Why I am now a Young-Earth Creationist

[Confessor]

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]

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]

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]

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

Have you read Creation and Change by Doug Kelly?

 

[Confessor]

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]

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]

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, in my opinion, 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:

‘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]

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]

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.

 

[Confessor]

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.

 

[Confessor]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/six-day-creation-worth-battle-28214/index5.html

 

[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]

Too cool.

 

[CDM]

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.

Yes, let's be honest. When you say the "Westminster divines were not aware of the advances in linguistic study" are you sure you do not mean that the Westminster divines were not aware of evolutionary "science" as taught today?

That is, you say there has been an evolution (pun intended) in "lingistic ANE studies" but isn't it true that these studies of the Creation account are done as a direct result of modern evolutionary science?

How many of these linguistic, scientific, or otherwise "studies" of the Creation account were conducted (and even remotely considered as plausible) pre-Darwin?

 

[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.

Yes, let's be honest. When you say the "Westminster divines were not aware of the advances in linguistic study" are you sure you do not mean that the Westminster divines were not aware of evolutionary "science" as taught today?

That is, you say there has been an evolution (pun intended) in "lingistic ANE studies" but isn't it true that these studies of the Creation account are done as a direct result of modern evolutionary science?

How many of these linguistic, scientific, or otherwise "studies" of the Creation account were conducted (and even remotely considered as plausible) pre-Darwin?

What is interesting is that liberals have no problem conceding that Genesis states 6 calendar days and a young earth time-frame. They just believe the Scriptures are wrong. At least they are honest. They recognize that the naturalistic interpretations of scientific data and the straight-forward reading of Genesis are incompatible.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

What liberals would that be? My liberal OT professor's do not think Gen 1-2:4a represents 6/24.

 

[DMcFadden]

That is why I make the comparison to other issues of non-PC Christian conviction. Evangelical scholars are working overtime to find ways to compatibilize some form of the faith with current sociological and societal thinking on feminism and homosexuality. Judging by the way they have found hermeneutial loopholes to permit an uneasy reconciliation with the atheistic assumptions of science, it will be interesting to see how long it takes them to complete their work of joining the NT to the current thinking of the day.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

What liberals would that be? My liberal OT professor's do not think Gen 1-2:4a represents 6/24.

James Barr, for one.

Who edited my post?

 

[DMcFadden]

What liberals would that be? My liberal OT professor's do not think Gen 1-2:4a represents 6/24.

James Barr, for one.

‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’

Those who do not have a dog in the hunt have no problem saying that the Bible teaches what it says. Only those who need to find creative work-arounds to reconcile the Bible have to resort to such expedients.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

The reports contradicts what you said:

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:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/six-day-creation-worth-battle-28214/index5.html

Lightfoot also asserted that the first day was 36 hours long...

This doesn't seem like much of a contradiction to me (perhaps the document contradicts itself). And Rev. Winzer's post doesn't really make sense to me. Lightfoot clearly wrote that he believe in a 36 hour day based on his chronology...

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

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.

OK, here goes. The OEC view (that the Earth is millions of years old) is novel in church history. However, the idea that the Genesis account represents something other than 6 24-hr periods is not new. And really, when you move from the 24-hr view, what difference does it make whether you believe each day was 25 hours or a million years? I would hold that it makes no difference, so that while the idea that the Earth is "very" old may be new in church history, the non-24-hr view of Genesis 1 is not.

While we're being honest, why can't YECers admit that the OEC view does not change our understanding of God, the Bible, and the Gospel? So long as one believes Adam and Eve were created distinct in the image of God as the first humans, I see nothing wrong with a Day-Age belief that the Earth is millions of year old. No one has ever shown (or even attempted to show) why this thinking is incorrect.

 

[DMcFadden]

What liberals would that be? My liberal OT professor's do not think Gen 1-2:4a represents 6/24.

James Barr, for one.

Who edited my post?

My bad. I hit edit rather than quote. But, I fixed it immediately. Sorry for the mistake.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

What liberals would that be? My liberal OT professor's do not think Gen 1-2:4a represents 6/24.

James Barr, for one.

Who edited my post?

My bad. I hit edit rather than quote. But, I fixed it immediately. Sorry for the mistake.

No problem

 

[DMcFadden]

While we're being honest, why can't YECers admit that the OEC view does not change our understanding of God, the Bible, and the Gospel? So long as one believes Adam and Eve were created distinct in the image of God as the first humans, I see nothing wrong with a Day-Age belief that the Earth is millions of year old. No one has ever shown (or even attempted to show) why this thinking is incorrect.

Actually, "while we're being honest," Answers in Genesis has spilled a great deal of ink and some DVD materials trying to answer exactly that question.

There are various problems with the scenario you decribe, including the fact that it does change our view of the Bible. As I have argued elsewhere in other threads, taking a harmonizing view of Genesis with naturalistic assumptions does not really "work" on the face of it since they are incompatible presuppositions. And, when we finish the job of twisting the wax nose of Scripture to fit the "facts" and findings of naturalistic science, there is no room for a special creation of Adam and Eve. That WAS my position through college, seminary, a D.Min., and several other graduate programs. I tried to hold onto a unique special creation of our first parents in the midst of billions of years (now viewed as 13.8 and counting).

However, looking at my Rube Goldberg system a few years ago, it dawned on me that many problems are created (as well as solved) by the Day Age view. Death, for example, is theologially attributed to sin. But, allowing for millions of years of creational "trial and error" to produce the species of plants and animals, results in a God who keeps trying to get it right and finally interrupts his naturalistic enterprise to drop Adam and Eve into it. Death, then, is only "theologically" not factually the result of sin and that militates against the need for an Adam and Eve at all. If the Genesis saga is merely ANE cosmology gone Jewish, then why not see the whole thing the way Genome head and "evangelial" Francis Collins does, it is all theistic evolution from start to finish without the requirement of ANY divine intervention along the way? Adam and Eve become a quaint intrusion into a naturalistic schema that hardly requires them.

 

[cih1355]

While we're being honest, why can't YECers admit that the OEC view does not change our understanding of God, the Bible, and the Gospel? So long as one believes Adam and Eve were created distinct in the image of God as the first humans, I see nothing wrong with a Day-Age belief that the Earth is millions of year old. No one has ever shown (or even attempted to show) why this thinking is incorrect.

Actually, "while we're being honest," Answers in Genesis has spilled a great deal of ink and some DVD materials trying to answer exactly that question.

There are various problems with the scenario you decribe, including the fact that it does change our view of the Bible. As I have argued elsewhere in other threads, taking a harmonizing view of Genesis with naturalistic assumptions does not really "work" on the face of it since they are incompatible presuppositions. And, when we finish the job of twisting the wax nose of Scripture to fit the "facts" and findings of naturalistic science, there is no room for a special creation of Adam and Eve. That WAS my position through college, seminary, a D.Min., and several other graduate programs. I tried to hold onto a unique special creation of our first parents in the midst of billions of years (now viewed as 13.8 and counting).

However, looking at my Rube Goldberg system a few years ago, it dawned on me that many problems are created (as well as solved) by the Day Age view. Death, for example, is theologially attributed to sin. But, allowing for millions of years of creational "trial and error" to produce the species of plants and animals, results in a God who keeps trying to get it right and finally interrupts his naturalistic enterprise to drop Adam and Eve into it. Death, then, is only "theologically" not factually the result of sin and that militates against the need for an Adam and Eve at all. If the Genesis saga is merely ANE cosmology gone Jewish, then why not see the whole thing the way Genome head and "evangelial" Francis Collins does, it is all theistic evolution from start to finish without the requirement of ANY divine intervention along the way? Adam and Eve become a quaint intrusion into a naturalistic schema that hardly requires them.

Could someone who holds to OEC believe that there was no death before the Fall? I do not believe in OEC. I am asking just out of curiosity.