From: SteamDoc@aol.com [mailto:SteamDoc@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 9:02 PM
Subject: What is OEC, anyway? (was: Human origins and doctrine)
In response to David Campbell's statement that the Christian understanding
of original sin is not contradicted by possible evolutionary origins of the
human body, Adrian Teo said:
Thank you for framing the issue so clearly. I would agree that the processes
you described are probably scientifically indistinguishable, which BTW,
seems to support my contention that OEC is a viable alternative for
Christians who do not reject science.
My first reaction was that this missed the point, but on reflection I think
it, and my reaction, illustrate how different people understand the term
"OEC." Of course it means "Old-Earth Creationist," one who believes the
Earth is old and that God did some "interventions" in nature over the years
to produce (or to help natural processes like evolution produce) life. But,
within that, there are two very different categories:
OEC-1) OEC believing not only that God did such interventions, but that such
"gaps" are a theological necessity. This category of OEC, in which
evolution is seen as something that must be false in order for Christianity
to be true, seems to be the category in which most people today who are
famous for OEC views (Phil Johnson, Hugh Ross, John Wiester) fall.
OEC-2) OECs who think evolution is theologically OK, but believe that God
did it some other way. I can't think of any "famous" OECs today in that
category (maybe Robert Newman, maybe Bernard Ramm 50 years ago), but it
seems to be the category for Adrian and several others on this list.
[AT] Your distinction seems very helpful to me. I would fit better under
OEC-2, BUT I am really not sure how God did it. As such, I am open to both
evolution or some form of creationism. The questions I posed to the group
are exploratory, and the positions I take are tentative.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 27 2002 - 15:10:29 EST