Daar word op die oomblik in die kerk meer gepraat oor self-ontplooiing as oor self-opoffering.-Anon.......As ‘n kerk haar woorde begin devalueer, dan word die kerk ‘n ramp vir die volk. - K Schilder


Heresy (Afrikaans: kettery) and theistic evolution

There’s a very interesting posting on Dr Byl’s blog on Mc Grath’s “Heresy” currently , here: http://bylogos.blogspot.com
(Read on under comments)


Henrietta said...

On defining a heretic: Did the Catholic Church not see Luther as a heretic? For the Protestants however he was the man who was inspired by God to re-form the church. If the majority of a church becomes liberal, will conservatives not be seen as heretical? (We did have a short discussion on heresy on this blog in December 2008, here: http://onsgeloofgesprek.blogspot.com/2008/12/kettery.html)

Dr Byl’s second statement (b) on theistic evolution , “It is motivated by the desire to make Christianity more relevant to modern society”, - isn’t this more or less what we are starting to experience in South Africa presently? Compromising Biblical truths to suit current trends and accommodating liberal views are rife, for instance on homosexuality, abortion and sexual relations outside wedlock. Are these the little foxes that will eventually spoil all the vines?

Reducing the first chapters of Genesis to mythology, as some theistic evolutionists do, will definitely have far-reaching effects on the gospel, as Patricia Williams point out in Dr Byl’s posting.

Yf said...

Hallo there.
I would certainly agree with your statement on making Christianity more acceptable to society. Certain prominances are playing to the audinece in stead of the Word of God. A watered down Christianity will not be taken seriously by a large majority of christians nor secularists.

However, to state that "Reducing the first chapters of Genesis to mythology, as some theistic evolutionists do,..." is an oversimplification of the situation. We know that there is more than one way to interpret the Bible - i.e. it was written in more than one genre. To insist on just a literal interpretation of Gen. 1 - 11 also has it's own problems. The trick question is of course, which verses should be interpreted according to what genre?

I'm not aware of any theistic evolusiontist or Old Earth Creationist who maintains that Gen. 1 - 11 is mythology (and by implication saying that it should be omitted from the Bible because to leave it there will equate mythology with theology, or attack the inerrancy and inspiredness of Scripture, which of course, is out of the question.)