YEC - A coherent theological system?

[jereth]

In a previous thread, someone said:

I think there are common doctrines that most YECs hold and they can be treated as common YEC doctrines.

I agree with this statement. After some thought, I've concluded that there are 6 theological propositions that are almost universally held by YECists (I'm sure there are some exceptions, of course):

1. Six-day creation: The earth and entire universe was created in a series of miraculous acts, over six 24-hour days. This is reported for us in Genesis 1.
2. Literal Eden and Fall: Genesis 2 and 3 tell a literal story in which Adam and Eve, the original human couple, lived in the garden of Eden. Adam was made out of dust from the ground, and Eve out of a rib taken from Adam. They “fell” away from God by eating forbidden fruit after being tempted by a talking serpent.
3. Original Animal Immortality: The earth was originally a paradise where even animals did not die. Death came to animals as well as to humans as a result of the fall of man.
4. Common descent from Adam & Eve: The entire human race is directly descended from a single original couple, Adam and Eve.
5. Global flood: About 10 generations after Adam, the entire earth was subjected to a cataclysmic flood. Most of the Earth's major geological features are explained by this flood.
6. Recent Adam: Based on the genealogies found in Genesis, a span of about 2000 years elapsed between creation and Abraham. Thus, the approximate age of the earth today is a mere 6000 years.

What do others think? Is it correct to say that YECism is more or less a unified, coherent system of thought?

 

[ChetSinger]

In a previous thread, someone said:



I agree with this statement. After some thought, I've concluded that there are 6 theological propositions that are almost universally held by YECists (I'm sure there are some exceptions, of course):

1. Six-day creation: The earth and entire universe was created in a series of miraculous acts, over six 24-hour days. This is reported for us in Genesis 1.
2. Literal Eden and Fall: Genesis 2 and 3 tell a literal story in which Adam and Eve, the original human couple, lived in the garden of Eden. Adam was made out of dust from the ground, and Eve out of a rib taken from Adam. They “fell” away from God by eating forbidden fruit after being tempted by a talking serpent.
3. Original Animal Immortality: The earth was originally a paradise where even animals did not die. Death came to animals as well as to humans as a result of the fall of man.
4. Common descent from Adam & Eve: The entire human race is directly descended from a single original couple, Adam and Eve.
5. Global flood: About 10 generations after Adam, the entire earth was subjected to a cataclysmic flood. Most of the Earth's major geological features are explained by this flood.
6. Recent Adam: Based on the genealogies found in Genesis, a span of about 2000 years elapsed between creation and Abraham. Thus, the approximate age of the earth today is a mere 6000 years.

What do others think? Is it correct to say that YECism is more or less a unified, coherent system of thought?

You got my vote, buddy!

 

[shernren]

They aren't really "theological" propositions, some of them.

"God created the universe in six days" - does that tell us that God was in a hurry?
"God made a literal Garden of Eden" - is horticulture His hobby?
"God made animals to not die" - so is the SPCA part of the Great Comission?

etc.

I don't think those are logical conclusions - but that's my whole point: YECism, for a theological system, really doesn't say very much about God. We on the outside get a picture of God working up a sweat trying to get everything done in 6 days, and then strangely decides to make everything look exactly as if it is old and evolved (by accident or design), and furthermore never does anything on that scale again, dabbling in little things like raising various people back to life and parting rivers for a few hours and multiplying food and things like that. Meanwhile, in the midst of all that shouting about literal history and stoning the infidel evolutionists, somebody has quietly misplaced the real theological significance of the creation account - desacralization of nature, vicegerency of man, tohu-bohu parallelism, order vs. chaos and Yahweh as Warrior, creation imperative of Sabbath, etc.

I'm not mincing my words. YECism isn't a coherent system of thought: it's a backlash against evolutionary philosophy robed in Bible words, too scientific for the ANE paradigm their texts were written in and too primitive to deal convincingly with modern science.

 

[kenneth558]

fine poll.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

YECs ONLY - which of these doctrines do you believe?

why not use the forum where it is setup exactly for this purpose?

this is a public space for Christians, and your exclusion sounds exactly like a poll about eye color beauty which begins with:
only those with green eyes may answer this poll.

 

[mark kennedy]

After some thought, I've concluded that there are 6 theological propositions that are almost universally held by YECists (I'm sure there are some exceptions, of course):

I would accept 5, excluding the immortality of animals. I would also add that the doctrines of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), Origianl sin and the deity of Christ are also inextricably linked to the YEC view as formal doctrine.

Six-day creation:The earth and entire universe was created in a series of miraculous acts, over six 24-hour days. This is reported for us in Genesis 1.

Sola Scriptura 'Scripture alone' is the theological basis for this foundational declaration. Genesis 1 is no an isolated text, a long series of events follow with this one being foundational. This defines young earth creationism in no uncertain terms.

Literal Eden and Fall: Genesis 2 and 3 tell a literal story in which Adam and Eve, the original human couple, lived in the garden of Eden. Adam was made out of dust from the ground, and Eve out of a rib taken from Adam. They “fell” away from God by eating forbidden fruit after being tempted by a talking serpent.

The word used to describe the creation of Eve from Adam's rib is important here. 'Banah'-lit. 'to build' (Gen 2:22). It is used in Gen 4:17 says that Cain not only built but founded a city he named after his first son Enoch (which means initiated). The word for Serpent used in Genesis 3 originally meant 'shinning one'. Adam, it should be remembered named the animals and he looked at a snake and said 'shinning one'. This relates to Satan being described as an angel of light in the New Testament. The 'serpent of old' is revealed as Satan (Rev. 12:9; 20:2) and should be regarded as a proper name not as a common snake.

Original Animal Immortality: The earth was originally a paradise where even animals did not die. Death came to animals as well as to humans as a result of the fall of man.

The Scriptures are silent on this point and can be considered extra-biblical. This may be implied in subsequent passages but is in no way shape or form a foundational YEC doctrine.

Common descent from Adam & Eve: The entire human race is directly descended from a single original couple, Adam and Eve.

Exactly right, it's not just a literal interprutation of Genesis that warrants this either.

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because all sinned". (Romans 5:12)

No where in Scripture is it even vaugly suggested that Adam was anything other then a literal historical figure.

Global flood: About 10 generations after Adam, the entire earth was subjected to a cataclysmic flood. Most of the Earth's major geological features are explained by this flood.

Absolutly inextricable for Young Earth Creationism as a formal doctrine, even though, some evangelicals insist on a local flood. That does not mean to say that all YEC must accept a global flood since a few accept the Ex Niliho doctrine but not the global flood. However, as the formal doctrine that has come to be known as YEC, they are both taken together as literal history.

Recent Adam: Based on the genealogies found in Genesis, a span of about 2000 years elapsed between creation and Abraham. Thus, the approximate age of the earth today is a mere 6000 years.

Young Earth Creationists would say 6-10 thousand years since there may be gaps in the geneologies. There may also be some problems with the calander they went by (lunar as opposed to solar). It should be realized that the geneologies represent a bloodline more then a timeline. It is nevertheless factual history in the minds of evangelicals and fundamentalists that subscribe to YEC as a formal doctrine and worldview.

What do others think? Is it correct to say that YECism is more or less a unified, coherent system of thought?

I would say that consistantly these are the principles YEC Christians affirm. You will sometimes find exceptions but those are usually not mainstream YEC views. With the exception of the immortality of animals prior to the Fall of Man I would accept the doctrines above as YEC principles. I do have some reservations, most notably, that the New Testament doctrine of original sin and redemptive history must be represented or you are not talking about YEC as I recognize it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

YECs ONLY - which of these doctrines do you believe?

why not use the forum where it is setup exactly for this purpose?

this is a public space for Christians, and your exclusion sounds exactly like a poll about eye color beauty which begins with:
only those with green eyes may answer this poll.

For this thread only I pronounce you an honorary Young Earth Creationist. I base my pronouncment on the Calvanist doctrine concerning the noetic effects of sin. Because of the effects of sin on the mind of fallen man, even among believers, you are a Young Earth Creationist by your profession of faith in Christ. It is of no consequence that you do not realize this since the final revelation of the wonderfull works of God from the beggining have not been fully revealed.

But seriously, anyone who spends as much time on here as you do would know what a Young Earth Creationist is. On a personal note, I was unable to respond to the poll since it included the immortality of animals and excluded vital New Testament doctrine. So, for whatever it's worth, at least one Young Earth Creationist was excluded from the poll.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

They aren't really "theological" propositions, some of them.

"God created the universe in six days" - does that tell us that God was in a hurry?

No, I don't think He was in a hurry, nor do I think it took Him all day to do it.

"God made a literal Garden of Eden" - is horticulture His hobby?

Actually, horticulture was the expressed reason Adam was created in the first place.

"God made animals to not die" - so is the SPCA part of the Great Comission?

That is not part of YEC as a doctrine or worldview dispite the fact is would seems to be implied. Some YECs hold to this view but it is nevertheless an extra-biblical principle.

I don't think those are logical conclusions - but that's my whole point: YECism, for a theological system, really doesn't say very much about God.

I stongly disagree, the New Testament describes Christ as the Word Incarnate and thus Creator. John 1 and other passages in the New Testament make this crystal clear and speak strongly of the divine attributes of God.

We on the outside get a picture of God working up a sweat trying to get everything done in 6 days, and then strangely decides to make everything look exactly as if it is old and evolved (by accident or design), and furthermore never does anything on that scale again, dabbling in little things like raising various people back to life

Ahem! Dabbling in little things like raising people back to life? You do realize that the ressurection of Christ is essential doctrine right? What is more, the earth and all that is in it does not look so old or evolved to me. One of the problems with TE is that it neglects essential New Testament doctrine as being foundational to a YEC worldview.

and parting rivers for a few hours and multiplying food and things like that.

You left out healing leapers, giving sight to the blind and sending the Holy Spirit to empower the Church for service.

Meanwhile, in the midst of all that shouting about literal history and stoning the infidel evolutionists, somebody has quietly misplaced the real theological significance of the creation account - desacralization of nature, vicegerency of man, tohu-bohu parallelism, order vs. chaos and Yahweh as Warrior, creation imperative of Sabbath, etc.

How literal redemptive history somehow diminishes real theological signifigance is a mystery to me. I don't really have a problem with someone taking Genesis 1 figuratively, the flood locally or the parting of the Red Sea as hyperbole. I do however take exception to the miracles of the Bible being dismissed as theologically insignifigant.

I'm not mincing my words. YECism isn't a coherent system of thought: it's a backlash against evolutionary philosophy robed in Bible words, too scientific for the ANE paradigm their texts were written in and too primitive to deal convincingly with modern science.

I'm not about to mince my words either, taking the historicity out of Scripture with regards to the incarnation is inconcievable. What is more evolution has made this the contentious issue that it is by reducing redemptive history to a collection of myths and legends. By the way, I have never rejected evolution as natural science, only as natural history and metaphysics.

The theology of YEC is perfectly consistant with Christian theology as it affirms the creation of the heavens and the earth, virgin birth, death, ressurection and soon return of Christ. I can accept it being rejected as a valid scientific view but saying it is making Christian theology into a primitive mindset is frankly offensive.

That is the whole problem with the theory of evolution. It does not stop at naturalistic explanations for our origins it intrudes into Christian theology with a modernist philosophy. There is another miracle of the Bible that has not happened yet and has essential theological signifigance:

"Now if Christ is preached that He has ben raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no ressurection of the dead?" (I Cor. 15:12)

 

[rmwilliamsll]

That is the whole problem with the theory of evolution. It does not stop at naturalistic explanations for our origins it intrudes into Christian theology with a modernist philosophy.

and it is that level at which the battle with modernism ought to be fought. but the early 20thC fundamentalists, often believing the same things as do the modern YECists, did NOT engage at this level with the heresy of modernism. They left the battle field and fled, mostly as a consequence of their premill views, partly as a consequence of their inability to fight science at the level of science and they gave up.
The history of the conservative church since the 1920's has been one of often bad tactics and even worse in carrying them out.

This modern YECism makes all the same mistakes as its forebearer and adds the politization of the church to the list.

You are right, the world and the universe is very old, God used evolution to create humanity. but from these things you can not derive a modernist, liberal theology as many are apt to do. But the conservative church is absent without leave from this battle and has literally deserted the battlefield. The battle ought to be in metaphysics and religion, between supernaturalists and naturalists but instead the conservative church invests its treasure in AiG and fake museums, missing this generations battle entirely, as it did the last.

 

[Proselyte]

In a previous thread, someone said:



I agree with this statement. After some thought, I've concluded that there are 6 theological propositions that are almost universally held by YECists (I'm sure there are some exceptions, of course):

1. Six-day creation: The earth and entire universe was created in a series of miraculous acts, over six 24-hour days. This is reported for us in Genesis 1.
2. Literal Eden and Fall: Genesis 2 and 3 tell a literal story in which Adam and Eve, the original human couple, lived in the garden of Eden. Adam was made out of dust from the ground, and Eve out of a rib taken from Adam. They “fell” away from God by eating forbidden fruit after being tempted by a talking serpent.
3. Original Animal Immortality: The earth was originally a paradise where even animals did not die. Death came to animals as well as to humans as a result of the fall of man.
4. Common descent from Adam & Eve: The entire human race is directly descended from a single original couple, Adam and Eve.
5. Global flood: About 10 generations after Adam, the entire earth was subjected to a cataclysmic flood. Most of the Earth's major geological features are explained by this flood.
6. Recent Adam: Based on the genealogies found in Genesis, a span of about 2000 years elapsed between creation and Abraham. Thus, the approximate age of the earth today is a mere 6000 years.

What do others think? Is it correct to say that YECism is more or less a unified, coherent system of thought?

I'd support all 6.

 

[RichardT]

all of the above !

 

[mark kennedy]

That is the whole problem with the theory of evolution. It does not stop at naturalistic explanations for our origins it intrudes into Christian theology with a modernist philosophy.

and it is that level at which the battle with modernism ought to be fought. but the early 20thC fundamentalists, often believing the same things as do the modern YECists, did NOT engage at this level with the heresy of modernism. They left the battle field and fled, mostly as a consequence of their premill views, partly as a consequence of their inability to fight science at the level of science and they gave up.
The history of the conservative church since the 1920's has been one of often bad tactics and even worse in carrying them out.

For one thing YEC was never abandoned because it couldn't be defended on a scientific level. It was abandoned because it is religiously oriented, period. I took a Biology class that I enjoyed very much and none of this single common ancestory or old earth fantasy was mentioned once. When we are talking about evolution as science we are talking about the change of alleles in populations over time. That is evolution as natural science being quantifiable and qualifiable by the mental and physical tools of science. Evolution as natural history is an a priori leap of faith transending all history with exclusivly naturalistic causes, even in religion.

One of the biggest problems with the modern churches is that even our seminaries are over run with modernists.

This modern YECism makes all the same mistakes as its forebearer and adds the politization of the church to the list.

YEC both as science and theology is a perfectly valid Christian worldview. We are not crippled in our understanding of science and certainly don't lack in theological veracity. The traditional view of the church remains unchanged, God created the heavens and the earth, period.

When I look at evolution as science I am fascinated, when I look at it as natural history protracted into the primordial earth I am appalled. When I see it set against the clear testimony of Scripture and the historicity of the Gospel I am offended.

It's not limited to evolutionary biology, it's in legal philosophy, social and moral theory, political systems and worst of all it has embedded itself in our sacred theologies. Scientists should leave the metaphysics to philosophers and theologians. It they honestly admitted that there are things about the distant past the cannot possibly know creationism and ID would be gone tommorow. Yet they persist.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It's not limited to evolutionary biology, it's in legal philosophy, social and moral theory, political systems and worst of all it has embedded itself in our sacred theologies. Scientists should leave the metaphysics to philosophers and theologians. It they honestly admitted that there are things about the distant past the cannot possibly know creationism and ID would be gone tommorow. Yet they persist.


you simply don't understand my point. i don't care if you agree or not, but i am interested that you at least get the point.

TofE is a well evidenced scientific theory, the age of the earth is an extremely well embedded theory. Your opposition to it is not just ignorance but willful and blind ignorance.

Yet when scientists extend their biology into law or sociology or theology they are not being scientific but metaphysicians. Yet because of your opposition at the low level science you are unable to sever the connection between science and scientism, fighting them both when only one is wrong.

 

[Proselyte]

Let's play nicely folks, eh?

 

[mark kennedy]

It's not limited to evolutionary biology, it's in legal philosophy, social and moral theory, political systems and worst of all it has embedded itself in our sacred theologies. Scientists should leave the metaphysics to philosophers and theologians. It they honestly admitted that there are things about the distant past the cannot possibly know creationism and ID would be gone tommorow. Yet they persist.

you simply don't understand my point. i don't care if you agree or not, but i am interested that you at least get the point.

TofE is a well evidenced scientific theory, the age of the earth is an extremely well embedded theory. You're opposition to it is not just ignorance but willful and blind ignorance.

Oh I get your point and I never missed the underlying moral judgment behind single common ancestory mythologies. Looking inductivly at a small sampling of adaptive changes and project that over billions of years and you imagine this as conclusive proof. This is far beyond the limits of the tools of science to see into the primordial past but you characterize this as willful ignorance. My response is that your a priori assumption of universal common ancestory is vain imaginations, not science, you see what you imagine not our primordial history.

But wait, you did mention an important Biblical and theological principle. It's often paraphrased as 'there are none so blind as those who will not see'. It is based on some choice texts from Holy Scripture at the heart of the emphasis. It is not about natural science though, it's about the historicity of the Gospel and why it was rejected by those who should have embraced it:

Go to this people and say:
Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand;
And seeing you will see, and not perceive;
For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are ard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them." (Acts 28:26,27; Is.:9,10)​

Yet when scientists extend their biology into law or sociology or theology they are not being scientific but metaphysicians. Yet because of your opposition at the low level science you are unable to sever the connection between science and scientism, fighting them both when only one is wrong.

You left out Eugentics, social darwinism, pragmatism, scientific objectivism, secular humanism and liberal theology. What I object to is being preached to because my convictions include God acting in time and space historically and reject single common ancestor mythologies. The tools has not been devised from the mind of man that can see into the primordial past and yet secular clerics pontificate about it endlessly.

This isn't about natural science, it's about a defense of the Gospel with regards to origins theology.

"Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with whcih you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." (Ephesians 6:14-17)​

It wouldn't be so bad if it stopped at Genesis 1 but it doesn't. Don't worry, I get your point, load and clear.

 

[mark kennedy]

Let's play nicely folks, eh?

These debates get a little heated but usually it passes in time.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Oh I get your point and I never missed the underlying moral judgment behind single common ancestory mythologies.

i'm sorry and i truely am sorry, that you apparently do not get the point. i tried, perhaps someone else can explain it better than i was able to do.

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh I get your point and I never missed the underlying moral judgment behind single common ancestory mythologies.

i'm sorry and i truely am sorry, that you apparently do not get the point. i tried, perhaps someone else can explain it better than i was able to do.

Actually it wasn't you who sent me off into that rant, apparently I got a little carried away. At any rate, my point was that TOE does not begin or end with evolutionary biology. It's part of a much larger social, political and legal trend that does not stop at the natural limits of science. I know that you are trying to make the point that modernism is the problem not evolutionary biology. But consider the title of the thread, 'is YEC a coherent theology'? I'll take the criticism that my theology influences my understanding of natural history, no problem. I'll even take the criticism that my view of evolution as natural history is based exclusivly on theology.

What I won't accept is that the theology YEC is based on is incoherent as a theology. I get especially worked up when raising people for the dead is something God 'dabbles' in as was suggested earlier in the thread. A literal Genesis is negotiable but the ressurection of Christ is not, nor are a lot of other miracles in the Bible. Now you may rightly say that is not being scientific but to suggest it's an incoherent theology will get me going every time.

Sorry I snapped like that, I didn't like being called willfully ignorant but I could have turned the other check. It's just that certain miracles are negotiable and certain ones are not, that was what had me so worked up. At any rate, I'm over it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It's part of a much larger social, political and legal trend that does not stop at the natural limits of science.

and that is what i am trying to help you understand, it is not part of this larger worldview. TofE is being USED by human beings to build their worldviews. the trend that you see is human beings fighting God, not the TofE 's logical conclusions. By conflating the two: evolutionary biology and Dawkin's type of evolutionary worldview, you attack both at the level of the science, which is sound and laughs off your attacks. Thus allowing the worldview to go on saying that it is THE ONLY logical extension of that science. Thus you strengthen the science->metaphysics->worldview connection that makes people believe that TofE logically leads to, or entails Dawkins. Thus kids that go off to college and learn the soundness of the science also fall prey to the lie, the lie that the science supports ONLY an atheistic materialistic worldview. You, as do most YECists here, see only the continuitiy between the biological science and Dawkin's full blown materialistic worldview and poof believe that the science logically supports it. But it does not. No more than the science created Social Darwinianism, people did. That is my big point, thanks for giving me the opportunity to say it again.

The TofE is good science.
Social Darwinianism is bad philosophy.
Dawkin's worldview is at war with orthodox Christianity, but to fight it you must concentrate on the illegitimacy of building a worldview on science.

 

[shernren]

Ahem! Dabbling in little things like raising people back to life? You do realize that the ressurection of Christ is essential doctrine right? What is more, the earth and all that is in it does not look so old or evolved to me. One of the problems with TE is that it neglects essential New Testament doctrine as being foundational to a YEC worldview.

I should stop using provocative sophist wordings like "The resurrection is both myth and history", they're all too easily misunderstood. Like this.

What I said was:

We on the outside (of YECism) get a picture of God (from YECist philosophy) working up a sweat trying to get everything done in 6 days, and then strangely deciding to make everything look exactly as if it is old and evolved (by accident or design), and furthermore never does anything on that scale again, dabbling in little things like raising various people back to life and parting rivers for a few hours and multiplying food and things like that.

(bold emphasis added. first two italics for clarification of implicit wordings. last italic added because the editor in me wants consistency in using the continuous tense. )

I have to run for class but here's a question to occupy your time:

Which is the more impressive miracle, creation or resurrection?