Calvinist views on origins?

[Oye11]

This may not be the easiest question to ask, but what is the most common view among your more conservative Calvinists? We know the list, new Earth or old earth creation, theistic evolution, etc. Thanks!

 

[Defcon]

According to the Westminster Confession (which most Reformed Christians recognize), the Bible teaches Creation took place in 6 literal days.

I am one who agrees with the above. Theistic Evolution, Old Earth theories, etc. hold man's scientific presuppositions over the clear teaching of Scripture. Man is to come to Bible FIRST, then interpret evidences in light of that. For who are we to teach God?

Here's a link you may find helpful if you are interested in the Reformed view: http://www.the-highway.com/creation_Gentry.html

 

[Beoga]

^I agree with Defcon, and I like Gentry's article.

 

[Oye11]

According to the Westminster Confession (which most Reformed Christians recognize), the Bible teaches Creation took place in 6 literal days.

I am one who agrees with the above. Theistic Evolution, Old Earth theories, etc. hold man's scientific presuppositions over the clear teaching of Scripture. Man is to come to Bible FIRST, then interpret evidences in light of that. For who are we to teach God?

Here's a link you may find helpful if you are interested in the Reformed view: http://www.the-highway.com/creation_Gentry.html

Thanks a lot. I read the link. I also looked around some and we have Sproul on board with progressive, MacArthur seems to be a variety of new earth....

 

[heymikey80]

This may not be the easiest question to ask, but what is the most common view among your more conservative Calvinists? We know the list, new Earth or old earth creation, theistic evolution, etc. Thanks!

Conservative Reformed theology is largely represented by 6 24-hour day creationists.

However, even conservative Reformed theology adds to the list. The Klinean view asserts a "2-register" view, that the days are actually representative of heaven's perspective and thus aren't subject to the idea of a solar day.

The primary block keeping me from 24-hour day creationism is the First Day. The Hebrew day began with an evening, and everyone agrees that darkness was over the deep for an infinity past. So the First Day -- by Hebrew reckoning -- was infinite in time.

 

[Defcon]

Thanks a lot. I read the link. I also looked around some and we have Sproul on board with progressive, MacArthur seems to be a variety of new earth....

Not sure about MacArthur, but Sproul at a time did not adhere to a literal, 6-day creation. However, he has since changed to the literal 6-day creation viewpoint.

 

[Oye11]

All interesting stuff gentleman. I highly respect R.C. Sproul`s ministry and his ability to intellectually defend his positions. Is anyone familiar with any publications by him where he outlines a literal 6 day view? Has he debated any secular scientists?

 

[Defcon]

I don't know about Sproul personally writing about this topic but according to this website (half way down the page):
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/facts/creation/general/nodeath.html

The book that changed his mind was Creation and Change by Doug Kelly. (It's definitely on my list of desired reading - haven't got there yet though ).

 

[Oye11]

I don't know about Sproul personally writing about this topic but according to this website (half way down the page):
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/facts/creation/general/nodeath.html

The book that changed his mind was Creation and Change by Doug Kelly. (It's definitely on my list of desired reading - haven't got there yet though ).

Ahhh that link is the best piece of information I`ve found... This issue is huge to say the least. Thanks.

 

[picnic]

Personally I'm an old earther but unsure what position I hold within that. Geological and astronomical data point to an old earth. Trying to fit scientific data to a literal six day creation presupposes that Genesis 1 tells the literal scientific truth, which we can't be sure that it does.

 

[Defcon]

Personally I'm an old earther but unsure what position I hold within that. Geological and astronomical data point to an old earth. Trying to fit scientific data to a literal six day creation presupposes that Genesis 1 tells the literal scientific truth, which we can't be sure that it does.

Not to start an argument here, but your response implies 'scientific data' is the objective truth. The reality is a) you presuppose that the secular estimates of the age of the earth are accurate and then read that back into Scripture or b) you presuppose God's word is infallible and then interpret scientific data.

There is no objective party on earth - it's what presuppositions you bring to the issue that derives the authority you submit to.

 

[Oye11]

I personally do not know what to make of it. Big thing is it`s hard to imagine the races of the world developing over a few 1000 years. If anyone can help with that, let me know...

The reason I am a Christian is because of the O.T. prophecies fulfilled in Christ. That data isn`t going anywhere and when the subject shifts there it is the skeptic that struggles... I have encountered God through revelation and there is no way I can deny it.

 

[Defcon]

I personally do not know what to make of it. Big thing is it`s hard to imagine the races of the world developing over a few 1000 years. If anyone can help with that, let me know...

A good place to start: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/OneBlood/index.asp

 

[Oye11]

A good place to start: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/OneBlood/index.asp

Thanks a lot. I want to read or hear Ken Ham in a debate.

 

[Oye11]

Here is one here with an evolutionist, in audio.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4136.asp

 

[GodsElect]

That was a pretty heated debate!

If evolution was true......I really NEED TO grow myself some WINGS to fly everywhere!!! because gas prices are WAY TOO HIGH!!!

You think if I close my eyes, and think REALLY HARD I can evolve to be able to fly instead of drive? OOH wait........I think I feel something......yes...yes...uhhhhh wait that was just my back flaring up again. Darn! I'll never be able to fly!

 

[Oye11]

Yea the debate was too short though, only about an hour with a lot of commerical breaks. And the lady scientist wasn`t very forceful and let Ham talk over her and dominate. Hey brothers, I`m not an evolutionist but at present do not have enough faith to believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. If I need that faith, pray that I get it...

 

[James1979]

When the flood began, it was 6023 years from the day of Creation, so the earth is a lot older than 6000 years old.

6023 years is from adding the bloodline from Adam to Noah, comes to 6023. Its tricky at first but its very accurate.

 

[Imblessed]

I've decided to not worry about it. How's that for side-stepping? I really have no problem with either belief.

I draw the line at evolution. Period. I can handle evolution within a species, but any other is preposterous. Trevor and I have recently spoken about that because he's taken to watching Discovery Channel's Ultimate Guide to the Awesome, and they push evolution like crazy. I just explained to him that scientists, while they get a lot of things right, don't generally believe in God so they have no other way of explaining the wonders of the world. Their only recourse is to guess, and make science fit their theories. At first he didn't want to watch the shows any more, but I told him he can still learn a lot from the shows, he just needs to know that they don't get everything right.

all this started because he was telling me how he learned that birds evolved from the dinosaurs and reptiles. I told him he was wrong and he got mad at me because I was contradicting the SCIENTISTS--who know everything! I took him to the Bible and showed him where God says He made birds--not reptiles that turned into birds, just birds. That got him really thinking, and wondering if he could believe ANYTHING scientists say now.....

Trevor is 7, and loves learning about animals and stuff, but it's hard when they teach evolution like it's not even debatable.


ah well, off topic I guess........

 

[Oye11]

I've decided to not worry about it. How's that for side-stepping? I really have no problem with either belief.

I draw the line at evolution. Period. I can handle evolution within a species, but any other is preposterous. ....

That`s basically where I stand. Here is a link to many audio lectures and debates on the topic. My favorite is the last on the list, "Hugh Ross on Tom Kimmel Live"...

http://www.reasons.org/resources/mu...in#young_earth-universe_vs_old_earth-universe