start again. I don't blame him for resonding, but this thread is not for you to spew your anti-YEC venom when my whole purpose was to honestly deal with something I am not comfortable with within my own camp, not to give you a platform for your hypocrisy.

Socrates, please do not use my thread to attack Ross. That is not my purpose here, and frankly I am not comfortable with either ministry so aggressively attacking each other. Let's deal with points, rationally and calmly and point out the flaws, but the rancor has GOT to go.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 08:12 PM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:

I don't really have the time to address this but since it is troubling me, and I prefer to point out flaws on my own side of issues when I see them, I am distinctly not comfortable with the blanket use of the term Churchian to refer to someone who is not YEC. Is it sometimes accurate? I am sure it is, but I am also sure there are YEC Churchians, cause there are many persons in Church who's devotion is to the Institution and not the Person of Christ.

The label "Churchian" should be taken by what it says -- someone who attends a church. Such a person may or may not be a Christian. I've already said repeatedly that OECs and TEs may be Christian, and ICR and AiG say the same thing. But some anti-YEC churchians I doubt are Christians at all, e.g. a leading Australian TE who thinks that Jesus was mistaken about Genesis, but we know better than Jesus because we have the light of science.

Similarly, I have no problem using "Churchian" to refer to the Uniting Church minister whom the atheist Paul Willis cited in his debate with AiG(Australia)'s CEO Carl Wieland. This cheap attempt at invoking a churchian useful idiot backfired on him, because the Christians in the audience were hardly impressed by giving an example from Australia's apostate Uniting Church had just decided to ordain unrepentant practising homosexuals (and of course denies Genesis is history).

I feel as strongly about eschatology as some do about creation issues. I feel just as stronlgy that the logical consequences of denying the time statements leads to all kinds of Biblical denial. I can point to apostates and atheists who become so because they believe Jesus was wrong in what he said. Does that then justify me coming up with a new name for futurists other than futurists or Christian or brethren?

No, because AFAICT preterists, futurists and historicists are debating over what the Bible means. The YEC contra mundum debate is over whether the Bible is the authoritative framework for the history of the universe or whether it must be reinterpreted to fit in with the modern outside ideas from uniformitarian science.

Now, yes, I know the analogy does not sit on all fours. Yes I know the OEC have their own issues where they have done things less than charitable... but I am looking in my own backyard.

But remember in essentials unity.... liberty and charity for others.

Right, quoting the ardent YEC St. Augustine :soc:

BTW, the most comprehensive book on Ross that Answers in Genesis stocks is Van Bebber and Taylor’s book Creation and Time: A report on the Progressive Creationist book by Hugh Ross, Eden Productions, Mesa, AZ, 1994 (online at www.christiananswers.net/paradise/ctb-alt.htm ). Right at the beginning, they say:

‘We believe that Dr Ross is saved, and that his expressed desire to live for Christ is genuine.’

By promoting and stocking this book, AiG is presumably endorsing this statement. Quite a contrast from Ross comparing YECs to two lots of heretics. So I hope people on both sides will take this into account, and realise that AiG as an organization overwhelmingly majors on issues rather than personalities.

Also, AiG (Australia) points out that its founding chairman, Prof. John Rendle-Short, was a saved theistic evolutionist for 40 years (before AiG came into existence) -- see this tribute From (theistic) evolution to creation. This more strongly gives the lie to those who say that AiG regards YEC as a condition for salvation.

But like so many other people, including his own father Dr Arthur Rendle Short, an eminent English surgeon and apologist, he struggled with the problem of death and suffering before the Fall, which was the basis for the Gospel message (1 Corinthians15:21–22, 45). Fortunately, he held the foundational message despite the conflict, and this perfectly illustrates what I mean by these people being saved through "blessed inconsistency". People like Charles Templeton and Jack Spong were sadly consistent and apostatized completely.

[bar Jonah]

As a YEC, I wholeheartedly agree with Dee Dee. This is an unacceptable Ad Hominem term. Any use of it only demonstrate a fear of inadequacy on the part of the user. It's a crutch.

That said, this is news to me. I've only ever heard this term to describe people who pretend to be Christians and simply go to church but don't have a real (or at least demonstrable) relationship with God.

In this sense, "Churchianity" has long been a serious problem for the Body of Christ for almost two millenia.

[Socrates]

Today @ 04:13 PM post located here
RightIdea:

As a YEC, I wholeheartedly agree with Dee Dee. This is an unacceptable Ad Hominem term. Any use of it only demonstrate a fear of inadequacy on the part of the user. It's a crutch.

Think what you like. I have explained why I use it.

That said, this is news to me. I've only ever heard this term to describe people who pretend to be Christians and simply go to church but don't have a real (or at least demonstrable) relationship with God.

In this sense, "Churchianity" has long been a serious problem for the Body of Christ for almost two millenia.

Exactly. And this fits with a lot of the clergy paraded as useful idiots by the mendacious misochristic media to attack YECs, and many of the other opponents. At least this is true in my country. E.g. I've already given you the example from the pro-homosexual Uniting Church, the leader of a theistic evolutionary organization that said that Jesus was mistaken about Genesis. There is also the Archbishop of Brisbane who wrote a foreword to a book by an Australian Humanist of the Year which told demonstrable lies about YECs and mocked the Bible. They thought they had a real coup when he was appointed Governor General, but got egg on his face when he was pressured to resign because it turns out that he covered up child abuse in his church.

I've already amply explained that I don't regard YEC as a condition for salvation, and neither does AiG. Nor do we regard Ross as unsaved. But we both regard it as significant that a lot of anti-YEC opposition from within the church is from clergy who should not be considered as Christians at all.

[jason]

Yesterday @ 05:34 PM post located here
Socrates:

Like your hero Hugh Ross, you call YECs heretics

When you throw around terms that suggest people are not saved because they take an old earth position the term is used correctly.

I've already said repeatedly that OECs and TEs may be Christian, and ICR and AiG say the same thing. But some anti-YEC churchians I doubt are Christians at all, e.g. a leading Australian TE who thinks that Jesus was mistaken about Genesis, but we know better than Jesus because we have the light of science.

That person might be, care to drop a name ? I am after all an australian.

A likely story. They are using it as an excuse,

My wife is using it as an excuse is she ?

She has not given up the faith, she simply had YEC out in her path as a stumbling block, by me no less.

What, are you calling YEC a heresy? Like I said, there's one rule for YECs and another for their enemies. The latter are only too happy to slag off at YECs but squeal like stug pigs at the slightest counterattack by YECs.

No you are welcome to slag me off as your endlessly do. I am not complaining about your attacks.

And yes, if it is being added as a requirement for salvation, even implicitly then it is heretical.

Like who? I'm sick of your accusations, so put up or shut up!!

Henry Morris is on record as saying that he does not think non-yecs should be in positions of authority.

That is not adding it as a requirement for salvation, but that is where it will start.

And throwing around labels like "compromising Churchian" and "useful idiot" is only going to give others the impression that "real christians" hold a YEC position and that there is something suspect about those who do not.

It is a short step from there.

After all, Mary is the mother of Christ, and look where that line of thought ended up after 1500 years.

Yes he did -- read your history. He said Jesus was created. Athanasius rightly said that there was a time when God was not creator, but never a time when He was not Father of the Son. [/QUOTE]
Yes I know he said Jesus was created. He still regarded him as divine.

Jason

[jason]

Yesterday @ 10:39 PM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:

Jason you are a bold-faced hypocrite. Your post was completely out of line and frankly utterly disgusted me, and I have reported it and ask that all the responses here be removed so that we can start again.

If you really feel the need. I did edit it three or four times to tone it down. I thought it was ok in the end.

Oh well, I apologise. I guess these sorts of things never come out right.

but this thread is not for you to spew your anti-YEC venom

Anti-YEC venom ?

not to give you a platform for your hypocrisy.

?

Look if I came of badly I am sorry. You have my apologies. I will remove my opening response if you like.

Jason

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 05:26 PM post located here
jason, replying to:

Socrates:

Like your hero Hugh Ross, you call YECs heretics

When you throw around terms that suggest people are not saved because they take an old earth position the term is used correctly.

And neither I nor the leading creationist organisations have said so

Soc: I've already said repeatedly that OECs and TEs may be Christian, and ICR and AiG say the same thing. But some anti-YEC churchians I doubt are Christians at all, e.g. a leading Australian TE who thinks that Jesus was mistaken about Genesis, but we know better than Jesus because we have the light of science.

That person might be, care to drop a name ? I am after all an australian.

Allan Day of ISCAST, as documented in the AiG article The Skeptics and their ‘Churchian’ Allies. I must say that I don't know why DD and RI got so hot under their collars about the use of the word ‘Churchian’ when it was my citation of this article which started it, yet it is a perfect term for heretics like Allan Day.

Soc: A likely story. They are using it as an excuse,

Jason: My wife is using it as an excuse is she ?

Definitely.

She has not given up the faith, she simply had YEC out in her path as a stumbling block, by me no less.

How would I know? And a word of advice -- don't bring your wife into it unless you want to see counterattacks directed against her.

Soc: Like who? I'm sick of your accusations, so put up or shut up!!

Henry Morris is on record as saying that he does not think non-yecs should be in positions of authority.

Where? And I certainly won't become a member of a church where the leadership is slack on creation.

That is not adding it as a requirement for salvation, but that is where it will start.

And your proof for this is, what?

And throwing around labels like "compromising Churchian" and "useful idiot"

They are very useful labels. The latter especially comes from Lenin and was used to describe leftist (pseudo)intellectuals who supported communism. Lenin found them useful to his cause, but had contempt for them as idiots who were too stupid to realise that it they had their way, their own positions and whole society would be in jeopardy. Same for the atheists who use some of the compromising churchians. They are only too happy to use their junk in battles with Christians, but the result of the compromiser's bilge is to harden the atheists in their unbelief.

But it's OK for Jason's hero Ross to compare YECs to Judaizing and Gnostic heretics. That's because an anti-YEC bigot can do no wrong in his own eyes.

... is only going to give others the impression that "real christians" hold a YEC position and that there is something suspect about those who do not.

There is, but not necessarily salvific, as per my previous post here.

After all, Mary is the mother of Christ, and look where that line of thought ended up after 1500 years.

So you think Christians should now deny that?

Soc: Yes he did -- read your history. He said Jesus was created. Athanasius rightly said that there was a time when God was not creator, but never a time when He was not Father of the Son.

J: Yes I know he said Jesus was created. He still regarded him as divine.

A contradiction in terms.

[Dee Dee Warren]

jason:

If you really feel the need. I did edit it three or four times to tone it down. I thought it was ok in the end.

Well you already edited it out of existence. I did in fact report it, and no it was no okay, but hypocritically foul.

Oh well, I apologise. I guess these sorts of things never come out right.

Apology accepted.

Anti-YEC venom ?

Since I no longer have your post to quote, I cannot point out the venom, but I have found consistently you do so. That however is not the subect of this thread, and I ask you and Socrates to take your personal dispute elsewhere.

This thread is narrowly defined. I am not interested in your hatred of YEC in this thread. I as one YEC am calling on other YEC to discuss the use of this term. Really on this one, you would be more polite to butt out. I cannot enforce that of course as this is an open area of the forum, but as the thread starter I am telling you what my intention was and am asking you to voluntarily respect it. Anticipating that you will, I will not respond to any of your comments as it would not be fair to respond to something and ask you not to. Feel free to start a thread on any of the subpoints. If you wish to rant about YEC heresy take it to the Locker Room.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 12:58 AM post located here
Socrates:



The label "Churchian" should be taken by what it says -- someone who attends a church.

No I am sorry though that does not fly or address my concern. Are you and I then "Churchians"? Come on. It implies that it is someone who only attends a church but is not a Christian. Yes, there are many people to whom that apply, but I think it is generically used in the YEC camp to refer to anyone who is OEC. That is my concern. Is the DaVinci code guy properly a Churchian? Sure.

Such a person may or may not be a Christian.

I am sorry Soc it has the taint of implying that they are not. The phrase "Churchianity" has a history that cannot be ignored. That is like saying the "n" word simply means a black person which ignores the "slur" aspect.

I've already said repeatedly that OECs and TEs may be Christian, and ICR and AiG say the same thing.

And I agree with that. Those who try to say otherwise are wrong. However, I think that they are wrongly using Churchian so often. It leads to misunderstanding. However, rrather than using that to say that YEC don't believe that OEC are saved, Christian charity would say that we grant the benefit of the doubt and say that the use of Churchians is inconsistent. That is my burden. I know your heart that OEC are saved as is mine. Anyone who uses my honest-hearted concern as an occasion to attack YEC is abusing my intent and I deeply object.

But some anti-YEC churchians I doubt are Christians at all, e.g. a leading Australian TE who thinks that Jesus was mistaken about Genesis, but we know better than Jesus because we have the light of science.

I have no problem there. Then let's limit the use to such as there is compelling foundation.

Similarly, I have no problem using "Churchian" to refer to the Uniting Church minister whom the atheist Paul Willis cited in his debate with AiG(Australia)'s CEO Carl Wieland. This cheap attempt at invoking a churchian useful idiot backfired on him, because the Christians in the audience were hardly impressed by giving an example from Australia's apostate Uniting Church had just decided to ordain unrepentant practising homosexuals (and of course denies Genesis is history).

Again I didn't say it was never appropriate. It is the generic use that I am objecting to. I am next going to focus on a thread of the over-use of "useful idiot" - see here is my heart Socrates, such things are fueling fire between true brethren, and as such is generating more heat than light. I would resent if I thought a OEC was calling me a Churchian generically, even if speficially they were referring to obvious apostates. I am not denying there are apostates.

No, because AFAICT preterists, futurists and historicists are debating over what the Bible means. The YEC contra mundum debate is over whether the Bible is the authoritative framework for the history of the universe or whether it must be reinterpreted to fit in with the modern outside ideas from uniformitarian science.

I disagree to a point. I would say that futurists are looking at the world and saying that since such things did not happen we must re-interpret Christ's timing words to mean something else. This is actually much more on point than I realized.

By promoting and stocking this book, AiG is presumably endorsing this statement. Quite a contrast from Ross comparing YECs to two lots of heretics. So I hope people on both sides will take this into account, and realise that AiG as an organization overwhelmingly majors on issues rather than personalities.

I am not referring to any one organization in my comments anyways. I have seen several YEC usages of Churchian lately, individuals, not organziations, and it bothered me. You know I am a financial supporter of AiG. Despite any difference I may have on anything, for I do not wholeheartedly agree with any ministry, I believe in the ministry.

[jason]

Today @ 04:36 PM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:
Well you already edited it out of existence. I did in fact report it, and no it was no okay, but hypocritically foul.

Fair enough. I thought you wanted it rid of, so I did as you asked. Hypocritically foul ? Ok then.

Since I no longer have your post to quote, I cannot point out the venom, but I have found consistently you do so.

Really ? Fair enough. I shall watch that in future.

I started a new thread to pursue the question. Please let me know if you consider that "hypocritically foul" or "venomous".

I am not interested in your hatred of YEC in this thread.

I don't hate YEC's. I consider a small minority of them a destructive influence in the church, and I consider their rhetoric the problem.

Feel free to start a thread on any of the subpoints. If you wish to rant about YEC heresy take it to the Locker Room.

I did start a new thread. Don't worry about replying Dee Dee, sorry to have upset you. It is easy to write things that don't read the same way to one person as another. And in hind sight my original post was probably a little over the top.

Jason

[Dee Dee Warren]

No problem Jason, forgotten, over and done.

[peh2]

What is YEC? There are other abbrevations I don't understand in here but I can't see them now that I'm posting so can't ask...is there some where on the forum where their definitions are listed?