Thursday, September 09, 2010

A Sad Day for the Assemblies of God Denomination

Contrary to what Ken Ham may think the new position put out by the A/G is balanced and I believe correct. I'm always amazed by those Christians that seem to equate a young earth literal creation with salvation. The two do not go hand in hand.

A Sad Day for the Assemblies of God Denomination | Around the World with Ken Ham: "The general presbytery of the Assemblies of God (AOG) denomination, in session August 9–11, 2010, adopted a revised statement on “The Doctrine of Creation.” Here is an excerpt from the official AOG position paper, that opens the door to evolution and millions of years, and the various compromise positions on Genesis held by some in the church (such as gap theory, day age, progressive creation, theistic evolution, etc):"

The advance of scientific research, particularly in the last few centuries, has raised many questions about the interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation. In attempting to reconcile the Bible and the theories and conclusions of contemporary scientists, it should be remembered that the creation accounts do not give precise details as to how God went about His creative activity. Nor do these accounts provide us with complete chronologies that enable us to date with precision the time of the various stages of creation. Similarly, the findings of science are constantly expanding; the accepted theories of one generation are often revised in the next.
As a result, equally devout Christian believers have formed very different opinions about the age of the earth, the age of humankind, and the ways in which God went about the creative processes. Given the limited information available in Scripture, it does not seem wise to be overly dogmatic about any particular creation theory.
Whatever creation theory we individually may prefer, we must affirm that the entire creation has been brought into being by the design and activity of the Triune God. Moreover, we also affirm that the New Testament treats the creation and fall of Adam and Eve as historical events in which the Creator is especially involved. We urge all sincere and conscientious believers to adhere to what the Bible plainly teaches and to avoid divisiveness over debatable theories of creation. (“The Doctrine of Creation,” 2010,
Update:  Rusty has a good post delving into the fallacy of Ham's position.


Rusty said...

Thanks for posting this. I was unaware that AG had revised their position. Despite having grown up in the AG I chose the Old Earth position while still in elementary school (the 1960s). I saw it as a wonderful harmonization between the Word and science. BTW, I've NEVER considered natural process evolution to be a viable option for Christians - for the very reason of it not fitting in with the harmonized OEC view.

Ron Ballew said...

I would agree. We don't need to be afraid of science while still maintaining our Christian beliefs.

Anonymous said...

I would encourage you to check out this site.

Ron Ballew said...

Without being disparaging and recognizing that there are legitimate interpretations. That being said Genesis is not a science textbook. The Hebrew cosmology simply couldn't comprehend what we now know today and God revealed Himself accordingly.

Genesis is pre history. The symbols being used are those that the period would understand.

I won't go into this further, its way too complicated. Suffice it to say that site you recommended is interesting, but not persuasive.