Their equivocating statements are: (1) “It’s not a salvation issue”: and (2) "but it is a gospel issue."So, if you promote something other than YEC, you might not go to hell, but you might lead others to.
4 Likes
For example, if YEC is false, it might matter to God that YECs are putting up barriers around the truth of Gospel by saying that it only makes sense if you hold to their rigidly literalistic reading of Genesis 1?
7 Likes
Thank you for the clarification - That was the meaning I meant to convey, but I did not express it well.
I have encountered this as well, it seems to be common among the lay YEC, and then some (but my experience could be biased).
Or it may not matter so much. And if it is so essential, what happens if those blanks get filled incorrectly? Wouldn’t it be better to simply admit we do not know? That seems more honest, more humble. That’s got to count for something.
Yet this doesn’t seem to stop them from insisting that doubt in their particular interpretation of Genesis inevitably undermines the gospel and confers the status of false prophet.
Remember what Paul wrote to the church in Galatia? “There are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, it’s probably not an essential doctrine so who cares, right?”
Oh, wait – no, Paul wrote, “If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” Christian orthodoxy does not permit equivocation on questions of fundamental doctrine. Either a doctrine is truly nonessential and Christians are required to accept disagreement with grace, rejoicing that the gospel is preached (Philippians 1:18), or it is essential and we cannot countenance heterodoxy (Galatians 1:8).
The leaders of Answers In Genesis want to claim primacy as the sole arbiters of orthodoxy, giving them the ability to essentially excommunicate any individuals who oppose them. Yet they do not want to be painted as a cult or risk offending those who would quietly disagree with them. Their target audience comprises many who do not accept their wooden literalism but still feel that YEC has “something to offer” in the context of defending Biblical authority. So they simply do both: denying that they treat YEC as a doctrinal essential and yet treating it as exactly that.
1 Like
This kind of middle ground exists in many theological camps. For example calvinism/Arminianism/Molinism; each camp strongly holds to their beliefs and think their system is required to have an accurate understanding of the Gospel while acknowledging that people from other camps can be saved.
Same applies to the doctrine of water Baptism.( Paedo Baptism Vs Adult baptism; and also the Baptismal regeneration camp).
The Roman Catholic church holds the official belief that it’s the only true church, though it does acknowledge that people who hold to protestant theology can be Saved…
How is AIG different?