YEC - A coherent theological system?

[jereth]

Nice little battle going on between rmwilliamsll and Mark Kennedy! But it'd be great if we could get back to the topic at hand.

Some more food for thought:
In my opinion, propositions 1, 2, and 4 are inextricably linked and therefore if you are a strict YECist you have to believe all of them. Proposition 5 (global flood) is necessary in order to explain the fossil record -- therefore it too is pretty much non-negotiable for YECs. Proposition 6 is probably not quite as necessary as the rest, but it helps if Young Earth Creationists are able to confidently state just how Young the Earth really is.

What about proposition 3 - original animal immortality? If we look at the wider YECist world, and the main YECist organisations and publications, we find that this is generally pushed as absolute dogma, along with the rest. Why is this?

This doctrine is by no means an essential or integral part of YECism. It has no implications for age of the earth, or for fiat creation, or for intelligent design etc. It furthermore does not produce any sort of scientific attack on evolutionism. In my opinion, original animal immortality was adopted by YECists at large as a means of attacking Christians who do not share their view -- in other words, OECs and TEs.

How this works is as follows: by insisting that animals did not die pre-fall, YECists are able to say (as they certainly do say) that OECs and TEs "put the effects of sin before sin itself". This then leads to the accusation that OECs and TEs "destroy the meaning of redemption, because Jesus Christ came to redeem us from the effects of sin" -- which to the YECist, includes the death of animals. If death (of animals) was already in the world at the beginning, they say, why did Jesus even have to bother dying on the cross?

Original animal immortality provides YECists with yet another way to mercilessly attack their fellow Christians: they accuse OECs and TEs of "calling into question the loving nature of God, since why would a God of love permit millions of years of death, bloodshed and suffering and call it 'very good'?"

In summary, it is my opinion that the doctrine of original animal immortality is far more than meets the eye... it is a juicy source of ammunition against fellow believers who are not YECists.

(Disclaimer: I acknowledge that many YECists hold dearly to the idea of "no animal death before the fall", without any malicious intent. My point here is that this doctrine is used by the "movers and shakers" among YECism -- eg. AiG -- as an effective way of bolstering their position and knocking down any Christian who disagrees with them. It is thus in their interests to continue preaching this doctrine as an integral component of YEC belief.)

 

[jereth]

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.

These 3 doctrines that you list are also believed by conservative Christians who are OECs and Theisitc Evolutionists. That's why they aren't included as options in the poll. The point was to highlight distinctive YEC doctrines.

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.

I find it fascinating that you have this position, Mark. Indeed, I find it fascinating that out of the YECs who have voted so far, only half believe in original animal immortality! This is a very pleasing result, and I hope that the trend continues as more votes accumulate.

It's reassuring to know that not all YECs are prepared to swallow AiG's inflammatory rhetoric!

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)

All romans 5 says is that sin entered the world through Adam. It does not teach that all people are descended from Adam. That is just an inference.
I've written more about this here:
http://home.iprimus.com.au/jereth/jereth/genesis&origins/origin_humanity.html

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

The trouble with your 'provocative sophist wording' is that it is ambiquise on essential Christian doctrine. When I first heard the Genesis account refered to as a myth I looked it up. The antonym given with the definition was fact and for this term to be applied to the ressurection is a direct denial of the locus crucis event in redemptive history past. The ressurection cannot be a fact and a myth, it must be one or the other. I understand when unbelievers are incredulous about Genesis 1-8 but when it comes to the ressurection we not talking about a Christian concept.

It also raises grave concerns when a professing believer resorts to this kind of flippant satire, mocking a belief in the supernatural work of God in history. This isn't just about a doctrine the effects an interprutation of the early chapters of Genesis, it is the Gospel itself that is in question.

(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?

There was no need for italics or bolding, I understood what you were saying, it was clear to the point of being blatantly obvious. For whatever reason you have no problem believing in the deity of Christ yet you mock at the idea of special creation as if it were an alien theology. It leaves me to wonder, what, if any theological considerations led you to that conclusion. No self respecting secular humanist would dare admit that a supernatural event occured, certainly not the ressurection (past and future).

In answer to your question, if it was an act that God alone was capable of then there is no difference.

 

[ChetSinger]

...I find it fascinating that you have this position, Mark. Indeed, I find it fascinating that out of the YECs who have voted so far, only half believe in original animal immortality! This is a very pleasing result, and I hope that the trend continues as more votes accumulate.

It's reassuring to know that not all YECs are prepared to swallow AiG's inflammatory rhetoric!

I'm one of the YEC people who voted for everything but animal immortality. But I think you're being too hard on AIG concerning this issue. I think they hold their belief in good conscience.

 

[mark kennedy]

These 3 doctrines that you list are also believed by conservative Christians who are OECs and Theisitc Evolutionists. That's why they aren't included as options in the poll. The point was to highlight distinctive YEC doctrines.

First of all I realize that there isn't a dimes worth of difference between a YEC and OEC with regards to human origins. Secondly, there is a distinct difference between these two and theistic evolution since the theology of the former is clear while the theology of the latter is nearly nonexistant. I have never met a theistic evolutionist yet who could define God as the YEC/OEC Christians do. You have completly abandonded the concept of the totality of Scripture which is why YEC seems incoherent to you.

I find it fascinating that you have this position, Mark. Indeed, I find it fascinating that out of the YECs who have voted so far, only half believe in original animal immortality! This is a very pleasing result, and I hope that the trend continues as more votes accumulate.

I just don't require that immortality of animals be included, it's not that I have a problem when they are. I know what the problem is here, you think the YEC is based exclusivly on an interprutation of the text itself as compared to modernist interprutations of science. It's not bad enough that Christians have to listen to the constant mockery of their view of modernist science. No, now they are going to have to endure having their theology mocked and scoffed at in the Christian's only forum.

It's reassuring to know that not all YECs are prepared to swallow AiG's inflammatory rhetoric!

Why don't you take another real good look at the forum rules against belittling, insulting and ridiculing other Christian's theology? There is nothing inflammatory about AIG and frankly this kind of mock satire sickens me when coming from a professing believer.

All romans 5 says is that sin entered the world through Adam. It does not teach that all people are descended from Adam. That is just an inference.

Frankly, I am not interested in what you wrote about it, I am interested in what Paul wrote about it. Now after 2 years of having evolutionists pontificate to me about natural science they want to trample my theology under their feet. What it says without the revisionist watering down of the clear meaning of the text:

"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)

Through one man means exactly one and only one. All means every single person in the human race without exception sinned in Adam. Let me quess, you have no clue what the hermeneutic principle applied here is or how it logically follows.

Go and find out what this means:

The Levitical priesthood paid tithes to Melchizedek before they were ever born. (see Hebrews 7:4-9)

Now if you want to stop mocking things you don't understand I will be glad to make our theology somewhat more coherent for you. This is of course you are even vaugly interested in theology to begin with, which I seriously doubt.

I'll take the mock satire when it comes to science (falsly so called) but theology is a whole other level. I chuckly at the silly circular logic that passes for science in the debates and discussions I encounter. But now you want to bring that antitheistic rethoric into a discussion of Christian theology?

Do yourself a favor, learn a little something about Christian theology before you learn the hard way what it is you mock.

 

[shernren]

The trouble with your 'provocative sophist wording' is that it is ambiquise on essential Christian doctrine. When I first heard the Genesis account refered to as a myth I looked it up. The antonym given with the definition was fact and for this term to be applied to the ressurection is a direct denial of the locus crucis event in redemptive history past. The ressurection cannot be a fact and a myth, it must be one or the other. I understand when unbelievers are incredulous about Genesis 1-8 but when it comes to the ressurection we not talking about a Christian concept.

But that is not how we use the word or concept of "myth", we don't consider a myth untrue. In fact a myth's truth or falsity is independent of its historicity to a large extent.

It also raises grave concerns when a professing believer resorts to this kind of flippant satire, mocking a belief in the supernatural work of God in history. This isn't just about a doctrine the effects an interprutation of the early chapters of Genesis, it is the Gospel itself that is in question.

See, that's what I can't stomach and don't get about YECism. This is the new bee-in-my-bonnet ... why is a doctrinal debate about Genesis 1-11 suddenly spilling over into the resurrection? 9 times out of 10 it's the YEC who starts saying "if you don't believe in creation then how can you believe in resurrection?" Which I find to be alien to my belief system of Christianity.

"If the Resurrection is disproved, Christianity makes no sense." That I wholeheartedly agree in.
"If the Resurrection is disproved, Christianity makes no sense, and by extension Creationism makes no sense." I can see why people might say that.

But this (unless I have gravely misinterpreted) is what I always hear from YECs:
"If Creationism is disproved, the Resurrection makes no sense, and by extension Christianity makes no sense."

And "creationism" not just in the sense of "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" but in the sense of "He must have did it in such a way, with such an effect, such-and-such a duration of time ago" which tells us nothing about God. What difference is there between a God who creates in 144 hours and a God who creates in 243.6 hours? Between a God who created 6,000 years ago and a God who created 39,500 years ago? The difference might tell us something about Scripture, about God's revelation, but what would it tell us about God?

I see YECism as promoting a bunch of spectacular, yet meaningless, miracles. (Hence my question.) The style of miracles performed in YECism and the style we see documented by Jesus are very different. Jesus performed His miracles within the framework of Messianic prophecy. John explicitly labels them "signs" and records them "that you may believe in Him". The blind are healed, and Jesus speaks of light and darkness. Jesus makes the sole named character of His parables - Lazarus - a poor man who died rejected and found joy in the eternal Kingdom, and explicitly states that even a resurrection would not convince unrepentant people, and then raises Lazarus from the dead, and then raises Himself from the dead. Jesus operated within a framework where physical miracles took on theological significance, in this case the arrival of the Messiah. But what do YECism's miracles mean? What is the point of an actual primordial megameter-wide ball of water? Of a layer of ice at the edge of the universe? Of force-growing plants across the earth from sprout to sexual maturity in 24 hours? Of erecting genetic species barriers so that animals can only reproduce within their kind? Of creating animals by kind instead of using common ancestry, anyway?

What is the God of the YECs doing when He creates the universe? Is He just showing off? Why is He showing off when there is by definition no-one else to see Him do so? And why do YECs assume that He has stopped? (After all, any notion of scientific appraisal of evidence for a young earth creation must assume that there has been no unquantifiable supernatural disturbance of the evidence since it has been created, a proposition I find disturbingly deistic.)

I have no qualms whatsoever with the doctrines of creation.

I believe wholeheartedly that God created the heavens and the earth. I believe that this means that nothing in creation is worthy of worship and that God Himself alone is worthy. I believe that God controls disorder and creates order, that God is my warrior against the forces of evil, and that whatever God creates He ultimately fulfils in purpose (as He fulfilled the skies by creating the stars within it, He fulfilled the sea and air by creating fish and fowl to live in it, He fulfilled the earth by creating animal to live in it and man to tend it). I believe that it is purely God's prerogative to create and to fulfill and that man is called, as a being in God's image, to husband and steward what He has already created. And I believe that as God ordains work God also ordains rest.(In fact, I find that many YECs don't even believe these things from Genesis 1 and jump straight to "God says evolution is evil.")

But I am not prepared to hang the validity of my faith on mere scientific facts. I am not prepared to be told that if science tells us B instead of A I must automatically reject Christianity. That if YECism goes out the window it will drag the Resurrection with it.

So I just don't get what it means for me to have "put science above Scripture". I as a TE feel exactly the opposite: TE allows me to believe that science doesn't have half an ounce of authority in telling me whether or not the Christian faith is valid.

For whatever reason you have no problem believing in the deity of Christ yet you mock at the idea of special creation as if it were an alien theology.

I respect your right to imply that my position is fundamentally inconsistent. But I don't think it is. I have explained myself more fully both on my "Myth of Scientific Creationism" thread and your "Christ and Edification" (something to that extent ) thread. To be succinct here:

It is not that
YECism demands miracles which science cannot accommodate, since
the Resurrection also demands miracles which science cannot accommodate,

but that
YECism predicts that the current physical state of the world should be different from the actual current physical state of the world, while
the Resurrection makes essentially no predictions about the current physical state of the world and is therefore unfalsifiable by such a line of attack.

Which is why, in the unlikely event that I do indeed find myself having to hang my faith on mechanisms of creation, I would still feel far more comfortable with Apparent Age beliefs, which have come to terms with the preponderance of evidence, than with YECism.

It leaves me to wonder, what, if any theological considerations led you to that conclusion.

The same "theological considerations" by which YECs believe in recent creation but not geocentrism, flat earth, and solid atmosphere: nearly none. At least I'm honest about it, though.

 

[mark kennedy]

But that is not how we use the word or concept of "myth", we don't consider a myth untrue. In fact a myth's truth or falsity is independent of its historicity to a large extent.

When you are talking about Grecian myths I suppose that would have some merit, but in the New Testament certain events are either fact or the promise is a lie.

"For I delivered to you first of all that which I also recieved: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (I Cor. 15:3)

You can believe that Christ was born of a virgin, died for you sins, raised by the glory of God, ascended to the right hand of the Father, is returning in power and glory to judge the living and the dead. Yet you have a problem with special creation. What possible theological basis would you have for mocking at those who simply take the Bible at its word?

See, that's what I can't stomach and don't get about YECism. This is the new bee-in-my-bonnet ... why is a doctrinal debate about Genesis 1-11 suddenly spilling over into the resurrection? 9 times out of 10 it's the YEC who starts saying "if you don't believe in creation then how can you believe in resurrection?" Which I find to be alien to my belief system of Christianity.

First it's Genesis 1, then I suggest Genesis 1-8 and now you have expanded it to include Genesis 1-11. Where does it end, is there anything in the Scriptures that can be taken as literal history? If a supernatural faith seems alien to your belief system then I suggest you take another look at the Nicean creed.

"If the Resurrection is disproved, Christianity makes no sense." That I wholeheartedly agree in.
"If the Resurrection is disproved, Christianity makes no sense, and by extension Creationism makes no sense." I can see why people might say that.

If on the other hand the ressurection is the confirming work of God confirming the promise of the Gospel then all the rest follows logically. Mind you we are not just talking about redemptive history and the ministry of the Holy Spirit in this day and age. We are also talking about final judgment which is far more important then some primordial history evolutionists pontificate about endlessly.

But this (unless I have gravely misinterpreted) is what I always hear from YECs:
"If Creationism is disproved, the Resurrection makes no sense, and by extension Christianity makes no sense."

There you go again, you have completly ignored the clear teaching of Scripture. Why don't you sit down and compare the wording of Genesis 1 with John 1 and we can talk about Christian theology as it relates to our origins.

And "creationism" not just in the sense of "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" but in the sense of "He must have did it in such a way, with such an effect, such-and-such a duration of time ago" which tells us nothing about God. What difference is there between a God who creates in 144 hours and a God who creates in 243.6 hours? Between a God who created 6,000 years ago and a God who created 39,500 years ago? The difference might tell us something about Scripture, about God's revelation, but what would it tell us about God?

The Ex Nihilo doctrine does not put any time restraints and certainly does not hold that God needed all day. Not once in the New Testament does it make a distinction between literal history and the promise of the Gospel. New Testament theology does not begin with Genesis and applying worldly earthly wisdom to the Gospel is meaningless.

In answering your question it tells us that God acts in time and space by divine fiat That God is in no sense correlative to or dependent upon anything beside His own being to do His will. It speaks of His asiety (independance), immutability and omnipotence and speaks volumns for nature being the result of an the mind of God not impersonal naturalistic causes. The pagan mythos had gods for everything; the sun, moon, stars, trees, animals etc... Among the most powerfull of the pagan mythos were the elementals like earth, rain, wind and fire. In Christian theism all things in heaven and in earth, including the elementals procede from the will of God.

That is what it tells us and how it informs our intellect as to the working of nature.

I see YECism as promoting a bunch of spectacular, yet meaningless, miracles. (Hence my question.) The style of miracles performed in YECism and the style we see documented by Jesus are very different. Jesus performed His miracles within the framework of Messianic prophecy. John explicitly labels them "signs" and records them "that you may believe in Him". The blind are healed, and Jesus speaks of light and darkness. Jesus makes the sole named character of His parables - Lazarus - a poor man who died rejected and found joy in the eternal Kingdom, and explicitly states that even a resurrection would not convince unrepentant people, and then raises Lazarus from the dead, and then raises Himself from the dead. Jesus operated within a framework where physical miracles took on theological significance, in this case the arrival of the Messiah. But what do YECism's miracles mean? What is the point of an actual primordial megameter-wide ball of water? Of a layer of ice at the edge of the universe? Of force-growing plants across the earth from sprout to sexual maturity in 24 hours? Of erecting genetic species barriers so that animals can only reproduce within their kind? Of creating animals by kind instead of using common ancestry, anyway?

Not too bad, that almost sounded like a theological question. One problem with it though, it was allready asked, not of God, but by God:

"Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said:

Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upont it? To what were the foundations fastended? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for Joy?"​

(Job 38:1-7)

I hope you are as good at answering those biting questions you relish in spewing out at other Christians. You will not only get the opportunity to ask, but may be required to answer.

How did Job respond? How do you respond? So Biblical theism is incoherent for you huh? What until you start not only asking but having to answer theological questions. I expect the attitude will be very different, the fear of God has that effect on the attitude you know. (See Proverbs 1:1-7) That is if you are genuinly interested in our theology.

What is the God of the YECs doing when He creates the universe? Is He just showing off? Why is He showing off when there is by definition no-one else to see Him do so? And why do YECs assume that He has stopped? (After all, any notion of scientific appraisal of evidence for a young earth creation must assume that there has been no unquantifiable supernatural disturbance of the evidence since it has been created, a proposition I find disturbingly deistic.)

"All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven. And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand. Or say to Him, What have you done?"​

(Daniel 4:35)

Who do you think you are asking these questions?

"Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, Why have you made me like this? Does not the potter have power over the clay"​

(Romans 9:20)

I have no qualms whatsoever with the doctrines of creation.

You could have fooled me.

I believe wholeheartedly that God created the heavens and the earth. I believe that this means that nothing in creation is worthy of worship and that God Himself alone is worthy. I believe that God controls disorder and creates order, that God is my warrior against the forces of evil, and that whatever God creates He ultimately fulfils in purpose (as He fulfilled the skies by creating the stars within it, He fulfilled the sea and air by creating fish and fowl to live in it, He fulfilled the earth by creating animal to live in it and man to tend it). I believe that it is purely God's prerogative to create and to fulfill and that man is called, as a being in God's image, to husband and steward what He has already created. And I believe that as God ordains work God also ordains rest.(In fact, I find that many YECs don't even believe these things from Genesis 1 and jump straight to "God says evolution is evil.")

When you are talking to YECs who do that then you can take that up with them. I have looked at this as philsophy, history, science and right now I am wanting to know what it is exactly about my theology you find so incoherent. Most of the previous statement is pretty consistant with my own personal views but you have really been remiss in you theological studies.

For starters God is not a warrior against evil, evil is the absense of God just as darkness is the absense of light. For another thing wisdom and knowledge do not come from experiments, flasks, beakers, radiometric dating, old bones or dirt.

The beggining of wisdom is the fear of the Lord but fools hate wisdom and discipline" (Proverbs 1:7)

Now before you go getting indignant because you think I just called you a fool, who do you think the fool in the Proverbs is? If you are reading the Proverbs and thinks its anyone but you then you are not paying attention.

"For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror, for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was." (James 1:23,24)

What to talk about my theology, lets talk theology brother.

But I am not prepared to hang the validity of my faith on mere scientific facts. I am not prepared to be told that if science tells us B instead of A I must automatically reject Christianity. That if YECism goes out the window it will drag the Resurrection with it.

I know exactly what you mean, since, just because I don't accept apes and men have a common ancestor does not mean I am opposed to science. I have been called willfully ignorant, dishonest and worse and that is just what fellow Christians have said about me. Imagine what unbelievers have to say when I tell them I believe the Bible to be literal history.

So I just don't get what it means for me to have "put science above Scripture". I as a TE feel exactly the opposite: TE allows me to believe that science doesn't have half an ounce of authority in telling me whether or not the Christian faith is valid.

Oh I agree and I also reserve the right to learn evolution as science but to reject it as a guide to the distant past. The Scriptures have been confirmed by every standard of proof I had the time or capacity to examine. In the final analysis I will throw in the the Answers in Genesis crowd since they at least affirm the reliablity of Scirpture which modernist never will.

I respect your right to imply that my position is fundamentally inconsistent. But I don't think it is. I have explained myself more fully both on my "Myth of Scientific Creationism" thread and your "Christ and Edification" (something to that extent ) thread. To be succinct here:

It is not that
YECism demands miracles which science cannot accommodate, since
the Resurrection also demands miracles which science cannot accommodate,

but that
YECism predicts that the current physical state of the world should be different from the actual current physical state of the world, while
the Resurrection makes essentially no predictions about the current physical state of the world and is therefore unfalsifiable by such a line of attack.

I'll check it out and I respond to what you posted there.

Which is why, in the unlikely event that I do indeed find myself having to hang my faith on mechanisms of creation, I would still feel far more comfortable with Apparent Age beliefs, which have come to terms with the preponderance of evidence, than with YECism.

I don't believe it is an either or proposition, science is about tools (mental and physical). They have no genuine bearing on the distant past or the far unlit unknown future. God on the other hand knows the end from the beggining and while I can't tell you how he created the heavens and the earth, I know the One who makes the promise is faithfull.

The same "theological considerations" by which YECs believe in recent creation but not geocentrism, flat earth, and solid atmosphere: nearly none. At least I'm honest about it, though.

I am not disputing the direct observations or demonstrations of natural science. It is the sweeping generalities and transendent a priori assumptions of methodological naturalism that attribute to nature what is rightfully attributed to God.

I do hope we are regaining our civility at this point and if you are still interested I would be happy to discuss the theology of YEC with you further.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[chaoschristian]

Secondly, there is a distinct difference between these two and theistic evolution since the theology of the former is clear while the theology of the latter is nearly nonexistant. I have never met a theistic evolutionist yet who could define God as the YEC/OEC Christians do. You have completly abandonded the concept of the totality of Scripture which is why YEC seems incoherent to you.

Mark, since you seem to have completely forgotten about the thread the you started some time back LINKY I'll reiterate its conclusion here for your edification:

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE THEOLOGY OF CHRISTIAN THEISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY.

The primary differnence between TE, OEC and YEC is not so much theology (we all believe in God-the-Father-Creator-Light-Bringer-Word-Speaker-Life-Breather, and the saving grace of the resurrected Christ, and all that other good stuff in the Nicene Creed), but how we formulate our world view in regard to God's revelations. You so much as admitted that in the above referenced thread.

It really disappoints me to see you bring out that old hash once again.

Which leads me to the only other significant difference between OEC, YEC and TE that I think matters: how we act out the intent behind our belief. And by that I mean that certain YECs (from what I observe) tend to range into the territory of 'The Land of Only My Beliefs Are Valid, And God Told Me to Smite the Infidels.' Those who choose this path are traveling the way of the neo-creationist, he who seeks to not only defend Creation against non-believers, but who also seeks to redefine anyone who doesn't see the world exactly as he sees it as a non-believer. The intent of neo-creationism is to redefine orthodoxy in the face of centuries of traditional understanding. For details, seek out Shernren's most excellent thread on 'The Myth of Scientific Creationism.'

I thought that we had at least reached an agreement with regards to this 'TEs don't have theology' nonsense. I guess it turns out you just went to Abilene instead.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, since you seem to have completely forgotten about the thread the you started some time back LINKY I'll reiterate its conclusion here for your edification:

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE THEOLOGY OF CHRISTIAN THEISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY.

If you refuted something in that thread I missed it entirely. At any rate lets talk theology, or antitheology which ever presents itself here.

The primary differnence between TE, OEC and YEC is not so much theology (we all believe in God-the-Father-Creator-Light-Bringer-Word-Speaker-Life-Breather, and the saving grace of the resurrected Christ, and all that other good stuff in the Nicene Creed), but how we formulate our world view in regard to God's revelations. You so much as admitted that in the above referenced thread.

It really disappoints me to see you bring out that old hash once again.

It really bores me to tears that you can't see the link between New Testament theology and young earth creationism. What even gets me slightly interested is that you are assuming a refutation of a theology when nothing theological is offered.

Which leads me to the only other significant difference between OEC, YEC and TE that I think matters: how we act out the intent behind our belief. And by that I mean that certain YECs (from what I observe) tend to range into the territory of 'The Land of Only My Beliefs Are Valid, And God Told Me to Smite the Infidels.' Those who choose this path are traveling the way of the neo-creationist, he who seeks to not only defend Creation against non-believers, but who also seeks to redefine anyone who doesn't see the world exactly as he sees it as a non-believer. The intent of neo-creationism is to redefine orthodoxy in the face of centuries of traditional understanding. For details, seek out Shernren's most excellent thread on 'The Myth of Scientific Creationism.'

It took you that entire paragraph and word salad to call creationism a myth? You established nothing of substance, you never once related a single theological point of doctrine and ignored everything I have said previously. If you said anything in this post that is remotely theological then you failed to emphasis it with anything other then a string of links to other threads.

I thought that we had at least reached an agreement with regards to this 'TEs don't have theology' nonsense. I guess it turns out you just went to Abilene instead.

It's not New Testament theology that is for sure. The Christian faith is a supernatural religion and as much as that pains modernists the vauge rationalizations do not change that. You can accept the virgin birth, deity of Christ and the ressurection of the living and the dead on the last day but you can't accept young earth creationism as a coherent theological reasoning.

My response to these vauge generalities and referances to other threads is as follows.



Wake me when you have something coherent to say.

 

[Willtor]

. . .

It really bores me to tears that you can't see the link between New Testament theology and young earth creationism. What even gets me slightly interested is that you are assuming a refutation of a theology when nothing theological is offered.

. . .

One of the elders at my Church was talking to me about evolution. He thought that evolution undermined doctrine. Of course, he is an OEC. Would you say that an old Earth undermines doctrine?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The Levitical priesthood paid tithes to Melchizedek before they were ever born. (see Hebrews 7:4-9)

Hbr 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,
Hbr 7:2 to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all {the spoils,} was first of all, by the translation {of his name,} king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace.
Hbr 7:3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.
Hbr 7:4 Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils.
Hbr 7:5 And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest's office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham.
Hbr 7:6 But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises.
Hbr 7:7 But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.

i see no evidence that anyone but Abraham tithed to Melchizedek

so
Go and find out what this means:

you will have to share what you understand by the verses since it is not obvious in the text. there is no indication that Abraham paid it on anyone's account, let alone on "unborn Levites" accounts.


so talk theology.

 

[chaoschristian]

It's not New Testament theology that is for sure.

What is 'New Testament theology' and how do you differentiate it from orthodox Christian theology?

And while you are at it, please back up your assertion that TE's do not hold to an orthodox Christian theology. You like to assert this, but I have yet to see you deliver anything along the lines of a definitive proof beyond your own incredulousness.

 

[mark kennedy]

The Levitical priesthood paid tithes to Melchizedek before they were ever born. (see Hebrews 7:4-9)



i see no evidence that anyone but Abraham tithed to Melchizedek

so
Go and find out what this means:

you will have to share what you understand by the verses since it is not obvious in the text. there is no indication that Abraham paid it on anyone's account, let alone on "unborn Levites" accounts.


so talk theology.

This is just as deep as it gets, the message is obvious but you don't have a clue. The lessor paid tithes to the greater so that means that the priest after the order of Melkezidek is greater then the Levetical priesthood. The reason expressly stated was that because Abraham paid tithes to Melkezidek.

Now, in Romans it is clear that all sinned in Adam and it is for the same reason, because all of us descended from Adam. This is not hyperbole, this is not a parable and there is no great mystery. This is the clear testimony of Scripture.

Want to talk theology? Then tell me how sin entered the world through one man if they are not all physical descendants of Adam.

 

[mark kennedy]

What is 'New Testament theology' and how do you differentiate it from orthodox Christian theology?

I think you are using the term 'orthodox' pretty losely since you want to include theistic evolution. Now take a good look at the Nicean Cread including the part where God creates the heavens and the earth and tell me how this includes purely naturalistic processes in the minds of the early church fathers.

And while you are at it, please back up your assertion that TE's do not hold to an orthodox Christian theology. You like to assert this, but I have yet to see you deliver anything along the lines of a definitive proof beyond your own incredulousness.

For one thing, 'incredulousness' is not a word. For another thing it is unavoidable for you to address the New Testament in this kind of a discussion. For another thing you completly abandoned all Scriptural authority and then had the nerve to pretend that I am the one incredulous.

Now if you want to talk about New Testament theology I suggest you dust off you Bible and compare John 1 with Genesis 1. Then we can talk about Hebrews 11 and the other texts you are trying to bury in this thread with your pointless rationalizations.

There is nothing more orthodox to New Testament theology then the New Testament itself. In Christian theism the Scriptures are definitive authortity with regards to doctrine and redemptive history.

Now I know why young earth creationism is so incoherent to you guys, you don't have a clue what the implications of the New Testament are.

 

[mark kennedy]

One of the elders at my Church was talking to me about evolution. He thought that evolution undermined doctrine. Of course, he is an OEC. Would you say that an old Earth undermines doctrine?

No, I don't think the age of the earth is even an issue. It is entirely possible that God created the heavens and the earth and that the earth was a dark, barren rock until 6-10 thousand years ago. Now human beings descending from apes, that undermines doctrine in a big way.

I never seem to be able to sink this point in but I will try once more. My problem is not with evolution as natural science, it is with evolution as natural history with regards to human origins. Evolution does undermine doctrine but it need not, the fact of the matter is that it could explain a lot. The trouble is that those who oppose evolution the most should be the ones who love it best.

I won't ramble on any further, I have not been able to get this point across in all this time so I doubt it's worth the effort now.

 

[jereth]

I'm one of the YEC people who voted for everything but animal immortality. But I think you're being too hard on AIG concerning this issue. I think they hold their belief in good conscience.

Fair enough, they might hold the belief (in original animal immortality) in good conscience. But the "inflammatory rhetoric" I was talking about is the way they attack Christians brothers and sisters who disagree with them about the belief:

Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)
Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1305.asp

 

[Willtor]

No, I don't think the age of the earth is even an issue. It is entirely possible that God created the heavens and the earth and that the earth was a dark, barren rock until 6-10 thousand years ago. Now human beings descending from apes, that undermines doctrine in a big way.

I never seem to be able to sink this point in but I will try once more. My problem is not with evolution as natural science, it is with evolution as natural history with regards to human origins. Evolution does undermine doctrine but it need not, the fact of the matter is that it could explain a lot. The trouble is that those who oppose evolution the most should be the ones who love it best.

I won't ramble on any further, I have not been able to get this point across in all this time so I doubt it's worth the effort now.

How does being apes, and descending from ape-like ancestors undermine doctrine? Certainly not the doctrine explicit and implicit to the Nicene Creed, for example, right?

 

[chaoschristian]

I think you are using the term 'orthodox' pretty losely since you want to include theistic evolution.

I think - as in it's only your opinion, Mark.

Now take a good look at the Nicean Cread including the part where God creates the heavens and the earth and tell me how this includes purely naturalistic processes in the minds of the early church fathers.

Let's look at the Creed shall we:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us (men)1 and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, And his kingdom will have no end We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father (and the Son) With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Tell me how you justify reading naturalistic processes out of the Creed.

If anything the Creed re-affirms my position and the general position of most TEs - that the Genesis account is about establishing God as the Father Creator and the source of Creation, not for establishing how creation was done. Otherwise the early church fathers would have included an affirmation of a six-day Creation. But they didn't. Wonder why?

For one thing, 'incredulousness' is not a word.

Forgive me.

For another thing you completly abandoned all Scriptural authority and then had the nerve to pretend that I am the one incredulous.

Are you accusing me of abandoning scriptural authority?

I have challenged how the format of scripture has influence our perspective on scripture.

I have challenged how scripture is translated and interpreted.

I have challenged how certain Christians attempt to assert their views on others and redefine what is orthodox and what it not - vis-a-vis origins.

I have never challenged the authority of scripture.

Additionally, I have never questioned the faithfulness or the 'Christianity' of any Christian member during my time on this board.

Care to re-state yourself?

Now if you want to talk about New Testament theology I suggest you dust off you Bible and compare John 1 with Genesis 1. Then we can talk about Hebrews 11 and the other texts you are trying to bury in this thread with your pointless rationalizations.

Good grief, Mark, is everyone who disagrees with you an ignorant heathen?

There is nothing more orthodox to New Testament theology then the New Testament itself. In Christian theism the Scriptures are definitive authortity with regards to doctrine and redemptive history.

Yes, but not in regards to science or history as we know them in the modern sense.

Nor is it necessarily an orthodox view that the revelation of scripture has more authority than the revelation of Creation.

Look at the Creed. What does it say about scripture?

Now I know why young earth creationism is so incoherent to you guys, you don't have a clue what the implications of the New Testament are.

It only appears incoherent because each of its spokesman like to assert themselves with such authority, but in the process contradict themselves.

There is an element in your posts that suggest that you have taken personal offense at what appears to be having your faith labeled as incoherent, and that this perception has struck at a root.

I don't believe that that was the intent of anyone, and is more likely an unfortunate effect of attmepting to communicate through such limited means.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)

excuse me, but isn't hell, all ghastliness and horror? i don't see YECists protesting God's creation and using hell as thing unbecoming of the nature of God.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think - as in it's only your opinion, Mark.

We will see.

Let's look at the Creed shall we:

Indeed we shall.

Tell me how you justify reading naturalistic processes out of the Creed.

No problem.

If anything the Creed re-affirms my position and the general position of most TEs - that the Genesis account is about establishing God as the Father Creator and the source of Creation, not for establishing how creation was done. Otherwise the early church fathers would have included an affirmation of a six-day Creation. But they didn't. Wonder why?

Do you have any idea what is missing from your statement that is missing from theirs? The fact is the explicit statement of fact that God created the heavens and the earth...period.

Forgive me.

That was just a dig, don't worry about it.

Are you accusing me of abandoning scriptural authority?

Would you like to quote and cite it now?

I have challenged how the format of scripture has influence our perspective on scripture.

Formating is a powerfull argument, what is wrong with how the words are arranged?

I have challenged how scripture is translated and interpreted.

That is fine, what particular passage do you have a problem with?

I have challenged how certain Christians attempt to assert their views on others and redefine what is orthodox and what it not - vis-a-vis origins.

I apologize, I don't have certain Christians available right now, you will have to settle for me.

I have never challenged the authority of scripture.

You have never related it to anything historical either.

Additionally, I have never questioned the faithfulness or the 'Christianity' of any Christian member during my time on this board.

I will take your word for it since the whole thread seems to indicate an underlying suspicion of the theology of YEC.

Care to re-state yourself?

I have been as clear as I need to be.

Good grief, Mark, is everyone who disagrees with you an ignorant heathen?

Only when they challenge my theological foundation for my YEC views.

Yes, but not in regards to science or history as we know them in the modern sense.

So modern Christian theology has nothing to do with either of those things right?

Nor is it necessarily an orthodox view that the revelation of scripture has more authority than the revelation of Creation.

Nor is it necessarily an orthodox view for them to have less.

Look at the Creed. What does it say about scripture?

What is your point?

It only appears incoherent because each of its spokesman like to assert themselves with such authority, but in the process contradict themselves.

The Scriptures make a very potent authority and it is unfortunate that TEs abandon it so quick.

There is an element in your posts that suggest that you have taken personal offense at what appears to be having your faith labeled as incoherent, and that this perception has struck at a root.

Trust me when I tell you that the personal offenses so far have barely managed to shake the leaves.

I don't believe that that was the intent of anyone, and is more likely an unfortunate effect of attmepting to communicate through such limited means.

If you mean by 'limited means' that I am not impressed that you abandoned the New Testament, you are exactly right. Now if you are intersted in talking theology you are going to have to dust off your Bible and talk to me on the issues. Otherwise we can do this ping pong battle as long as you are feeling up to it.

Grace and peace,
Mark