Majority

[herev]

I do agree that YEC is heavily in the US. But to say that it is rooted is dispensationalism or some reformation stuff is simply untrue. Most of the Orthodox I know are also YEC, and we have not been heavily involved with the west for but a short time.

I'll have to say if you are Orthodox, I cannot argue over your doctrine. It does not match my experience with Orthodox Christians. From my understanding, the Orthodox church believes that God created ex-nihilo (out of nothing). I am not aware of any other orthodox teaching that requires or even suggests one way or another. Since, as a TE, I also believe in creation ex-nihilo, I see this as open to either. One source says:
http://christiansaware.faithweb.com/Eastern_Orthodoxy1.htm

The Doctrine of Creation

The Orthodox church believes in creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing); that is, God alone has existence in Himself; everything else has its existence through Him. Eastern Christianity believes the whole creation came into existence because of a free and loving act of the Triune God. Despite the fact that the Orthodox church never systematized its doctrine of the relationship between the Creator and creation, it seems the views of Athanasius and Maximus the Confessor42 are generally endorsed.

Athanasius distinguished between the will of God and the nature of God. Creation is an act of His will. God is free to create or not to create, and He remains transcendent to the world. By nature the Father generates the Son, who is not a creature but shares the same nature (ousia) with the Father.43

Divine nature and created nature are separate and dissimilar modes of existence. Creatures exist "by the grace of His grace, His will, and His word...so that they even cease to exist if the Creator so wishes."44 The doctrine of Creation as expressed by Athanasius leads to a distinction in God between His transcendent essence and His properties, such as power or goodness. As Meyendorff puts it, "Because God is what he is, He is not determined or in any way limited in what He does, not even by His own essence and being."45 God's creative act brought into being another nature distinct from His own and worthy of God's love and concern and fundamentally "very good."

To express the relationship between the Creator and creation, Maximus borrowed the Neo-Platonic46 concepts of logos and logoi. The divine Logos (Reason) is the center and the living unity of the logoi (reasons) of creation. The temporal existence of created beings centers in the one Logos. Every created thing is endowed with its "energy" or movement. Meyendorff asserts, "The proper movement of nature, however, can be fully itself only if [it] follows its proper goal (skopos), which consists in striving for God, entering into communion with Him, and thus fulfilling the logos, or divine purpose, through which and for which it is created."47

Creatures do not simply receive their form and diversity from God; He has also given them an energy of their own. This leads to the theory of the "double movement," that is, through the Divine Logos the Creator moves toward creation and through its logoi creation moves toward its Creator. In its natural condition creation is not opposed to God, but moves toward Him in order to participate in God's uncreated energies; that is, to be deified or to attain to its perfection. This co-operation reaches a special level in man, who was created in the image of God.

However the doctrine that creationism is THE ONLY means of approaching Genesis is rooted squarely in dispensationalistic, fundamentalist views that took hold in this country starting after the second great awakening in the early 1800's and going through the early 1900's

I would be curious, though to see other orthodox posters' opinions as I am always open to learning.
By the way, as both Orthodox and RC doctrines rely heavily on Church Fathers for clarification, it seems unusual that a doctrine that elevates the Biblical word over reason or physical evidence would be preferred.
Anyway, thanks for the post--very interesting

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Sure. I am aware that Orthodoxy allows for TE, I just know of none personally that are not YEC. I have, however, heard of a few people online who are TE, but I am sure they are the minority by far.

 

[herev]

Sure. I am aware that Orthodoxy allows for TE, I just know of none personally that are not YEC. I have, however, heard of a few people online who are TE, but I am sure they are the minority by far.

First, let me say this is VERY UNSCIENTIFIC, but out of curiousity, I just went to the Ancient Way forum, checked the profile of each person in the forum at the time, plus all of the moderators in the forum
Results:
1 Old Earth Creation
1 Young Earth Creation
2 Theistic Evolution
3 no comment at all
4 how should I say--non committal (ie: God did it, spaghetti and meatballs, etc)
interesting

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I bet spaghetti and meatballs means YEC

 

[herev]

I bet spaghetti and meatballs means YEC

lol

 

[PaladinValer]

Eastern Orthodox isn't primary YEC. They have no problem with the theory of evolution in the slightest.

YECism is strictly, as already stated, a dispensationalist/fundamentalist phenomenon. It doesn't exist much elsewhere.

TE is by far the more popular belief.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

You can't forget however the TE is a very new position. YEC was the primary position before modern times if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Bushido216]

You can't forget however the TE is a very new position. YEC was the primary position before modern times if I'm not mistaken.

YEC / OEC, but yes.

 

[PaladinValer]

So what? Do you even know the doctrinal statements of the Eastern Orthodox Church about Biblical inerrancy? They are the same as my Anglican Church or the Vatican Catholic Church (among others, particularly Old Catholics and Wesleyan Traditions):

Scripture contains everything necessary for salvation and is authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. No where does it say that the Bible must be historically valid in every detail.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

No where does it say that the Bible must be historically valid in every detail.

Of course not, but if some standard is not adhered to, then every single person can interpret the Bible anyway they want, with no regard to what it actually says. And that is precisely what has been happening; look at all the denominations.

 

[PaladinValer]

I just gave the standard.

And Holy Tradition, just like Holy Scripture, deals with just issues of morality and belief. Most Eastern Orthodox folks would take great offense if someone where to use it for worldly things, such as the debate over evolution.

 

[seebs]

I tried a poll a while ago and found out that despite what OEC's and Evolutionists say, YEC's are the majority among Christians. This may only be true in this forum but I've heard of similar polls elsewhere and they indicate the same thing.

This forum has a very strongly disproportionate representation of Americans and conservative/fundamentalist believers. Worldwide, the statistics are pretty different.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

And Holy Tradition, just like Holy Scripture, deals with just issues of morality and belief. Most Eastern Orthodox folks would take great offense if someone where to use it for worldly things, such as the debate over evolution.

Yes, I agree. Nowhere in our Tradition is a view on this defined. However, I was commenting on issues in general on that last post, not this issue

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Worldwide, the statistics are pretty different.

I hope I didn't miss this, but is their a poll that has a representative sample of the world on this?

 

[PaladinValer]

Its pretty much common sense.

Take into account that about 70% of Christians (perhaps more) are not Scriptural inerrantists/sola scripturians.
Also take into account that probably 90% of that chunk honors Holy Tradition as the Early Church did.

When you add up the numbers, most likely, one can logically assume that most Christians are TEs.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Also take into account that probably 90% of that chunk honors Holy Tradition as the Early Church did.

That's a very high number. I'd think more that didn't honor Holy Tradition would be TE anyways.

 

[meebs]

This forum has a very strongly disproportionate representation of Americans and conservative/fundamentalist believers. Worldwide, the statistics are pretty different.

Conservatism and fundamentilism are growing in the UK, quite fast.

 

[GodSaves]

Its pretty much common sense.

Take into account that about 70% of Christians (perhaps more) are not Scriptural inerrantists/sola scripturians.
Also take into account that probably 90% of that chunk honors Holy Tradition as the Early Church did.

When you add up the numbers, most likely, one can logically assume that most Christians are TEs.

Quite sad that so many aren't so reliant on the Bible - Sola Scriptura. The early church was, as well as Paul, Peter, John, James, and the rest of the Apostles.

And when you say follow Holy Tradition, well how many Holy Traditions do we have with the thousands of denominations out there. And for those who are so quick to snub their noses down on reformation, the Bible wouldn't be here for you to read for yourself if it wasn't for the reformation.

You know the best way for the devil to tear down the Christian faith? To work from within the church itself, tearing down belief after belief until it has become so liberal that no one can dispute whatever you consider to be truth. Apostacy is already here running rampid.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Quite sad that so many aren't so reliant on the Bible - Sola Scriptura. The early church was, as well as Paul, Peter, John, James, and the rest of the Apostles.

And when you say follow Holy Tradition, well how many Holy Traditions do we have with the thousands of denominations out there. And for those who are so quick to snub their noses down on reformation, the Bible wouldn't be here for you to read for yourself if it wasn't for the reformation.

You know the best way for the devil to tear down the Christian faith? To work from within the church itself, tearing down belief after belief until it has become so liberal that no one can dispute whatever you consider to be truth. Apostacy is already here running rampid.

1) The Bible (NT) wasn't canonized until a few hundred years after the Apostles were dead. They used the OTa lot, but primarily used oral tradition.

2) Printing presses allowed everyone to have Bibles. The Reformation just happened to coincide.

3) Or you could say that those that leave the Church were never in it. It makes far more sense that way I believe.

 

[artybloke]

Quite sad that so many aren't so reliant on the Bible - Sola Scriptura. The early church was, as well as Paul, Peter, John, James, and the rest of the Apostles.

The early church - especially the church of the Apostles - didn't have a canon of Scripture. They had the Septuagint, and various other documents floating around - but the canon of scripture was decided upon by Church Council several centuries after the church of the Apostles had transmogrified into the One Holy Catholic Church.

It was the Church that created Scripture, not the other way around.