Why I am now a Young-Earth Creationist

packabacka · #1 (**permalink**) 07-13-2008, 02:32 PM

I'll bet several of you remember my advocacy for theistic evolution earlier, as what I claimed was a means of marrying God's divine revelation and natural revelation together. Today I would like to officially renounce that view, in favor of a literal, six-day creation as an exegesis of Genesis would call for.

My thinking regarding this matter had to do with presuppositional apologetics. It wasn't so much a means of "staying true to God" (as if I felt bad about believing in evolution), but rather of staying true to rationality. Here was my thought process, which led me to believe that any type of science that goes against Scripture (and, subsequently, YEC), self-destructs. I'll use evolution as an obvious example:

1. Evolutionary theory, insofar as it denies the straightforward exegesis of Genesis, denies the inerrancy and the authority of Scripture.
2. In denying the authority of Scripture, evolutionary theory denies any possible grounds on which to make science (or anything) intelligible.
3. If science is not intelligible, then evolutionary theory cannot rationally be believed to be true.

Again, thanks to all of you who pointed out the atrocious eisegesis I was carrying out. You showed me where my allegiance was as I believed I could modify the Bible in light of creaturely science. "Let God be true and every man a liar" (Romans 3:4).

I am sorry.

Bygracealone · #2 (**permalink**) 07-13-2008, 02:40 PM

I praise God for His gracious work in your study of His Word.

Thank you for sharing this with us brother.

In His grace,

Steve

skellam · #3 (**permalink**) 07-13-2008, 02:59 PM

That's great news! You are in good company with R.C. Sproul in your shift of views, as has been pointed out in another thread.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #4 (**permalink**) 07-13-2008, 02:59 PM

Praise God!!! I myself have come recently to the YEC position.

Have you read Creation and Change by Doug Kelly?

packabacka · #5 (**permalink**) 07-13-2008, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Have you read Creation and Change by Doug Kelly?

I have not. I will probably get a hold of that in the future, though. Thanks for the recommendation.

Have you ever read Faith, Form, and Time by Dr. Kurt Wise? I bought that book when I was a YEC before I became an evolutionist, and I think I will give it a re-read. He had a high position in giving information for the Creation museum in Kentucky (I think he might have been in charge; I can't remember), and I heard him speak for a couple days. In fact, he was with my group as we went through the Creation museum.

Anyway, seeing as he had a large role with the Creation museum, and I'm pretty sure a lot of guys in the Creation museum loved presuppositional apologetics, and presuppositional apologetics exists primarily in Reformed circles, I'm curious to know if Dr. Wise is Reformed.

ColdSilverMoon · #6 (**permalink**) 07-13-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packabacka

My thinking regarding this matter had to do with presuppositional apologetics. It wasn't so much a means of "staying true to God" (as if I felt bad about believing in evolution), but rather of staying true to rationality. Here was my thought process, which led me to believe that any type of science that goes against Scripture (and, subsequently, YEC), self-destructs. I'll use evolution as an obvious example:

1. Evolutionary theory, insofar as it denies the straightforward exegesis of Genesis, denies the inerrancy and the authority of Scripture.
2. In denying the authority of Scripture, evolutionary theory denies any possible grounds on which to make science (or anything) intelligible.
3. If science is not intelligible, then evolutionary theory cannot rationally be believed to be true.

Ben - I certainly respect your view and stand on this, but I don't think it's appropriate to paint all OECers with such a broad brush. Not all those who believe in Old Earth Creation believe in theistic evolution, or any sort of evolution for that matter, as an explanation of life on Earth as we know it.

Also, an OEC view does not contradict a straightforward exegesis of Scripture. People can certainly disagree on the issue, but wise men of God from the early church to present times have had views that Creation occurred over various time spans other than 6 24 hour periods, including multiple members of the Westminster assembly.

Again, I respect your view on this and your change of thinking, but an OEC view is not absolutely contrary to Scripture, nor is it necessarily pro-evolutionary in thinking.

DMcFadden · #7 (**permalink**) 07-13-2008, 03:39 PM

Congrats on making the move. I was fool enough to wait until I was in my 50s to come around on this issue. You are to be congratulated for your decision. Yes, we do not want to paint OEC with too broad of a brush. Virtually all broad evangelical colleges and seminaries teach it and many certainly believe the Gospel. However, IMO, it is quite frequently an equivocating position born more of a desire to look good to a secular audience than from honest exegetical work.

Hodge illustrates the problem well with his quote:

Quote:

‘It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.’

[Hodge, C., Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, pp. 570–571, 1997.]

But, why would we think that the Bible contradicts the "facts" unless we previously bought into an interpretation of the "facts" by those who begin with naturalistic presuppositions that leave little or no room for a supernatural deity? When you begin with a theistic set of presuppositions, the "facts" are quite amenable to the YEC viewpoint.

Christians who accept naturalistic presuppositions and try to reconcile them with biblical teaching are on a collision course with their sanity. Either they will surrender biblical teaching to the Zeitgeist of today (= atheistic naturalism) OR they will construct some Rube Goldberg far-feteched theory made possible only by some elaborate hermeneutical gymnastics. Compare this to the same way evangelicals try to reconcile homosexuality with the Bible or feminism with the Bible. Same story, different chapter.

BTW, Kelley is excellent. Must read.

JBaldwin · #8 (**permalink**) 07-13-2008, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Ben - I certainly respect your view and stand on this, but I don't think it's appropriate to paint all OECers with such a broad brush. Not all those who believe in Old Earth Creation believe in theistic evolution, or any sort of evolution for that matter, as an explanation of life on Earth as we know it.

Also, an OEC view does not contradict a straightforward exegesis of Scripture. People can certainly disagree on the issue, but wise men of God from the early church to present times have had views that Creation occurred over various time spans other than 6 24 hour periods, including multiple members of the Westminster assembly.

Again, I respect your view on this and your change of thinking, but an OEC view is not absolutely contrary to Scripture, nor is it necessarily pro-evolutionary in thinking.

Could you outline in a few sentences what you mean by OEC?

Backwoods Presbyterian · #9 (**permalink**) 07-13-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packabacka

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Have you read Creation and Change by Doug Kelly?

I have not. I will probably get a hold of that in the future, though. Thanks for the recommendation.

Have you ever read Faith, Form, and Time by Dr. Kurt Wise? I bought that book when I was a YEC before I became an evolutionist, and I think I will give it a re-read. He had a high position in giving information for the Creation museum in Kentucky (I think he might have been in charge; I can't remember), and I heard him speak for a couple days. In fact, he was with my group as we went through the Creation museum.

Anyway, seeing as he had a large role with the Creation museum, and I'm pretty sure a lot of guys in the Creation museum loved presuppositional apologetics, and presuppositional apologetics exists primarily in Reformed circles, I'm curious to know if Dr. Wise is Reformed.

My wife is from Cincinnati and we will definitely be going to the museum next time we are in town. I have heard nothing but wonderful things about the place.

packabacka · #10 (**permalink**) 07-13-2008, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBaldwin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Ben - I certainly respect your view and stand on this, but I don't think it's appropriate to paint all OECers with such a broad brush. Not all those who believe in Old Earth Creation believe in theistic evolution, or any sort of evolution for that matter, as an explanation of life on Earth as we know it.

Also, an OEC view does not contradict a straightforward exegesis of Scripture. People can certainly disagree on the issue, but wise men of God from the early church to present times have had views that Creation occurred over various time spans other than 6 24 hour periods, including multiple members of the Westminster assembly.

Again, I respect your view on this and your change of thinking, but an OEC view is not absolutely contrary to Scripture, nor is it necessarily pro-evolutionary in thinking.

Could you outline in a few sentences what you mean by OEC?

I know I was not asked the question, but I believe I can answer it sufficiently. If I err, then I assume someone will say so.

OEC = Old Earth Creationism = the belief that Genesis 1 is not literally interpreted as God's creation in six consecutive 24-hour days. There are a few variants: Gap Creationism (with a gap of indefinite time in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2), Day-Age Creationism (that the six days represented longer periods of time than 24 hours), and the Literary Framework Interpretation (that the six days are a non-literal framework for the act of creation). There are certain variants, such as Progressive Creationism, but regarding the nature of the interpretation of "days," I believe this is an exhaustive list.

packabacka · #11 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Ben - I certainly respect your view and stand on this, but I don't think it's appropriate to paint all OECers with such a broad brush. Not all those who believe in Old Earth Creation believe in theistic evolution, or any sort of evolution for that matter, as an explanation of life on Earth as we know it.

Also, an OEC view does not contradict a straightforward exegesis of Scripture. People can certainly disagree on the issue, but wise men of God from the early church to present times have had views that Creation occurred over various time spans other than 6 24 hour periods, including multiple members of the Westminster assembly.

Again, I respect your view on this and your change of thinking, but an OEC view is not absolutely contrary to Scripture, nor is it necessarily pro-evolutionary in thinking.

I know OEC is not necessarily evolutionary, but I do believe it is an example of eisegesis. With a complete disregard for the scientific consensus of the day, I think an exegesis of Genesis 1 will undoubtedly yield YEC. Otherwise, by trying to reconcile scientific findings with Scripture (even if in the smallest degree), one is reducing the authority of Scripture and thus destroying the foundations of any science whatsoever.

For the record, I do not intend to label any OEC's as heretics (or anywhere near that) by any means. I just view them as making an exegetical error in order to reconcile the Bible with a separate authority. However, if it can be demonstrated that an exegesis of Scripture with a disregard for scientific findings can yield an old-earth interpretation, then I will gladly revoke my claim.

Puritan Sailor · #12 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Also, an OEC view does not contradict a straightforward exegesis of Scripture. People can certainly disagree on the issue, but wise men of God from the early church to present times have had views that Creation occurred over various time spans other than 6 24 hour periods, including multiple members of the Westminster assembly.

Name one member of the Westminster Assembly (with appropriate references) who believed in anything but the traditional view.

Quote:

Again, I respect your view on this and your change of thinking, but an OEC view is not absolutely contrary to Scripture, nor is it necessarily pro-evolutionary in thinking.

It is contrary to Scripture if you take the specific time denotations of the genealogies seriously, as historical narrative, which is what the grammar and style dictate.

ReformedSinner · #13 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 02:10 AM

Puritan Sailor:

I don't know any Westminster Assemblers differ from 24/7 view but I do know giants like Augustine, Kuyper, Bavinck, just to quickly name a few that opposes 24/7 read and favors alternative exegetical possibilities.

And yes there ARE alternative exegetical possibilities that respects the genre and style of Genesis 1-2, in the original Hebrew.

AV1611 · #14 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Name one member of the Westminster Assembly (with appropriate references) who believed in anything but the traditional view.

Let's be honest here, if every Westminster divine held to the "traditional view", if indeed there is a "traditional" view, all that would prove is that the Westminster divines were not aware of the advances in linguistic study and recent discoveries of ANE sources with which to engage.

ColdSilverMoon · #15 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Name one member of the Westminster Assembly (with appropriate references) who believed in anything but the traditional view.

John Lightfoot.

Also, the phrase God created everything "in the space of 6 24-hour days" was proposed and rejected by the Assembly. They preferred the less specific, and thus open to debate, "in the space of 6 days."

Both from the PCA document on creation found here: PCA Historical Center: Creation Study Committee Report to the 28th General Assembly, June 21, 2000.

Puritan Sailor · #16 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Name one member of the Westminster Assembly (with appropriate references) who believed in anything but the traditional view.

John Lightfoot.

Also, the phrase God created everything "in the space of 6 24-hour days" was proposed and rejected by the Assembly. They preferred the less specific, and thus open to debate, "in the space of 6 days."

Both from the PCA document on creation found here: PCA Historical Center: Creation Study Committee Report to the 28th General Assembly, June 21, 2000.

The reports contradicts what you said:

Quote:

At least five divines affirmed the Calendar Day view, possibly more. No evidence has been found of any view other than the Calendar Day in the writings of individual divines.

As for Lighfoot, Rev. Winzer dealt with that in this other thread, post #166:
Six-Day Creation: Is it worth the battle?

Puritan Sailor · #17 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Name one member of the Westminster Assembly (with appropriate references) who believed in anything but the traditional view.

Let's be honest here, if every Westminster divine held to the "traditional view", if indeed there is a "traditional" view, all that would prove is that the Westminster divines were not aware of the advances in linguistic study and recent discoveries of ANE sources with which to engage.

Honest is all I want. I would like propenents of new theories like the framework hypothesis or OEC to concede their ideas are novel in church history and have no place in our Confessional documents. They are an exception. Only after everyone is honest about it will the Church adequately wrestle through the issue in an edifying way.

Zenas · #18 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 09:47 AM

Too cool.