Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivanhoe  Augustine still illustrates the problem that mdoern OECers have to deal with: Augustine was imposing anti-biblical presuppositions on the text. Augustine, given his neo-platonism, really couldn't see how God could get involved in something as messy as time and creaiton. But he knew that Biblical theology forced him to affirm that God did get involved in time and creation. So he compromised.
My point is not that Augustine is an extreme YECer, but like non-YECers, he is imposing unbibiblical systems onto the text. |
Several points:
1. I completely disagree with the last sentence that non-YECers impose "unbiblical" systems into the text; there is simply no basis for that statement. The point about Augustine (which I still don't think you're getting) and the numerous other theologians through the centuries is that you can view the Genesis 1-2 account as a time span other than 6 calendar days without imposing a non-Biblical view. Considering the meaning of the Hebrew word in various places in Scripture, the unique structure of the chronology, and the fact that it does not change the meaning of creation, or any other aspect of theology at all hardly seems anti-Biblical. Is our understanding of God, the Bible, or anything else changed if the world was created in some span other than 6 calendar days? Not at all. Which brings me to the second point...
2. Why is there such an aversion to the idea that creation was undertaken in spans of time other than 6 calendar days? What difference does it make? It doesn't change the validity and infalliblity of the Bible, the fact that God created all that is in existence and that He made man in His own image. Nor does it change the rest of the Garden of Eden narrative, including the Fall. Nothing about our Faith is changed at all with a general Old Earth view of creation.
3. Scientific and historical correlation with Scripture fit much better with an Old Earth view. I'm NOT saying we should mold our understanding of the Bible to fit science or archaeology, but at the same time a Young Earth view creates not only scientific problems (I don't believe that many, actually), but numerous historical problems as well. If you accept an YE view, then there are other apparent chronological problems with the Old Testament, specifically the Exodus and Conquest account. An Old Earth view solves all these problems fairly neatly.
4. I won't hijack this thread to state my personal view of the Genesis account, other than to say it's fairly obvious I'm a Day-Age OECer. My personal view is that God revealed the creation to Moses, which was so mind-boggling and amazing the only way He could relay it to us is through a metaphorical 6-day account. But, I could be completely wrong and it could be 6 calendar days.
I suppose my point in this thread is that one can be an OECer and not simply be "accommodating" evolution, and that having an Old Earth view is a perfectly legitimate position, one that many prominent theologians have agreed with throughout the ages. Most other Christians I know are OECers, the pastor of my church is an OE creationist, and the official position of the PCA is that members can accept the Old Earth view "in good conscience." That hardly seems anti-Biblical to me...