What denomination?

[jereth]

A poll to see what denomination YECs come from.
There is a corresponding poll in the TE sub-forum.

 

[ChetSinger]

Grace Brethren.

 

[FallingWaters]

I was a non-denominational charismatic when I became a YEC, but I belong to a Baptist church now. Most of my favorite teachers on the radio are Baptist or Presbyterian.

 

[ttreg]

are u talking about what i originall was or what i am now

 

[Defcon]

Reformed.

 

[Knees]

Brethren

 

[FallingWaters]

are u talking about what i originall was or what i am now

Whichever one you feel more devoted to, or both if you can't decide.

 

[laptoppop]

I go to a Grace Brethren church - but I'm a rebel. Does that count? <grin>

 

[ttreg]

i voted other i am Seventh Day Adventist

 

[Mallon]

I'm almost surprised there aren't more Seventh Day Adventists here given the fact that modern-day creationism has its roots in Seventh Day Adventism and George McCready Price.

 

[Driver]

Presbyterian.

 

[IisJustMe]

I'm almost surprised there aren't more Seventh Day Adventists here given the fact that modern-day creationism has its roots in Seventh Day Adventism and George McCready Price.

"Modern-day creationism" has its roots in the Bible. Period. The concept of a six-day, literal creation at the hand and word of God was taught for thousands of years before evolutionary theory.

 

[IisJustMe]

I have found 11 different organized denominations of Baptists listed on the web, ranging from very conservative and fundamental, to very charismatic and almost pentecostal. I find the SBC to be the most comfortable for me.

 

[Mallon]

"Modern-day creationism" has its roots in the Bible. Period. The concept of a six-day, literal creation at the hand and word of God was taught for thousands of years before evolutionary theory.

I respectfully beg to differ. Please refer to Ronald Numbers' The Creationists for an account on the modern creation movement.

 

[IisJustMe]

I respectfully beg to differ. Please refer to Ronald Numbers' The Creationists for an account on the modern creation movement.

... Numbers' work is his opinion of where the "modern creation movement" came from. Most of the ancient Jews had no doubt the Penteuch taught a literal six-day creation. Paul had no question about a literal six-day creation being biblical fact -- it is, after all what Gameliel taught. In point of fact, there is no such thing as a "modern creation movment" as it is the biblically supported truth, not a "movement" like Pentecostalism or some similar modern doctrine that seemingly sprang up from nothingness. Its roots truly are in the Bible, and before Darwin and the beginnings of post-modernsts desperate seeking for anything non-biblical to explain everything, no viable concept to do so existed.

That's still the case.

 

[Mallon]

... Numbers' work is his opinion of where the "modern creation movement" came from.

Well, I don't mean to debate, but if you actually read the book, you will see his "opinion" is backed by hundreds of sources, references and personal commentaries. It's a well-researched book. Even Henry Morris himself approved of the piece. He endorsed it on the back cover.

Its roots truly are in the Bible, and before Darwin and the beginnings of post-modernsts desperate seeking for anything non-biblical to explain everything, no viable concept to do so existed.

Agreed. They used to subscribe to a cessile Earth with circular orbits, too. We used to believe a lot of things which we now know to be wrong. And while I agree with you that creationism has its roots in the Bible (though many, including Augustine, did not think so) "modern-day" creation apologetics regarding canopy theory, catastrophic plate tectonics, flood geology and the like are all rooted in turn-of-the-century fundamentalist evangelical thinking. I will respect the rules of this forum, however, and not debate this point any further (I never meant to to begin with). You can either check the book out for yourself or continue to deny the fact.

 

[jereth]

I'm almost surprised there aren't more Seventh Day Adventists here given the fact that modern-day creationism has its roots in Seventh Day Adventism and George McCready Price.

Interesting fact #455429

Despite the fact that modern YECism finds its roots in an SDA writer, the SDA church now favours the gap (or two-stage creation) theory.

See:
http://www.grisda.org/teachers/faq.htm#AGE OF THE EARTH
http://www.grisda.org/teachers/faq.htm#CREATION WEEK
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-06.htm

What Are the "Heavens"? Some people are puzzled, and understandably so, by the verses that say that God "created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1; cf. 2:1; Ex. 20:11) and that He made the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day of Creation week 6, 000 years ago (Gen. 1:14-19). Were all heavenly bodies brought into existence at that time?
Creation week did not involve the heaven that God has dwelt in from eternity. The "heavens" of Genesis 1 and 2 probably refer to our sun and its system of planets.

1. How old is the Earth?
Most scientists believe the Earth is about 4.5 billion (4,500,000,000) years old. This figure is based on radiometric dating. Many creationists believe the Earth is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old. This figure is based on the chronologies in Genesis. Some creationists believe that this question is not very important; perhaps the minerals were created at one time and life was created at a different time. The Bible does not give an age for the Earth, nor is any theological point drawn from the age of the Earth, so it may not be as important as some of the other issues.

4. How can creationists explain radiometric dates of many millions of years?
Creationists do not have an adequate explanation. Some possibilities have been proposed,2 but they are not compelling because they do not explain why the lower layers generally give older dates than the upper layers. The first possibility is that the rocks of the earth are very old because the planet was created long before life was placed on it. This theory proposes that Genesis refers only to the creation of life on the planet, and not to the creation of the planet itself. This can be called the two-stage creation hypothesis. organisms.

1. What was created on the first day of creation week?
God said, "Let there be light." (Genesis 1:3). ...
Another possible explanation of the light is that the sun and solar system actually existed before creation week, but the light was obscured so that Earth's surface was dark. Earth at that time might be compared with Venus, where the thick atmosphere obscures the sun's light. On the first day, the atmosphere was cleared sufficiently to permit light to reach the Earth's surface.

2. What was created on the fourth day of creation week?
God said "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night...."...


If our solar system existed before the creation week, as some creationists think is probable, then apparently the sun itself was not visible until the fourth day. This might be explained as due to atmospheric cloud cover, permitting diffuse light to reach the surface, but not revealing the source of that light. On the fourth day, perhaps the atmosphere was cleared to permit the sun and moon to be seen for the first time.
Another possible interpretation is that the sun and moon existed prior to that time, but on the fourth day they were "appointed" to specific functions relative to the Earth.
The phrase, "he made the stars also" does not require that God created the stars ex nihilo on the fourth day of creation. Some creationists have held that the entire universe, or at least the visible portion, was created on the fourth day. The text permits this reading, but does not require it. "The stars also" is merely a parenthetical phrase in which God is identified as the creator of the stars without identifying when this was accomplished. The text appears to permit the interpretation that the stars were already in existence, perhaps with planets inhabited by other created intelligences.

 

[sjdennis]

I put down other, because I don't identify myself with anyone. My family 5 generations ago were Anglican. They came to New Zealand, saw the light and became Methodists. They then saw more of the light and became Baptists! Now, through various issues ranging from creation to the church position on communist-controlled ministers to the Holy Spirit, the last three generations (my father, grandfather and myself) no longer identify ourselves with the Baptist church either.

I am a Christian. I do not call myself any denomination, for to do so would be to suggest that I agree with the official teachings of that denomination. And I do not know what every single official teaching of any denomination is, so I cannot honestly say that I agree with all of them.

1 Corinthians 1:10-13
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

I see no need to identify myself as following a particular set of teachings, rather I follow as closely as I can understand to the teachings of Christ. As my understanding improves, I can follow Him closer.

 

[sjdennis]

Interesting fact #455429

Despite the fact that modern YECism finds its roots in an SDA writer, the SDA church now favours the gap (or two-stage creation) theory.

See:
http://www.grisda.org/teachers/faq.htm#AGE OF THE EARTH
http://www.grisda.org/teachers/faq.htm#CREATION WEEK
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-06.htm

This is very typical of the official teachings on origins pushed by many denominations. This is another reason I do not identify with a particular denomination - most of them push Gap or TE in their seminaries, and I am a YEC. I cannot appear to support seminaries that push these beliefs.

 

[sjdennis]

Reporting progress in TE poll - most over there so far are Lutheran (5), Presbyterian (3) or Other (6) at this stage. No baptists at all! Quite a stark contrast to here (as I am writing this poll has 0 Luth, 1 Pres, 5 Bap and 3 Other). Very, very interesting.