Re: James Kennedy's new initiative

From: <>
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 13:47:39 EDT

I am a current active member of a PCA church, and have
been for years. As far as I know, views other than YEC
are acceptable among the pastorate, and certainly among
elders, deacons and members.

There was a debate about this a few years ago, and a
commitee reported to the General Assembly in 2000. A copy
of this report can be found on Hugh Ross web site:

This is in the recommendation section of that document,
and it was accepted by the general assembly in that year:

"That since historically in Reformed theology there has
been a diversity of views of the creation days among
highly resected theologicans, and, since the PCA has from
its inception allowed a diversity, that the Assembly
affirm that such diversity as covered in this report is
acceptable as long as the full historicity of the creation
account is accepted."

James Montgomery Boice, was, not a YECer as far as I can
tell from his readings. If you read his book on Genesis,
he says something to the effect that there are too many
lines of evidence (scientific he meant), supporting an old
earth, to think that a literal 24 hour day view was the
best one. He seemed to be a day/age proponent.

Of course, there are YEC'ers in these congregations, and
among the pastorate, and there are those who want the
church to adopt a YEC view. The next general assembly
will be in June. I dont see anything on the docket
regarding this issue, but will just have to keep an eye on
things to see if they change.

On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:55:22 -0500 wrote:
>Sadly, it appears that more and more Christians
>(laypeople and leaders) are
>being "forced" to pick a side in the YEC/non-YEC debate.
>Given the
>propaganda of YEC and IDologists, it is not surprising
>that most feel
>compelled to choose YEC. To some degree, it is
>understandable; most
>laypeople and regular clergy can't be expected to be
>experts in this area
>and have to take somebody's word for it.
>In my opinion, things were better when most evangelicals
>just didn't think
>about the issue at all; if you asked them, most would say
>they were young
>earth and one original, specially created Adam, but they
>wouldn't worry
>about sitting in the pew next to an evolutionary
>biologist. It just didn't
>matter that much for day-to-day Christian living. I'd
>take that situation
>over the current one any day.
>Perhaps some of the active PCA folks on this list can
>update us on the
>current status of the debate in that denomination. I was
>part of a great
>PCA church in St. Louis for seven years ('91-'98) while I
>worked toward my
>PhD in evolutionary biology at Washington University.
>When I was being
>considered for deaconship, I had to work through this
>statement in the
>Confession. I said that I can agree with it because I
>considered the
>Confession's use of "6-days" to be a direct quotation
>from scripture, and
>therefore subject to the same issues of interpretation
>appropriate to the
>original scripture literature. God bless the pastor and
>elders of that
>church for understanding my reasoning and not
>disqualifying me from being a
>deacon. I served as deacon for 3 years, until I moved
>from St. Louis. I
>sometimes wonder what might have happened had I stayed
>and eventually been
>considered for eldership.
> "Ted Davis"
> <TDavis@messiah.e To:
> <>, <>
> du> cc:
> Sent by: Subject:
> Re: James Kennedy's new initiative
> asa-owner@lists.c
> 05/12/04 09:58 AM
>Kennedy was not into YEC 25 years ago, at least he never
>preached about it
>at that time. I'm not sure when his "conversion"
>occurred. I wonder
>whether it is related to the view within the PCA (a view
>that the
>denomination as a whole failed to adopt offiicially a few
>years ago), that
>b/c the Westminster Confession and Calvin's Commentary on
>Genesis both
>assume a literal creation week (surprise, virtually
>everyone in the 16th
>17th centuries assumed a literal creation week), that the
>PCA needs to
>this as official doctrine.
Received on Wed May 12 13:48:04 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 12 2004 - 13:48:06 EDT