Sproul on the bible and science

The Scriptures and science proclaim the same truth. They support each other because God's revelation of himself in nature is just as true as his revelation of himself in Scripture. The Scriptures and science are united - not without their distinctions, of course - but united. To separate them is to do exactly what the world does.

R.C. Sproul Defending Your Faith, p.85

Collins on YEC, losing faith, reason

"The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?
--Francis S. Collins, Director National Human Genome Research Institute, writing in Faith and the Human Genome"

Source:Some Timely Evolutionary Quotes

Divine action in YEC vs TE. Lamoureaux quote, billiard balls

Consider divine action in the origin of the world to be like the strokes of a cue stick in a game of billiards. Label the balls into three groups using the words “heavens,” “earth,” and “living organisms,” and let the 8-ball represent humans. The young earth creationist depicts the Creator making single shot after single shot with no miscue until all the balls are off the table. No doubt, that is remarkable. A progressive creationist sees the opening stroke that breaks the balls as the Big Bang. All of the balls labeled “heavens” and “earth” are sunk by this initial shot. Then God sinks those that signify living organisms and humans individually. That is even more impressive.
Evolutionary creationists claim that the God-of-the-individual-shots (or “gaps”) fails to reveal fully the power and foresight of the Creator. According to their view of origins, the breaking stroke is so finely tuned that not only are all the balls sunk, but they drop in order, beginning with those labeled “heavens,” then “earth,” followed by “living organisms,” and finally the 8-ball, the most important ball in billiards, representing humans. And to complete the analogy, the Lord pulls this last ball out of the pocket and holds it in His hands to depict His personal involvement with men and women. Is not such a God infinitely more talented than that of the anti-evolutionists? Is His eternal power and divine nature not best illustrated in the last example?

from Evolutionary Creation, by Denis O. Lamoureux (pp. 94-95)

originally from

Undeception — Test everything…hold fast to that which is good.

Augustine on the literal meaning of Genesis

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]
­ Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram (The Literal Meaning of Genesis): 1.19.39 translated by J.H. Taylor, Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41

McLaren on the nature of salvation in A New Kind of Christian

On the issue of the nature of salvation: "Now the real issue isn't an emotional crisis or the stereotypical experience of being "saved" or "born again" or of "crossing a line" and then stopping there. The issue isn't signing on to a new set of beliefs alone. The issue is following Jesus, joining him in his adventure and mission of saving the world and expressing God's love. If a person isn't moving ahead on that journey, then no matter how many aisles he walks down and cards he fills out and "sinners prayers" he says, whether or not he is going to heaven, there is still no way we can say in any meaningful sense that he is experiencing salvation (132)."

Brian McLaren in A New Kind of Christian (p. 132)

McLaren on being saved in A New Kind of Christian

The way you modern evangelicals use the word "saved" is, I think, terribly unbiblical. (How's that for throwing down the gauntlet?) The way you talk about salvation suggests that the only thing that matters in life is getting your butt into heaven, being saved from hell, getting eternal life for yourself. ... I also think the standard definition of salvation breed passivity. It's like a line in the sand, and we say, "The most important thing in life is to be on the other side of the line." OK. People cross the line. What then? They try to get other people to cross the line. OK. What then? I see a huge contrast to crossing the line in this way, and following Jesus on a journey."

Brian McLaren, in A New Kind of Christian (p. 130)

McLaren on Literal Bible interpretation in A New Kind of Christian

"Fortunately, evangelicals don't say that people who disobey their parents should be stoned, as the Bible teaches in Leviticus, or that people whose genitals are mutilated should be excluded from worship, as the Bible also teaches in Leviticus, or that it's a sin for women to wear jewelry or have a short haircut, as the Bible teaches in some of Paul's writings. They don't justify killing infidels, even though Moses ordered the faithful to do so in Exodus. They don't practice polygamy, even though Solomon and David did. They don't recommend dashing the infants of their enemies against stones, as one of the Psalms celebrated. No, they have a grid of decency that keeps them from applying the Bible literally in these situations. But they seem generally unaware of this grid; they think they rigorously apply the Bible literally, and no one else is as faithful as they are. Their grid is like their own retina-they see by it, so they can't see it. As you said, the liberals do this sifting and sorting too, but they just have a different grid. So when the evangelicals say they're arguing about the Bible's absolute authority, too often they are arguing about the superiority of the traditional grid through which they read and interpret the Bible. Of course, I'd not recommend you say that to any of them, because they'll get pretty upset with you. They really can't see it. They'll think you're a fool or a troublemaker."