YECism and Sabbatarianism

[jereth]

Although I have realized the problems with the literalist view of YEC, I would just like to say that I think this is an over statement. I spent many, many years of my life in fully YEC churches that spent a lot more time teaching the lessons of Genesis than the literalism and/or their creation-science approach.

Thanks for pointing this out, Pats. I guess my remarks were referring specifically to "vocal", or perhaps "reactionary" YECists ( i.e. those who react against old-earth/evolutionary teaching) such as the people at AiG. But what is truly sad is that the creation-evolution debate has so polarised the church, and consequently popular YECism has become a crusade for historical accuracy, leaving theological truth in a distant second place.

Here is a particularly tragic example of what I (and rmwilliamsll) are talking about. This is from A critique of the literary framework view of the days of creation, an essay by Andrew S. Kulikovsky
http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/Framework.pdf

Advocates of the Literary Framework view consider the Gap Theory and the Day-Age Theory inadequate, yet they are still convinced that the claims of modern biology, geology and astronomy are true. Therefore, a non-concordist view is taken; Genesis 1 is not meant to be harmonised with science. Rather, it is a literary arrangement used to communicate a theology of the Sabbath, not a literal historical account. Although the days should be understood as ordinary 24-hour days, they form part of a larger figurative whole. Blocher believes the form of Genesis 1-2 is exactly what would be expected if the author wanted to communicate such a view. However, it is presumptuous to assume that a particular author living in a vastly different culture and at a time far removed from the present, would write according to 20th century expectations. In addition, if this is all Genesis 1 intends to communicate, it leaves an abundance of “spare” data. Why is there so much excess detail?

[FONT=&quot]
and

[/FONT]

There is no doubt that Genesis makes a theological contribution – its mere presence in the Bible confirms this. But to say that Genesis is primarily theological rather than historical is to set up a false dichotomy: history and theology are not mutually exclusive. Given the structure and unity of Genesis, and the clearly historical nature of the later chapters, there would have to be substantial evidence in the text in order to conclude that the early chapters are not equally historical, yet no such evidence can be found. H. C. Leupold contends that the creation account is complete and satisfactory
from every point of view, although it does not answer every curiosity. Indeed, if all Genesis 1-2 communicates is that God is creator of all, then the first verse would be enough.

Emphases added. Note that what Kulikovsky is basically saying is this: if Genesis 1-2 is not a historical account, then it is just a waste of space. All that the author needed to write was "in the beginning, God made everything" (i.e. Genesis 1:1); the rest of Gen 1-2 is just useless crapping on.

This just demonstrates the utter folly of extremist YECism which cannot see anything beyond the "literal historical" details.

Where does the Genesis account teach vegetarianism?

Most YECists argue that animal death was not part of the original, "very good" creation, and is contrary to God's purpose. Animal death only began after the Fall, they say.

If someone really believes that animal death is wrong, and displeasing to God, shouldn't they be a vegetarian? (Interestingly, Seventh-day Adventists are both sabbatarian and vegetarian -- they are one of the few groups who are true to their literalist understanding of Genesis)

 

[MattyJames]

Hello to all.

This debate is totally new to me. There are a lot of arguments and words that are going straight over my head. Despite this, a lot is sticking, and thankyou all for the thread.

A few questions to get me started.

YEC = Young Earth Creationists??
TE = ??

What I have gleaned so far...If YEC are to take Gen 1 litterally, then they must also observe the Sabbath. If they make the claim that 'if we discredit the literal reading of Gen 1, then we discredit the whole bible.', then they must also believe that if we discredit the Sabbath, then we must also discredit the whole bible?
Therefore, in order to be true to their theory, they must observe the literal 7th day Sabbath?

And I assume that thoes who are critizing the YEC are not Sabbath observent?

How am I going??

Thanks,

Matt James

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If YEC are to take Gen 1 litterally, then they must also observe the Sabbath.
...
Therefore, in order to be true to their theory, they must observe the literal 7th day Sabbath?


This is a bit stronger than the argument i've tried to make.

The argument is:
it literal is the proper hermeneutic for Gen 1,
then the Sabbath is the most important single idea in Gen 1,
for it forms not just a central idea but the very framework of the chapter.
Therefore in a church teaching YECism we ought to hear lots of things about the Sabbath.

The fact is that most YECist come from non-observing Sabbath churches which for historical reasons not only do not practice the Sabbath but don't even give the constellation of ideas surrounding it much thought.

The Sabbath is much more then just a 7th day observation.
my evidence is the great campaign in the US to ban Sunday delivery of mail in 1828 which was a huge attempt on behalf of all evangelical churches which were consistently Sabbatarian.

My interest is in how this Sabbatarianism was lost, the meaning of Gen 1 switch just to science and historical terms depreciating the complexity of the theological issues that were important to Christians just a few hundred years ago. As a symptom of the interesting scientism not just in the general society but in the church as well. truth begins to be just and only those things that can be expressed in strictly scentific and historical terms.

And I assume that thoes who are critizing the YEC are not Sabbath observent?


for myself, in am a member of a Sabbatarian church but do not understand the requirements in the same way as does my community. Which is why i am particularly interested in the issue, beyond the interest i have in 19thC american presbyterian history.

 

[jereth]

Hello to all.

G'day Matty.

YEC = Young Earth Creationists??
TE = ??

YEC = Young Earth Creationist
OEC = Old Earth Creationist
TE = Theistic Evolutionist

After a while you get used to the abbreviations

What I have gleaned so far...If YEC are to take Gen 1 litterally, then they must also observe the Sabbath. If they make the claim that 'if we discredit the literal reading of Gen 1, then we discredit the whole bible.', then they must also believe that if we discredit the Sabbath, then we must also discredit the whole bible?
Therefore, in order to be true to their theory, they must observe the literal 7th day Sabbath?

I agree with what rmwilliams has said -- if YECists are so insistent on the literal-historical interpretation of Genesis 1, they should provide very good justification for disregarding the observance of the sabbath. As a general rule, they do not provide such justification -- they simply do not speak about this issue. Which leads us to question whether their insistence on the literal-historical interpretation is driven by a desire to adhere strictly to the biblical text (as they claim), or in fact by a scientific agenda.

And I assume that thoes who are critizing the YEC are not Sabbath observent?

Similar to rmwilliamsll, I grew up in a strongly sabbatarian church, which argued on the basis of Genesis 1 that the Sabbath is written into the fabric of creation itself, and the need to take 1 day off in 7 is built into the human constitution from creation. I now attend an Anglican church and am no longer a sabbatarian.

 

[MattyJames]

Thanks gentlemen,

Althought I'm still not sure what your agenda is...give it to me in very simplictic terms.

Are you suggesting that the Sabbath should be focused on more by those parties that are pushing YEC? and by sabbath, you refer to one day in seven, not the Seventh Day Sabbath (SDA, Judaisim).?

If so, what theological implications are you suggesting? Should the Church become more consistently focused on the Sabbath, as it was 50 odd year ago? Or are you suggesting that the Seventh Day Sabbath (SDA) should be brought back onto the discussion table?

Just trying to stay with your thoughts.

Thanks for the answers, I am finding this a rather enlightening discussion.

My regards,

Matt James

 

[jereth]

Thanks gentlemen,

No problem!

Althought I'm still not sure what your agenda is...give it to me in very simplictic terms.

Are you suggesting that the Sabbath should be focused on more by those parties that are pushing YEC?

Speaking for myself, I guess my agenda is not to demand that YECists start keeping the sabbath. It is simply to point out yet another problem/inconsistency with their overall belief system. I am a former YECist, and now regard YECism as a serious theological error (which has damaged and continues to damage the mission of the Church), and that is why I become so passionately involved in this debate.

and by sabbath, you refer to one day in seven, not the Seventh Day Sabbath (SDA, Judaisim).?

Depends how far you want to push it! At the very least, YECism should go hand-in-hand with the observance of 1 day in 7 as a sabbath. Very strictly speaking, I think it should be the seventh-day sabbath (i.e. friday sunset to saturday sunset), since the point of Genesis 1 is that God rested on the seventh day, which is saturday.

If so, what theological implications are you suggesting? Should the Church become more consistently focused on the Sabbath, as it was 50 odd year ago? Or are you suggesting that the Seventh Day Sabbath (SDA) should be brought back onto the discussion table?

Well, I personally believe that the Genesis 1 creation week is a literary device written in an Israelite/Jewish context, and is an exposition/explanation of the 4th commandment. It is not a historical or scientific record. Science has shown conclusively that the universe was not created in 6 days. The sabbath was part of the Law of Moses which is fulfilled in Christ, and which Christians under the New Covenant are not obliged to observe.

Thanks for the answers, I am finding this a rather enlightening discussion.

No problem! I'm only too happy to have a good discussion!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Althought I'm still not sure what your agenda is...give it to me in very simplictic terms.


i don't really have an agenda. i'm interesting in understanding the issues, the issue of the Sabbath shows the scientism of modern YECism much more clearly than anything else i've looked at, with the possible exception of why YECists aren't geocentrics in general.

But the geocentric discussion always seems to be about science so it just isn't as persuasive as the Sabbath which is more clearly theological in nature.

But in any case, my interest is in elucidating proper hermeneutic techniques, for if the Scriptures are the Word of God, then it really is important to listen to what they are really saying, not what we wish them to say.

The Princeton theology, of which both my church and my theology are deeply influenced, for after Calvin i have read more widely in Warfield than any other single theologian i can think of, has this problem with scientism and common sense realism. Which is the source of our troubles with Gen 1 in particular.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If so, what theological implications are you suggesting? Should the Church become more consistently focused on the Sabbath, as it was 50 odd year ago? Or are you suggesting that the Seventh Day Sabbath (SDA) should be brought back onto the discussion table?


My understanding of presbytery ordination exams is that the exception to the Sabbath, in particular, the recreation clause is the most common request, exceeding even the YECist pieces exceptions.

Sabbatarianism is a far wider and more important issue than 7th day worship, the better idea is to see the Sabbath as a creation ordinance versus an important element of the Mosaic covenant. As a creation ordinance it is not fulfilled in Christ, like the family, marriage, origin of the state etc are creation ordinances (or mandates) and therefore explicitly given to all people.

The greater issue is the idea of the two tablets, whether the civil magistrate is empowered to enforce just the 2nd or both the 2nd and the 1st. If the Sabbath is a creation ordinance then the magistrate is responsible to enforce it, therefore Sunday closing laws and the 19thC sunday mail campaigns. All that has changed since the Resurrection is the particulars of Sabbath keeping (day for example) not the command to keep it.

 

[Assyrian]

Although the writer of Hebrews saw the true Sabbath as God's rest we enter into by faith. The OT seventh day observance was just a shadow of the real rest God was calling them into. But then the writer wasn't exactly interpreting Genesis literally.

 

[MattyJames]

Thanks to all,

as I reflect on what I have learn't thus far, I shall now add my little 2 bobs worth to the convo.

I am Messianic, as my symbol suggests, and therefore I believe in the literal Seventh Day sabbath observance, for both Jew and Gentile. And naturally, my support of such theory derives highly from the Gen 1 account of creation. Please do not think that I haven't heard of all texts cited by both sides of the argument, I have, and will not be pursuaded off of my conviction. I say such so as to prevent any future hopefull from wasting their time. I hope it is taken in the right spirit.

In light of the discussion I would consider myself a YECs. I have read a lot of material supporting this theory, but I will be open to say that I have not read much material that runs counter-claim to it. I would take all material into account, even though my understanding will only be influenced by scripture and scripture alone. As I see it, we are in the 5th Millenium since Gd spoke 'Let there be light'. I reject all claims of Evolution, as they point to a natural cause of exsistance, controlled by natural 'hit and miss' causes, thus denying the fact that everything was made 'perfect'. For even Gd say, 'behold it is very Good'. Not to mention the Creation of Man, 'And Gd breathed into his nostrils the breadth of life.' This text points to an immediate begining, with Man as the Supreeme ruler over the natural Earth.

Despite the above, I would like to hear some of your views in regards to YECism, and its faults. I am always open to a debate, even if I end up with 'Blind faith' taged on my forhead. lol

Once again, thanks for your time.

Regards,

Matt James

 

[artybloke]

I would take all material into account, even though my understanding will only be influenced by scripture and scripture alone.

This, I'm afraid, is the usual kind of fantasy indulged in by literalists.

1) Before you even approach scripture, you have already been influenced by the surrounding culture, in ways you're often not even aware of. Even the questions you ask of scripture (what does it have to say about genetic engineering, for instance) are culturally conditioned.

2) You are already making a big cultural presupposition - which is the "soft scientism" of most literalists - the idea that truth is only "real" truth if it is literal, historical truth. This is a very specific modernist rationalist approach to truth that the writers and first readers of the Bible would not have recognised.

3)

I am Messianic, as my symbol suggests, and therefore I believe in the literal Seventh Day sabbath observance, for both Jew and Gentile.

Now you have made another presupposition - again before you have actually reached scripture - that you are going to read it in line with your denomination's teaching. Fine, you are at perfect liberty to do so. But don't pretend this is scripture only. This is scripture as read through your church's traditions. In other words, scripture plus tradition.

No-one who breathes air in the 21st century is entirely free of cultural conditioning when reading any text, including the Bible. That's the reason that no-one has yet come up with an interpretation of it that holds for every single Christian, and why there are so many denominations.

 

[jereth]

I am Messianic, as my symbol suggests, and therefore I believe in the literal Seventh Day sabbath observance, for both Jew and Gentile. And naturally, my support of such theory derives highly from the Gen 1 account of creation.

I wholly respect the fact that the Sabbath is important to you, and is consistent with your personal interpretation of Genesis 1. I would be grateful if you could likewise respect my personal disagreement with YECism, and my personal choice, as a gentile Christian, not to observe the sabbath.

I am pleased to have you as my brother in Christ.

 

[MattyJames]

Hello again Sir's,

Although I dissagree with a few statements made, one the whole, I have to agree with the intent of your posts.

ArtyBloke, i haven't taken your post as a an attack on my faith, but would you consider that not all interpretations of scripture are right?

For example, If I was to say that Pedaphiliea is ok, would you not automatically 'assume' that it is not? Of course this is an extreem 'obvious' but lets think further than this...what about Homosexuality? What about Divorce?

Now, the point I make is that there is just as much scripture, if not more, that condemns the above practices, than what there is in comparison to Child abuse or Pedaphiliea (I think I'm spelling that wrong).

So, what one is left to reason is, that not every interpretation is correct. Therefore, it is scripture alone that can be the final judge.

Besides, would you disagree that the mindset that a literalist is trying to harbour, is one worth striving for? Afterall, if we were to acept that our interpretation will ALWYAS be subject to Cultral biases, then we most as well give up trying to achieve a correct interpretation at all. Your comments please.

Matt James

 

[jereth]

Besides, would you disagree that the mindset that a literalist is trying to harbour, is one worth striving for? Afterall, if we were to acept that our interpretation will ALWYAS be subject to Cultral biases, then we most as well give up trying to achieve a correct interpretation at all. Your comments please.
Matt James

I don't think that necessarily follows. Yes, our interpretation always will be subject to cultural biases -- there's no escaping that. But I believe that with diligence and the help of the Holy Spirit the church can still achieve an interpretation that closely approximates the teaching of scripture.

 

[artybloke]

I don't think that necessarily follows. Yes, our interpretation always will be subject to cultural biases -- there's no escaping that. But I believe that with diligence and the help of the Holy Spirit the church can still achieve an interpretation that closely approximates the teaching of scripture.

Matty:

I'd agree with this: we can get to something that closely aproximates it, but we can never be absolutely certain, just as there is no certainty of any scientific theory (there's always the possibility that new evidence will contradict it.)

Absolute certainty is neither possible, nor desirable. Absolute certainty crashes planes into buildings, invades countries looking for non-existent weapons, kills gay people because "the Bible says it's wrong," bombs birth control centres or sends letter bombs to scientists who have to practice vivesection.

Some of your examples there is quite a wide disagreement about what the Bible says. The only ethic I can see that Jesus taught was "love God and love your neighbour." Of that I'm nearly certain.