A dangerous inconsistency and false charge

In endeavouring to argue against EC, brethren (for it is mainly brethren) can readily express extremes which are inconsistent with both their position and the position of our community more generally.  A classic example is the relationship between science and Scripture and then extrapolating this into commentary about the inspiration of Scripture.  It is true enough that there is a relationship with inspiration, as is set out above.  However these balance is lost in debate and comments such as below are made:

“There is not the slightest indication that the variation in plant and animal life we see around us exists because evolution occurred. The record in Genesis 1 and 2 states that creation took place in 6 days. On the 7th day God rested. Throughout the rest of scripture this teaching is reinforced. In the giving of the Ten Commandments it says ( Exod 20:11)… If it is asserted that Theistic Evolution is true then these verses are false and the inspiration of the Bible is therefore not true”[1]

The statement on creation which issued from South Australia makes the following pronouncement:

“BASF Clause 1 states that God ‘created heaven and earth and all that in them is’. There is no hint or suggestion in the Scriptures of a gradual evolutionary process by which God brought life to the planet. In contrast the Scriptures consistently speak of a miraculous creation of complex and complete life forms – ‘God said … and it was so’ (Genesis 1:3, 11, 12, 15, 21-23, 24, 26, 27, 30; 2:1-3; Psalm 33:6-9).”[2]

The approach taken is inconsistent.  No-where in scripture is the true function of the heart or brain ever revealed. God declares himself vitally interested in the hearts of men – and reveals the thoughts of His own heart Psa 33:11.  The authors and supporters of these statements are picking and choosing what to take literally versus read with our community’s long understanding of Scripture as accommodating the understanding of the time.  On this subject though the literalist regularly abandons a consistent position to accuse the EC believer of undermining inspiration.  This is not logical.

 

[1] Perry, Phil 2016 “Theistic Evolution Refuted” version 1.9 Page 14

[2] Christadelphian Interecclesial Advisory Committee (Adelaide), 2015 “Reaffirmation Statement Concerning Creation and the Fall of Man”  For a detailed response to this statement see this site here!