I suppose one can ask: "How much do you buy into the theory of evolution?" 100%? 99.9? In math, there is always a distinction between certainty and uncertainty. We do not make what seems as what is. True science is not a game of making truth out of chance (Or academic fluency). In the community of science, I must admit that mathematicians know better. Would biologists frown upon analytical precision? Or are they more encouraged to side with pragmatism?
One who loves the truth, would welcome challenges; One who does, shuns away those who disagree.
Ron Choong is a Malaysian who lives in U.S., received a bunch of Ph.Ds and loves middle Eastern archeology. Unfortunately, as it did many English-ed Malaysians, post modernism view affected Choong's theology.
Literal Adam: I confirmed that though ACT is "supported" by Redeemer (every Sunday we see the Christian society founded by Choong posing a stand in Hunter College after the service), Tim Keller (or Redeemer?) certainly has many crucial views that differ from that of Choong's (or ACT?). Keller is certain to stand on the fact that Adam and Eve were literal people, while Choong believes that they were more symbolic. They both believe Paul's view differently. Of course, with Adam being symbolic/some non-specific evolved form of early mankind, one would have to question not just the authenticity of the Bible, but the doctrine of original sin as well. To display Choong's view, I received their periodic newsletters and he clearly stated:
...For instance, in the book of Genesis, we will examine the ideas surrounding a Garden (of Eden), of the first human couple, of a talking serpent, of the tree of life, and various other iconic symbols that we read of but often do not pause to ask, "Why did the writer use this imagery?" In this course...
~ By Dr. Ron Choong, Academy for Christian Thought: March - April 2015
In light of this, I think there are some who are too quick to judge Keller's doctrine, for his network of friendship may reflect some of his doctrine, but it is not represented by the members of such relationship.
Keller noted C.S. Lewis as a denier of historical Adam. Of course, there are plenty of famous theologians who are in that same boat: Alister McGrath, Karl Barth (in distinguishing Geschichte from Historie[*]), etc. But Keller also said "I do not think the lack of such belief means he cannot be saved." To conclude his view, Keller listed some problems of denying the historical Adam: Trustworthiness of Scripture, consistency of the New Testament, watering down of the Gospel (good advice vs. Good News). Keller may not directly oppose the opposition, but his argument says it all.
I find that Dr. Choong's false accusation of those who disagree with him disturbing when he implied that they were ignorant to science. It appears that he is rather defensive of himself on such matter when he emphatically considered his response a civil one and that others are not.
I can agree with Keller, that denying this may not cost one's salvation, but it sure messes up one's precious mind, way of thinking. It also certainly does not mean that this would never cost one's salvation, because it would affect your relationship with God and your fellow Christian brothers and sisters...especially when your views differ, at the cost of fitting into a post modernism worldview, considering the problems Keller listed.
Update 6/12/2025 My chat with Ron.
A Facebook post by Ron Choong (excerpt below).
I briefly skimmed through it. Unless I've missed something, I fail to see where the question of "where is the apparent conflicting accounts in the Bible" is ever answered. All I've read is a long historical account of Biblical period, but I see no shifting of ideologies nor discrepancies, etc. unless giving a long answer is a way to avoid the question. Perhaps this is what Pak Tong meant by enslavement of conviction in academic study.
The key to making sense of the apparent conflicting accounts in the Bible is GEOHISTORY:
The 39 books of the OT and the 27 books of the NT were written over a long period by writers addressing different socio-economic and geopolitical challenges.
You can make sense of the shifting ideologies and emerging doctrines that attended these evolving circumstances which translated to evolving doctrines.
From Moses' call to a People of God (1250 BCE) to Samuel the Judge's formation of a Nation of Israel under Saul (1000 BCE) to the breakup of Israel following Solomon's death into two kingdoms (930 BCE), Ephraim (Israel) and Judah to Assyria's destruction of Israel (722 BCE) and Babylonia's capture of Jerusalem (586 BCE), to Cyrus' return of the Jewish exiles to Judah (538 BCE) to build the 2nd Temple, to Alexander's hellenization of Palestine (331 BCE) to the Jewish revolts against their Roman masters that began in 167 BCE and ended during NT times in 117 CE.
Here then are the seven civilizations and their influences over the writing of the Bible:
EGYPT & MESOPOTAMIA: In 1250 BCE, when Moses, Prince of Egypt, formed the People of God, their concern was which among the gods were the greatest and how to forge a single unified people under YHWH when El and Baal were contemporary deities. Many of the Hebrews recalled the religious ideas brought to them by an ancestor, Abraham of Mesopotamia (Chaldea). Accounts of creation, human origins and the great flood would later filter through different writers to form the Genesis primeval history of chapters 1-11 and the ancestral history of chapters 12-50.
In 1200 BCE, when the Judges ruled the Tribal Confederacy, the writers of Judges and Ruth thrived in a mixed community of Jews and Gentiles, hence. the celebration of Ruth's Moabite ancestry that became part of David's bloodline.
In 1000 BCE, when David replaced Saul as King of a united Israel, the celebration of God's covenant with David replaced the Mosaic covenant, which did not include any kingship. Samuel begrudgingly accepted God's Plan B in allowing the people to become "like the other nations". Hence Samuel-Kings identified David's weaknesses while Chronicles, written around 500 BCE did not as it tried to rally the people behind an airbrushed image of a lost kingdom under a legendary king.
ASSYRIA: In 722 BCE, after Israel fell to Assyria fell, the rise of the writing prophets like Amos, Hosea and others sought to explain why the kingdom fell - it was the fault of the people, so God raised Assyria to punish them. Although Jerusalem survived Sennacherib's siege, Judah became a vassal state to Assyria, and later, of Egypt. Around 620 BCE, Judah's king Josiah discovered the ancient Deuteronomy and instituted changes to reform the nation. He challenged the Egyptian-Assyrian alliance and was considered pro-Babylonian, but was prematurely killed in battle against Pharaoh Necho II despite the prophecy that he will live a long life. In 612 BCE, Babylonia replaced Assyria as the regional super-power with the fall of Nineveh. In 605 BCE, Israel became a vassal of Babylonia. When the last Davidic King, Zedekiah revolted against Babylonia, he was executed. The years between 722-586 BCE produced the prophets Isaiah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah, who wrote during this exilic period.
BABYLONIA: In 586 BCE, with the fall of Jerusalem, the Babylonian exile began. Nebuchadnezzar II appointed Gedaliah, a non-Davidic member, as governor. Shocked by this demise of the House of David, Ishmael, from the House of David, murdered Gedaliah. Fearing backlash from the "Chaldeans" (Babylonia) the Judeans left for Egypt in a mass reverse exodus.
PERSIA:In 539 BCE, Cyrus defeated Babylonia and formed the Persian empire. A year later, when the Jews were allowed to return and rebuild Jerusalem, Ezra-Nehemiah wrote of racial purity party to deny the Samaritans their heritage as Jews. They instituted for the first time, the prohibition against mixed-marriage. This prohibition was later adopted by NT writer Paul and we now inherit it in some forms of modern conservative Christianity.
Around 400 BCE, the last of the wiring prophets, Joel wrote of visions and dreams at a time when the Persian period gave way to the Macedonian Greek dominance of Palestine. The anxieties of a friendlier Persian empire gave way to the uncertainties of Alexander's Grecian empire.
GREECE: By 331 BCE, Alexander of Macedon conquered Palestine and the hellenization of Jewish thought began, with the dominance of the Greek language among the educated elites, reflected in the LXX (Greek Hebrew Bible) by the 200s BCE.
In 165 BCE, Daniel (God is my Judge) was the last OT book written during the Greek occupation, about an interpreter of dreams who lived during Babylonian and Persian times. Its apocalyptic genre reflected the urgency of the times. This book called its readers to political treason in order to avoid spiritual treason to God. Its call to return Israel to its past glory and even to world domination resonated with messiah figures, most prominently featured in the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid empire. Although Daniel is a figure of historical fiction, today six cities claim Daniel's Tomb: Babylon, Kirkuk and Muqdadiyah in Iraq, Susa and Malaria in Iran, and Samarkand in Uzbekistan.
ROME: In 70 CE, When Emperor Vespasian sent his son, General Titus to mount the siege and eventual destruction of Jerusalem, followers of Jesus realized that his imminent second coming was either postponed or cryptic. This set off a series of writings to recount the life and teachings of Jesus. Four of them made it into the Christian canon as Gospels.
Finally, three Jewish Wars erupted 66-73 CE, 115-117 CE and 132-136 CE as Jewish nationalism stoked by several messiahs influenced the writings of the New Testament.
You can see how the 7 civilizations shaped the writing of the Bible.
The discrepancies or inconsistencies in the Bible were not changes in theology of God’s will but rather changes in geohistorical contexts that prompted different vocabularies to express the peoples’ encounter with God - hence we call them testaments, they testify to their specific experiences with the divine.If we are disappointed with the apparent inconsistencies, it is because we naively expect all the books to have been written during a single context. Our increasing knowledge about what happened in world history provides us a wiser interpretation of the texts and a more accurate understanding of Israel’s God.
When it comes down to it, it is just a battle between scientism and faith. Dr. Choong may not claim himself a scientismist, but he has used the same tools seen only in scientism to attack on people of faiths he does not agree with. So that is that.
He loves to claim that the world is in an evolutionary process of religion, set by God. That all roads will ultimately lead to God. And that Jesus embraces everyone.
I will ignore the narrow minded religious zealots that Dr. Choong would criticize from his own "more superior" view, in the end, the Bible is clear on where Jesus stand when he said "I do not pray for the world". But of course, if one's presupposition of this verse is to always find a connection with other religions, I'm sure one would conclude that "Jesus embraces everyone". For one has already lost one's sense of God's word. Nothing new since the Garden of Eden, but then, who would want to take that literally yet again?
The "holier than thou" is often charged against the religious and self-righteous. It is basically the same thing with this, only the charge is more like "smarter than thou".
This is so interesting. I wish I could add some comments of my own but I'm anxious about the likelihood that they would be considered an offense and responded to offensively. Anyway I intend to keep following this blog. I recently attended a seminar led by the controversial Mr. Choong. Something there interesting happened. I'm waiting to see if it is edited out before being posted on YouTube.
Either speak the truth with love or meditate in silence. That's all I can say.
I believe I did. I prefer to pray alot more than meditate.
Pray in your meditation, day and night, happy is he who mediates upon his words.
Agreed. His evolving Christian Theology and multiple critics are a source of much prayerful meditation for me. I've had numerous conversations with him and some of his supporters and critics over the past fifteen years. - Great food for thought.
Sounds good. I'll pray for people like you as well. To understand him more, you can also look at people like Peter Enns, if you hadn't known it yet. They have similar approach to theology and often work with reformed, evangelical churches. Of course, I don't take their stand. It's just for your reference.
I think that as civilizations and cultures develop and evolve, it is inevitable that the interpretations of the the eternal Word will change. My exposure to Church history tells me that. It is reassuring to me that the early Christian Church's canon has remained very consistent, as continuing archaeology keeps confirming.
I wouldn't say the "interpretations" of the Word will "change" in hermeneutic. To say that is over-generalizing, I would love to hear an example of it. But interpretations by "some group" may change over time. Thus far, I have yet seen the interpretations by the faithful being changed throughout history. Hence this will harmonize with your last statement "early Christian Church's canon has remained very consistent".
God's words do not give us doubts. What is clear we take it by faith, what is not clear we do not jump to conclusion: For example, the 6-day creation - Thus far, I am not sure how this "day" is defined. Some say it's literally 24 hours because that's what Hebrew culture defined it. Dr. Ron's camp would probably give all sorts of metaphors regarding the definition of the "day". If anything, I would already admit my definition of the "day", which has to be based on the Word (evening and then morning...), is insufficient. I wouldn't jump to conclude its meaning from the perspective of this culture or that culture or the assumption of eons or to mean something else such as "order" or other kinds of emphasis, which of course, would "change" over time. But that is their interpretation of it that has changed, certainly not mine nor of those who interpret carefully and I would add...more seriously.
Bottom line, I do enjoy Dr. Ron's works, books, his lectures, youtube videos, etc. They give me insights to the world and cultures. I certainly think they are very helpful even in biblical studies. I just do not conclude some facts as readily as he does.
There is much I'd like to write in response, but I need time to meditate and pray for awhile in order to provide better explanations of what I wrote last week, as well as further comments. I agree that "interpretations" was not a good choice of a word to use, - perhaps "doctrinal views" would have been better. I am just another Christian who enjoys trying to honestly speak his mind to anyone who will listen. Alot of these blogs accomodate that and I seem to like yours the most right now. I want to try and write things in accordance with the fruit of the Spirit as written about by Paul the Apostle in the NT. It is probably better that I do not try to say too much at a time as it may cause confusion. I expect that I will write more soon .
No problem Neal.
I wrote and tried to post something last week but it appears that I was unsuccessful. I saved a paper draft copy and so I will now try again.
One historical example which I believe affected a change in the direction of the Church's doctrinal focuses is the invention of the printing press and related devices. With the significant increase of disseminated written materials, widespread increased literacy among many people (mostly in Europe) followed. This allowed many more people to read and better understand the Scriptures for themselves. It fostered (of course with other factors) different groups which rose up to challenge the dominating Roman Catholic Church, with it's traditions of; Papal hierarchies, views of sacraments, veneration of Mary, devotion to relics and statues, Priestly authorities presuming to grant salvation, and others . Many of the people who read the Scriptures themselves were learning more about salvation by grace through personal faith in Jesus Christ and a personal relationship to God with Jesus Christ as the sole mediator. These newer groups became known as the Reformed movement.
I think of these and other groups and movements as new branches growing from the same vine, as per John 15. The Roman Catholic branch on the vine, is still largely thriving with many of the same traditions it had began developing since the times of the very early Church (after Constantine I believe). There have been many other Christian branches with different doctrinal views which have come about throughout the centuries, and consequently many more conflicting disagreements. Each of the different branches seem to be able to accommodate some people which others do not.
To me, Dr. Choong appears to be one of a number of figureheads for a newer growing branch. If he is and remains abiding on the vine, I think that he is due for some pruning. I sometimes pray that he is and will remain abiding on the vine. I also think that he has alot to offer, but it is important to try and recognize the wheat from the chaff.
Must be the wrong Captcha you entered, causing the post to be invalid, good thing you have a habit of saving a copy.
Actually, the Reformation started within the Roman Catholic Church from the priests (i.e. Luther) themselves who already had access to the manuscripts. Printing was still too expensive. So they still had to listen to seminary trained preachers who did right with the Word. After the Bible translation, which was forbidden, lay people could read it themselves.
But the doctrine never changed. If you must say change, you must say it is returning to it's original teaching which was already held by ancient church fathers such as Augustine. In fact, it was the Roman Catholic Church that strayed and created new doctrine, they were the TRUE protestant. The Reformation merely helped in course correction. In Chinese, The Reformation movement is called "Returning to orthodoxy", which is more accurate in terminology, because it is a returning, not "evolving" nor a "new change/mutation".
Today, we find so many untrained in theology trying to take a shot at creative new doctrine, which resulted always in disaster. I do not consider Dr. Choong in such group, for he was well trained. However, his problem rooted from the group of scholars in the late 1800s. So I find nothing new with such problem. It's the same reason why we have Westminster Theological Seminar (split from Princeton). But that's another story. Of course, I would be on the WTS side while Dr. Choong is obviously on the Princeton side, to make the long story short.
Personally, I believe the Lord has his purpose for having two sides like this in history, and it is rather interesting. But I shall leave it for my own meditation and future entries for now.
Last but not least, to keep a clear conclusion in the meantime, I do believe that there is a serious err in thinking that men evolved from apes (I would argue from the verse: After its kind) and to think that all religions are different parts of the elephant which is Christianity. I think these two points are what Dr. Choong is holding. Especially the former. This changes Christian values in terms of holiness and christian fellowship. Because of this, I consider Dr. Choong my friend and maybe even brother in Christ, but I do not consider him as a comrade in the great Commission. And if he heard of my criticism of him, I can guess that he would not consider me a friend not to mention a brother in Christ. Hence, here lies the differences between me and him. The difference in this latter part is where I illustrate the result of our doctrinal differences - from the view of fellowship/friendship.
A brief (i think interesting) FYI regarding the Genesis 1, day/evening morning issue, see Daniel 8:26 in the 1611 KJV. The 20th century translators changed it. I'm hoping to discuss with my Hebrew instructor as soon as I can .
I'm not sure I follow Neal. You might want to elaborate. As for OT expository, I use Keil & Delitzsch's commentary a lot.
The referenced verse concerns a vision of events which took place over hundreds of years and not a 24 hour day. I cannot elaborate further now as my smartphone is limited and I don't currently have access to a PC or laptop.
I think you would have to start from verse 14 at least, where it spoke of 2300 days. Still not sure how it's relevant to Genesis 1's mornings and evenings.
As to the 6 day creation, I would refer to Dr. John Lennox's book/lecture. He covered all sorts of interpretations and one remark I like from him was that if the Bible is truly the word of God, then to make things harder to understand than it should, then God did a poor job at his authorship.
Of course, those high critics of the Bible would say: "Well, it's a book! It's just a book written ages ago by people!!!" I bet Dr. Choong would say something along this line with the added phrase of "God's behind all that".
I affirm the infallibility of the Bible not in the sense that whether it's relevant to God or not, but that it's perfect in its original language (Hebrew/Greek) that needs no correction or revision. That whoever wrote it are in perfect sync with the Holy Spirit, hence the perfection of it. We can "Consider" the context of the culture of that time in our interpretation, but it's only a secondary fact, for unlike other books, there's also the perfect inspiring of the Holy Spirit in it, which is the primary fact.
So this is an important criterion in hermeneutics, which is obviously not Dr. Choong's strong suit.
But do note that I have never affirmed in believing a 24 hour-day 6 day creation. I would say that a literally day also could actually even be 10,000,000 hours back then and the Earth could take 1000 years to orbit the Sun once. Time might have been marked differently, maybe Einstein would have more to say about it had he been alive today. I just don't know. The difference between me and Ron is just that I'm not so convinced by the scientism interpretation (which is different than mine) of a 13 billion year old universe and evolution of the planet as he is.
However, I would oppose Dr. Choong's position not from hermeneutics, but from another important BRANCH of theology: Mathematics! Which requires concrete proofs for any theory.
What do you think about the concepts of hermeneutics, exegesis, and eisegesis? - I also like mathematics, but I haven't thought of it as a branch of Theology. Do you mean it in an apologetical sense?
Hermeneutics is just how you interpret the Bible.
-Exegesis means that you try to figure out what the authors were saying.
-Eisegesis means that you decide what the author means.
Of course, in eisegesis, how I decide what the author means may depend on what I believe the author means, hence, becoming exegesis in the end. So in that sense, I'm okay with eisegesis.
But other Eastern religions love to teach that a word may have many meanings and it's up to you to make up the meaning however you like. Hence, this is bad eisegesis. Unfortunately, many today thinks it's still good because they believe they are more open minded, more understanding, smarter that way. I don't fall for this sleight of hubris.
So, I might be accused of doing bad eisegesis while I'm actually doing both eisegesis and exegesis at the same time. That's normal. That's okay. It's still good hermeneutics for me.
I see theology (not philosophy) as the highest form of learning. All other academic subjects are under it. Hence, mathematics is under theology too, not merely philosophy. Philosophy is under theology, not the other way around. If you do good theology, your philosophy will be good too, but not the other way around. It's unfortunate that even seminaries switch these around, viz. PhD in Theology. Or perhaps it just means that it is as high a title as it can be in the limited capacity of our flesh. But I'm not going to make a big deal out of it.
In short, mathematics deals with numbers, logic, all of which are important in the Bible. Mathematics also lay the groundwork for sciences, some of which are Dr. Choong's favorites. These sciences if done right, will glorify God. But most of them, including mathematics, are the lowest form of learning. If you study human relationships, then you are pursuing a higher form of learning. The highest and thus hardest, is Theology, where you are doing relationships with God.
Still an interesting blessing ! What do you think about what happened with Harold Camping ? He was an engineer before doing full time Christian ministry. I had many conversations with some devoted followers. I haven't heard from any of them for quite awhile and don't know for sure what happened with them . Maybe disaster.
I did listen to Family Radio in my early years, all the way from my home country in Malaysia. At the time, I wasn't even aware of Camping's "prophesies". But a lot of his doctrines were biblically sound. He just went a bit crazy by isolating himself from other churches. This is the result of not doing fellowship with brothers around you.
I think he isolated himself (and his followers) because he couldn't accept graciously the persons who disagreed with some of his hermeneutical conclusions. - He was ensnared by a prideful "smarter than thou" disposition. It appears to me that Dr. Choong is going in that direction.