And what do you mean "He"??? ...
Posted on 06/16/2009 1:19:31 PM PDT by mnehring
No doubt many of you have seen the new movie based on the Chronicles of Narnia. The movie, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, is getting rave reviews from critics and viewers alike. Many churches are promoting the movie to its members.
Although it is no secret, many young earth creationists who have enjoyed the movie probably do not realize that the author, C. S. Lewis, is an old earth creationist, who believed in evolution.1
Many people, including many young earth creationists, regard Lewis as one of the great theologians of the last century. For instance, a search of the young earth creation science ministry Answers in Genesis reveals quotes from the works of Lewis.2 They are quick to use quotes from this great theologian in support of their young earth cause (even though Lewis would have denounced their brand of creationism). It is interesting that young earth author Jonathan Sarfati, in his book Refuting Evolution, uses a Lewis quote where Lewis argues against atheistic evolution...even though Lewis firmly believed in Theistic Evolution.3 Too bad Sarfati did not tell his readers the "rest of the story."
The example left us by C. S. Lewis, makes it apparent that one can be a great theologian, and a devout Christian, and believe in an old earth (and evolution). Even young earth creationists recognize his influence upon the church.
It is clear that you do not need to believe in a young earth to be a solid Christian. This makes all the words and claims of young earth creationism as nothing more than a "loud noise and clanging cymbals"...you can ignore them all and be a great Christian, while believing in an old earth.
1 Notable Christians Open to an Old Earth Interpretation, on the Reasons to Believe website. Contrary to the claims of several young earth creationists, including Henry Morris of ICR, Lewis never recanted from his belief in theistic evolution. Morris claims that Lewis changed his mind just before he died. As support, he used this quote.
"I wish I were younger. What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders."
As you can see, Lewis said he was inclined to think evolution was not true...he did not say it was not true. Thus, at most, he began straddling the fence between creation with evolution and creation without evolution. However, we have no indication that his view of creation without evolution would have been young earth or old earth (see icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=746)
2 For example, see www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/angle.asp and www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4323.asp
3 www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter1.asp
Thanks for the post.
we're not allowed to enjoy a movie if we disagree with the author on something??
Creation has a goal, evolution does not .....
Creation has a goal, evolution does not .....
You shouldn’t speak for God that way and presume that he doesn’t have a goal for the natural systems he put into place.
Very nice response. Agree.
“If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth.”
This is the followup to their article and it simply amazes me. Can the “scientific world” verify the resurrection of Christ? If not, then no matter what you think about “an old earth” please stay away from the gospels as you are going to be faced with a much more, shall I say, profound reason for “holding out on making a decision for Christ”.
Probably you should lighten up a bit .. God has a sense of humor too you know ... he created man ....
I have no opinion on evolution. That doesn’t make me a better or worse Christian. Neither Jesus nor Paul ever said, “Disbelieve evolution and you shall be saved.”
On another thread, I’ve been involved in a debate on transubstantiation - a subject I never expected to discuss. Belief in it or against is not, to my thinking, a defining doctrine of Christianity. I’d assume that even those who believe in it would allow someone could be mistaken without being a heretic.
How much more evolution?
I’ve never paid any attention to C.S. Lewis’s thoughts on evolution, but there are a great many Christians who believe in the old earth, creation/recreation, genesis gap theory who don’t believe in evolution. The theological reasons for believing in creation/recreation have nothing to do with evolution or the idea that God has chosen evolution as a means of working out His creation.
Do you believe in a literal worldwide flood?
That is until the Spirit of the Lord moved upon the waters and started the recreation of the globe.
"It is clear that you do not need to believe in a young earth to be a solid Christian. This makes all the words and claims of young earth creationism as nothing more than a "loud noise and clanging cymbals"...you can ignore them all and be a great Christian, while believing in an old earth."
Do you see the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion?
I am a "God may have taken a million years to make man" Christian, as opposed to an evolutionist. I think God can work any way God wants to, and I think that Genesis may be the telling of God's truth about the fundamental flawed nature of man, that we will often choose the easy evil over the hard good. If I am wrong, God will straighten me out in the first five minutes of the Hereafter, if that even matters then. My wife is a staunch "six-day" believer, but doesn't beat anyone up with it.
I have a good Christian sister whose only tool in the tool box is the hammer of Creationism. If you do not believe as she does, be prepared to be pounded over the head with literal Genesis over and over again. I hava another good friend who is a scientific humanist, and an FBI agent, who only believe what he sees with his eyes.
If I go to my FBI friend (as I do sometimes) and mention that "You know, we are all flawed individuals who by our bad choices walk away from the One who created us to live connected to him. Our shortcomings can be made clean by the gift of love that Christ made for us. You can live a life knowing you are part of God's family" then I may win him over to Christ. He may grow to see God's love. However, if I introduce him to my Christian sister, she would beat him over the head with Creation until he decided that Christians are mind-numbed idiots who don't believe in science and probably don't think Gravity exists. His soul would be lost because a well-meaning Christian put her own pet project ahead of the loving Grace of Jesus Christ.
So, in the thousands of posts that follow, here is my only suggestion...spend the effort on telling your friends that Jesus died for them and provides parachute to our frail human lives through His love. If we spent less time attacking eacho other over exactly HOW God put us here, we would have more time to reach out to the ones God calls us to witness to.
“I’d assume that even those who believe in it would allow someone could be mistaken without being a heretic.”
This is a flaw in strict fundamentalist thinking, which tends to encompass most (my opinion) who engage in “creation science” worship.
The flaw is “one true path” thinking - that unless you are lockstep with their belief, you are doomed to eternal fires.
I think that CS Lewis would find the irony in “creation science” because it presupposes that faith somehow requires scientific proof - so much so, that those that engage in “creation science” worship will fabricate science, or misrepresent actual science in an attempt to prove their faith. It exists almost entirely outside of usual scientific processes - and when scrutinized, elicits a conspiratorial response.
Science and creationism are separate things that do not need to overlap to believe in God, or practice science.
Don’t forget Lewis was an Oxford don.
Academics tend to protect their own areas of expertise by submiting to the “expertise” of academics in other fields.
Lewis just swallowed Darwinian theory because the science dons of his time did.
“Probably you should lighten up a bit .. God has a sense of humor too you know ... he created man ....”
Ok then. So while we’re speaking for God, he probably isn’t amused at “creation science” - since those who are in the “field” have to break a Commandment or two “for the glory of God”.
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
This is regarded as a very thorough statement of what leading inerrantists mean by “inerrancy”, in a format of “WE AFFIRM …; WE DENY …;”, clearly setting out the details. For example, inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts, not to copies or translations:
Article X.
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.
Further, inerrancy does not mean blind literalism, but allows for figurative, poetic and phenomenological language, as long as it is accurate:
Article XIII.
WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says that the autographs of the Bible, that is, the actual parchment or papyrus on which the Biblical authors wrote, accurately reflects the authors intent. This allows the possibility of errors in the surviving manuscripts and translations. But even if the autographs are lost, surviving manuscripts are found in such large numbers that the autographs may be reconstructed with more than 99 percent accuracy.
<>
Note that word, “copies” When discussing Biblical inerrancy, it is important to remember that ONLY the original texts of the Bible are claimed to have been inerrant.
Inerrancy and Human Ignorance
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/inerrancy.html
[huge snip]
Religious and Philosophical Reasons Why We Don’t Have Inerrant ____COPIES____.
And what do you mean "He"??? ...
I’ve always liked C.S. Lewis. I would note that the movie came out several years ago, so it isn’t really ‘new’.
It doesn’t bother me that Lewis is an “old-earth creationist”, although it’s hard to understand why in the next phrase they say he believed in evolution. Either he was a creationist or he wasn’t. It doesn’t matter, but there’s no point in destroying what little clarity remains in our language.
The Baptists believe people need to be baptized after they accept Jesus. The Lutherans believe you get baptised as an infant. One of them is most certainly WRONG, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t solid Christians in both churches.
There are “solid Christians” who believe in speaking in tongues, and others who totally oppose it — one of those groups is dead wrong as well.
So it doesn’t at all bother me that strong Christians, even well-known ones, are wrong about evolution. It doesn’t make them right though.
I dunno.
Looks more like Somebody finally figured out how to undo a 4-hooker during an embrace.
A well known rite-of-passage into manhood, BTW.
Nopa, knew the password ....
Er, I, um...this is a response to what?
Actually, I’ve seen the evolutionist Christians do a lot more of the bashing of creationist Christians than the other way around. To be specific, this very article, pretending to be calling for some sort of tolerance on the issue, says of young-earh creationists: “This makes all the words and claims of young earth creationism as nothing more than a “loud noise and clanging cymbals””.
But I realise we only see the other side bashing, we ignore our own side.
I have nothing against Christians believing in Evolution, or in old-earth Creationism. I don’t believe the earth is 6000 years old either, but I am very skeptical that it is “old”. But in any case, I do think a lot of Christians are wrong in their beliefs on many things, and evolution would be one of those things.
Lewis never wrote much about God’s grace, so I could never really tell if he is believer or not.
Intellectually dishonest creationist arguments? I am shocked, shocked!
“Actually, I’ve seen the evolutionist Christians do a lot more of the bashing of creationist Christians than the other way around.”
Well, I try not to bash anyone on their religious beliefs, even creationists - I see it as a consistent view, if one is so inclined.
However, if you say “creation science” worshiper, then I’ll bend over backwards to show them for the frauds that they are. To be fair, I really should be open to the fact that there might be a reasonable “creation science” enthusiast, but so far I haven’t found one, then again I haven’t looked too hard.
I believe in a young earth creation. I have never heard anyone that believes in YEC, say that you must believe it to be saved. You can believe whatever you want on origins and if you believe in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross then you will be saved.
However, any other view of creation is out of step with a plain reading of the book of Genesis. This causes people to question the Bible. When does it become real history and not just allegory?
Genesis says that death entered the world through sin. If Genesis is just allegory then there was no real Adam who sinned against the Holy God that created him. If there was no Adam and death isn’t the punishment for sin then why did Jesus need to come to redeem us?
If you believe in a literal Adam that was created a long time after the earth was created then you arent being consistent with the words of Christ. Jesus said that from the beginning they were created male and female.
Jesus also said if I have told you of earthly things and you have not believed, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things? If people cant believe the earthly thing like creation, how can they believe about salvation. It causes alot of people to fall away or turn away altoget
Password?
Password?
Hmmmmm.....?
*DING*
Shoe sale?
Actually the password would have something to do with aviation such as “LOOKOUTFORTHEFRIGGINPROP” ....
Well said.
“I believe in a young earth creation.”
And I think it is a consistent religious view. I don’t share it, but I do not criticize anyone for having those views.
“Jesus also said if I have told you of earthly things and you have not believed, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?”
Which highlights the contradiction that is “creation science”.
If the earth really is “young”, then I am convinced that scientific evidence will eventually prove it out. I think that even the most strident of creationists (if they are honest) would have to admit that at this moment, the best information we have shows that the earth is “old”. If future information changes that, so be it.
That “creation science” worshipers refuse to acknowledge what real science tells us does not do credit to their faith or their science.
“Do you believe in a literal worldwide flood?”
Litmus test alert!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.