Featured Time of Creation

And while I detect an apologetic tone in this response, I still do not see an answer to my question.

How have I, or those that view YEC as a primary doctrine—corrupted the Gospel?

You can define terms for yourself, not for others.

And since we are on the subject, I might suggest you consider the word essential. Rather than primary. In order for the Gospel to be corrupted we look at what is essential to Redemption. Should someone deny that Christ alone is the Savior, or that He isn't the Savior, for example, we would see corruption. That is essential to the Gospel.

Creation is, without controversy—a Primary Doctrine. And the fact that many people do not understand that the Son of God is the Creator is not essential, nor does it detract from the Gospel.

I do not view Creation as "non-essential." Nor do many.

In fact, I have yet to find one jot or tittle that I find to be non-essential in my studies.

Perhaps you have a list for those, as well?

I don't. The primary issue is the offensive attitude you have expressed, and I think it can be resolved in a few posts. All you have to do is substantiate your charge of corruption.

How exactly do YEC believers corrupt the Gospel?

Because you feel you are the one that defines everyone's terms and beliefs, you have created a false argument and seek to perpetuate it.

I have no problem with those who have rejected YEC. I do not consider them incapable of bringing the Gospel to others. I do think most pf them are more interested in Science than Scripture, and probably spend much more time edifying their defense of their beliefs against us poor, stone age thinkers that believe the Bible speaks plainly.

While always enjoy Creation debates, the end result is usually an array of quotes from other people, rather than the individual approaching the topic from a Biblical view. I prefer to interact with someone who brings to the table the result of their study, rather than have to sift through their teachers' material.

Again, a false argument: one can be in error about Creation without corrupting the Gospel. You are the one that takes the opposite view.

And again, how do YEC believers corrupt the Gospel? Just answer that question. This is the second post asking.

I don't spend too much time on the forums these days, and limit myself to "visits" for the purpose of seeing how things have progressed. If you do get a thread started I will take a look, but I can't promise I will participate. Again, these debates are seldom profitable, because the fallback answer of those who have embraced doctrines of the religion of Atheism is usually "Oh, that is junk science."

The only thing that interests me at this point is a definitive answer to the question, "How do YEC believers corrupt the Gospel message?"


God bless.

 

Well I’ve been housebound for the past few months and have become a bit more argumentative and curt than usual. Hopefully I’ll be walking in a few more weeks and can get out.
Your posts convinced me that got to tone it down a bit. Please forgive me.

I’ll respond later to your post.

Rob

 

I’m not arguing that Creationism is an unimportant doctrine.
Historically the Genesis creation account provoked many questions and a variety of solutions/interpretations.

The rise of Young Earth Creationism (YEC) (as it is understood today) is rather recent.
Those holding this position are commonly called “Creationists”.
But Creationism is actually a general term having many varying forms.

I am an Old Earth Creationist; of which there are many varieties.
Strangely, even Theistic Evolutionists (now known as Evolutionary Creationists) are Creationists.

The essential creationist doctrine is still present, but the methods that we hypothesize God might have employed, differs.

~~~~~~~
So I provided the definition of terms to help clarify our debate, not to provoke a debate. (I did define “primary” as “essential”).

You might include Creationism as an essential doctrine, I wouldn’t disagree if it was defined as general form of Creationism.
However in most Systematic Theology texts, creation is usually a subtopic of the Doctrine of God (I’d include it under the role of the Trinity).

Now I’m asking - Would you would add a 6000 year old earth and 24 hour/6 day creation to that list of essential doctrines?
"You are not a Christian unless you believe .... 6 day/24 hour, young earth....

~~~~~~~~~~~

So you ask:
How exactly do YEC believers corrupt the Gospel?
Buckle down. It’s a bit of a story, and at the risk of creating a long boring post I’ll continue.
I realize these are only a two examples but they helped to solidify my opinion.

(1) It was decades ago, as a freshman high school and a new believer, a high school classmate confronted me about my recent decision to trust Christ.
He brought up YEC as a reason why I made a poor decision.
We talked for hour or more, it was a nice talk, not confrontational at all. I didn’t know enough to be frightened—I only knew what I needed to know to become a believer and I shared it with him.
It was the first time I had witnessed for Christ.
And I used Genesis 3 to describe mankind’s fall into sin - and our need.
He never made a decision and I still wonder about the young man. Did he eventually become a believer?
The gospel is simple.
Young Earth Creationism was a stumbling block against belief for this young man.

From that point on I became interested in the topic of creation and
I recognized the weaknesses of promoting a particular interpretation over an established doctrinal teaching when sharing the gospel.

One more story, many years later…

(2) Upon becoming a member of my last church, a church member asked me, ‘What was my position on Genesis 1”.
Unfortunately I answered directly; I am an Old Earth Creationist (OEC). (I should have simply said that I believed in the biblical account of Genesis 1).
They questioned my salvation; How could someone that didn’t believe in a Young Earth be a Christian?
They wondered, was I truly saved?

Later I was asked to be an elder, one of the many questions the leadership asked was, Is there anything we ought to know?
Oh yeah! I brought up Creationism among some other odds and ends.

All the fellow elders were all YEC’s, we briefly discussed the topic, it wasn’t a disqualifying belief.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
A pure gospel message is clear and effective, unmixed with debates on various topics.

I don’t think that a Calvinist should promote Calvinism in his gospel message;
I don’t believe that you need to discuss smoking, alcohol consumption, gay rights, abortion, etc when sharing the gospel.

If you are interested, I'd encourage you to pick up a copy of the book I reviewed in this forum,
It answers the question quite thoroughly.
The Fool and the Heretic: How Two Scientists Moved beyond Labels to a Christian Dialogue about Creation and Evolution [Amazon Link]

Rob

 

From the book, The Fool and the Heretic.
an exchange of views between two Christians with opposing views on creation.

The following quotes present one side of the conversation.


Chapter 2: Why Todd is Wrrong and Why it Matters

“Every time Todd and other young-earth creationists convince a Christian that the earth was created in six days less than ten thousand years ago, they are contributing to the declining influence of the Christian faith on culture, as well as to the prevailing view among scientists and many in our culture that Christianity is a relic that holds no interest for them. The world desperately needs the gospel; Christians need to be speaking into that world. But they will not be taken seriously if they continue to believe that the earth is ten thousand years old, and a significant portion of them do. The more the church rallies around the young-earth flag, the greater opportunity we give to scientism to prevail, and that would be disastrous for our culture. As much as I’ve come to admire Todd and respect him as a scientist, I believe Christians who embrace and promote young-earth creationism are contributing to the dismissal of Christianity within the scientific and academic communities,”

— The Fool and the Heretic: How Two Scientists Moved beyond Labels to a Christian Dialogue about Creation and Evolution by Todd Charles Wood, Darrel R. Falk
The Fool and the Heretic: How Two Scientists Moved beyond Labels to a Christian Dialogue about Creation and Evolution

“He has chosen a literalistic interpretation of the Bible over the indisputable evidence from science, and that’s why scientists can so easily dismiss not only his science but also his faith. Any scientist (and members of society at large who are so influenced by science) who is not a Christian and is presented with the young-earth creationist point of view will almost certainly say, “If that’s what I must believe in order to be a Christian, I cannot become a Christian.”
To be fair, Todd does not insist that you have to be a young-earth creationist in order to be a Christian. But in the broader scientific community, creationism is almost always associated with Christianity, which in practice means if you reject creationism, you are basically rejecting Christianity, which is what the majority of scientists have done. And to me, that’s very sad and unnecessary.”

— The Fool and the Heretic: How Two Scientists Moved beyond Labels to a Christian Dialogue about Creation and Evolution by Todd Charles Wood, Darrel R. Falk
The Fool and the Heretic: How Two Scientists Moved beyond Labels to a Christian Dialogue about Creation and Evolution

 

According to scripture creation was God working miracles over a 6 day period. No one ever picked up the Bible for the first time and read the Gen. account and came away with anything other than 6 literal days. Those who hold long periods do so because of the lack of faith in that area.
One of those miracles in creation account was light. The fact that there are long distances between earth and other heavenly bodies does not constitute long periods of time for creation. It simply means that in the miracle of light that God traversed the distance in an instance for the purpose of creation. Yes, that violates the speed of light, but all of creation violates all of physics as we know them today. That is what miracles do and faith accepts it.
When dealing with the time frame we get it by looking at the genealogical timeline of people given in scripture. So, creation happened around 6 thousand years ago.

 

The True Light created the created light and created time, aka worlds, Hebrew 1:2, whom also he made the worlds; . . .

 

Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolutionists arose as a response to the rise in popularity of teachings of Evolution. One of my favorite teachers held to the Gap Restoration Theory (that there was a long time period between the initial creation and the forming that took place on the six days of Creation), J. Vernon McGee. I'm not saying there were never those that viewed the Earth as old prior to that (or speculated about evolution), just that its popularity exploded at that time.

This, primarily because people saw conflict with the "evidences" offered by evolutionists.

Not at all. When it comes up in Scripture, there is a pattern of tracing history back to Adam. There is no imaginable or realistic way to impose billions of years into recorded human history. This puts us back to the Gap Restoration Theory, and finding those billions of years prior to the "formation" of this world (i.e., creation of land, Man, animals, etc.). But that is not what Evolution teaches. Man began, what, 65 million years ago (and I apologize, I'm a little rusty, lol).

I would ask for a record of the popularity, or even general acceptance of an old Earth in the history of man. It would take this to support the idea a young Earth is a "recent" position.

That distinction has been made—recently. And that, because of the recent controversy between Creationism and Evolution.

I would point out that recent is the key word. And it is no coincidence there are more believing in Evolution now, seeing it is taught in schools.

Agreed. I do not view Theistic Evolutionists as Creationists.

The question is whether you embrace evolution. If you do, there really is no way to reconcile that with the Biblical account of Creation and the record we have.

It's humorous you use the word "strangely." Even to you it seems strange.



It's a bit of a problem calling someone something when they reject the basis of that which they profess. A Creationists believes in the Biblical account, and Evolution, in now way—correlates to the Biblical account. You either believe Adam (Man) was created on a particular day—or you don't. If you don't, you have rejected the Biblical account.

No, actually it isn't. What is essential to Creation Doctrine is set by Scripture, not Rational Theists. God's Word sets the standard, not man. And the simple fact is that Scripture teaches without controversy that God created this universe and fashioned it in six days, not billions of years.

So you include yourself in with Rational Theists? Just curious.

God did not give us His Word that we might hypothesize, but we know those truths He intends for us to understand.

The sad fact about Theistic Evolution is that its doctrine is constantly changing to correct the errors of their past "truths." An example might be the argument that layering takes millions of years, whereas Geologists admit today that it can occur in hours.

What limits this discussion/debate is what both don't know. An example might be this: in a debate with an atheist, he states a global flood is impossible based on freshwater and saltwater fish all dying when the twain mixed. He had never heard of osmoregulation, and quite frankly—neither had I. But a simple study of the issue produced an argument that cannot be rejected. Especially when we consider the deterioration of this world and everything in it.

But that's what I mean: neither side knows the condition back then. Even 6,000 years ago.

Don't worry about debate, lol, isn't that what most of us are here for? I think it sharpens us, and is one of the fastest ways to learn and have what we believe challenged. I think every believer should do it, lol.

But, your statement did not include "essential," it stated primary. There is a difference. Your later use of the word implies you see them as the same. There are many primary Old Testament Doctrines, for example, that are not essential to the Gospel.

And I am going to continue this. Didn't plan on getting so long-winded, lol.

Continued...

 

And if you would agree to these terms, it should limit your general statements, lol.

Especially when a YEC believer is readily known to be one because of their faith in the Word of God. It doesn't matter if we find someone in error, we should at least acknowledge this factor.

How many subtopics remain primary? You've just stated that the Trinity is a subtopic of the Doctrine of God. Is the Trinity primary or essential? And before you answer, the two choices one has is believe or reject a belief in the Trinity (fence-warming is excluded). What are your feelings towards one who rejects the Trinity, and views it as a corruption of the Gospel?

In one sense, yes, because this particular doctrine has an impact on so many. But when it comes to the Gospel, Creation is not critical to the Revelation of the Mystery of Christ.

This is irrelevant. Those who presume to judge others' salvation violate a basic principle of evangelism. We could replace Creation with any doctrine, and when this approach is seen it is always going to be in error. We have no way of knowing, truly, whether someone is regenerate or not.

In one sense, vilifying those who do so is doing the same thing.

You can stop wondering, because (1) you were admittedly a new believer, (2) salvation is not dependent on you, and (3) if it wasn't Creation, it would have likely been something else that met the criteria of stumbling block.

This young man did not reject your attempt to share the Gospel due to Creation, he rejected it because he did not want to believe. Just because you share the Gospel with someone doesn't mean the Holy Spirit is going to open their eyes at that time. Secondly, there are those that the Lord will draw a line in the sand with, and this fellow may have already crossed it.

When we share the Gospel we should share the Gospel, and while that involves a number of issues, one thing we cannot avoid is the simple fact that God created man, man sinned, and man is separated from God. Frankly, I'm a little confused as to how we can properly share the Gospel apart from the details of Genesis. How can we tell men they are sinners—and not tell them why? How can we present God as the Creator from the same Bible He is the Savior in, yet hide the details in shadow?

Those who reject part of Gospel reject it as a whole. They/we can't accept God as Savior but think He got a little confused about His Creation.

I view this as ignorance. You shouldn't give what others think too much credit.

While visiting my dad (who used to go to church but no longer does, and has questionable ideas in certain areas) last Sunday, he asked me if I regularly pray for the peace of Israel, stating he does. So you know, my dad leans toward political religion (my term for it) and, while patriotic, has some strange views. I had to admit to him, "No, I do not." He was shocked. I explained to him, "There will be no peace in Israel until Christ returns. What "Pray for the peace of Israel means to me," I told him, "is to pray for the return of Christ. And in that way, I do pray for the peace of Israel."

Kinda felt I had the raised eyebrow afterward, lol.

Sounds like more mature believers, to me.

Again, the delivery of the Gospel inevitably includes Creation. Why do men need a Savior? Where did men come from? How were they created?

This doesn't mean specifics will always come up, but if they do, we must be ready to give an answer. The dilemma you see would be no different for those who do believe in a young earth (though they don't necessarily know they do): you express your beliefs in an old Earth as you speak to them and they're turned off by that. The bottom line being—they're looking for an excuse. It has nothing to do with you, really. It's ultimately being played out between them and the Lord.

Me either. I think we should promote the Gospel in our Gospel message. And the truth is, the Gospel is rather simple to express.

But, just as with Creation, if it comes up, you must be ready to give an answer. If these come up, do we fail to state what Scripture calls sin?

I seldom read books by men anymore, and stay primarily in the Word, utilizing Blue-Letter Bible in the process. I did pick up an old Doctrinal Book the other day in preparation for a message this Sunday. While working in Norfolk several months past, I did listen to quite a few Creation debates as I worked. It really showed me how rusty I am in this topic these days. But when it comes down to it, I have come to the conclusion that, like every doctrine, most people will not be swayed from what they want to believe.

The only question left us is this: what do we base what we believe on? If we can say Scripture, good. If we are forced to bring man's work into it, we may want to consider our beliefs. Best to be able to go to Scripture for every answer. It is my belief every answer that is essential to our salvation is going to be there.

God bless.

 

I can truthfully say, without deceit, that I believe God created the heavens and earth in a six days - that's biblical truth.
It's something that has been interpreted a number of different ways over time.

Now once you begin putting a certain date on things - that's not biblical.

Understand that our Scriptures do not really take a position on the age of the Earth.
As popular as it may seem, there is no verse that says 4004 B.C.



But that's how some interpret what the Bible says.
Attaching a date, (4004 BC) to the gospel message corrupts the gospel, it become falsifiable.
If that date is wrong, questionable, unreliable, or untrustworthy, the gospel is maligned and is easily dismissed.

You're right, it is true that the various theories develop and change as new data is collected. That’s how science works.

Both Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism adjust their positions (respond) as new scientific data is gathered.

All the creationist theories we are debating are scientific theories
They are based on both biblical and scientific data.

That’s why I said,

.

Young Earth Creationism has evolved into what is now known as Scientific Creationism, a scientific theory of biblical creationism.​

I'm Baptist. I've been surrounded by YEC's all my years. We usually get along just fine.

But don't present the gospel message with something that might not be true.
If you do, then you have included something that corrupted the message.
Keep it real!

That preaches brother!

Rob

 

And it isn't that hard to interpret the use of terms such as day and days, and evening and morning. For the YEC believer, they're used to indicate a day that has both an evening and a morning. We go outside of Scripture when we have to speculate a usage for those terms that is not readily understandable. While the Gospel was a mystery, Creation was never meant to be.

When "day" is used in the sense of an Age, or a period of time, it is usually evident to the reader:

Genesis 1:5
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

We still call the light day, and the darkness night, right?

I'd agree in large part, however, seeing that the Lord saw fit to give us genealogies, we tend to think there was a reason. While the argument "They are not complete" may be true to a certain extent, I don't take the view they are so far off so as to throw revelation to the wind. God does not, in my view, give detailed information that will lead the Bible student astray.

We have "the beginning," and that is the starting point for our views concerning how long ago that was.

When the Law (the first five books) was given, I have no doubt that Moses would have viewed the genealogy to be sufficient to represent "the beginning" to his day. We have the record from Moses to Christ, and we have the record of Christ's day to now.

That is all the Lord has given us. And I am simple enough to think that is all He intended to give us, and that if we derive a timeline from what He has given us and it is in error, it is not exactly our fault, right?

See the implication?

According to the Jewish calendar, today is Tammuz 14, 5784. While I do not view this as a "proof" of the true age of the universe, I do point out that their calendar reflects that. Going back to a young earth being a new view, where does this fit in? From what I understand it dates back to 359 A.D. and fits better with my own view. I do take the position that the Millennial Kingdom will be the seventh and final millennium.

My time here is drawing to a close, but I would be curious to know if you believe there will be a physical thousand year reign of Christ that follows the Seven-Year Tribulation?

And how exactly does it become falsifiable?

Secondly, we do not base our positions on what "some" believe, but on Scripture only. And I'd be curious to know how you work the Fall into an extended period of time. Granted, we are not given a timeline for Adam's time in the Garden prior to the Fall, but—billions of years (and I am not saying that is your position, it's just an example)?

I haven't adjusted my position. Who is it you speak of, and why would that be relevant to my own view? I can't see how the YEC position can "adjust" very far, and it definitely hasn't had to admit a previous view was in error. You can find those who may have placed a particular date and speculate they were in error, but what is the basis? Your own views? Scientific data? Again, that's the problem both sides have, and only the YEC stands on the same basis (God's Word) it began with. It hasn't adjusted. Throwing in the speculations of those who debate the issue are irrelevant to the core data, Scripture itself.

Sorry, no, they are not all scientific theories: that God created the universe in six days is a Biblical Truth that has not changed since the day it was given unto men. It was convincing enough to Jews that they base their calendar on it.

"As it is understood today" is irrelevant to the views of the individual YECer.

That Biblical Truth is just as consistent as the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ is.

You seem to throwing all Creationists into the same box. My own views are unrelated to those offered by the debate crowd in the media spotlight. My own views are derived from Scripture, not by studying what other men have to say.

What kind of Baptist? There are many different kinds of Baptists that, while they may agree on essential doctrines of Scripture, differ greatly on numerous primary doctrines. Eschatology is a primary (and parts of it essential) element of Scripture that has numerous views that are not only different but in direct conflict. To the point where what some of us might call essential doctrine is watered down and even lost. The Return of the Lord, for example. Is our view essential to the Gospel? In my view, yes, but in the view of my brother, maybe not. Essential because it impacts our understanding of Scripture as a whole, but, one does not need to be doctrinally astute to be saved by the Gospel, and the reverse is usually true. We are saved in a condition of being doctrinally ignorant of the majority of God's revelation to Man.

I agree with this. In fact, I'd go so far as to say "Don't present anything that you do not know to be Biblical Truth without clearly stating This is speculation on my part."

I hope so, lol: I've changed the message for tomorrow from The Deity of Christ to a look at the Gospel itself.


God bless.

 

Darrell, you and I look at the Bible differently.

I presume by what you have written that when you read the Bible you take what is written as the truth and draw your conclusions from that.
It works for you. I applaud you for your faith.

Perhaps I don’t have the confidence in Scripture that you do.
Perhaps I’m a weaker Christian.
I question Scripture. When I read the Scriptures I don’t always understand what I read.
If something doesn’t make sense I want to know more.
I dig, I struggle, I wrestle with what I read.
I want to know more.
I want to understand how the Bible fits into my world.
So I study; I learn, I read (a lot),
I search out Christians with a deeper understanding of Scriptures than I, and attempt to learn from them.

YEC crosses a boundary with some people… It asks many of us to believe something that seems unbelievable.

For me and many others, the Scriptures simply do not provide us with enough information to make us deny what we perceive as a undeniably convincing argument for an old earth.

To associate belief in a young earth with the gospel message requires a faith that we don’t have.
It requires people of inquiring minds to deny what they observe,
to deny much of what we know about the natural sciences.

The simple gospel message is one of deliverance and hope.
It meets the desperate need of the world.
It doesn’t require me to stop thinking and deny what I see.

God may have given me many opportunities to hear the gospel,
But I only heard one that I remember and responded to.

I thank God that it was not connected to a message about a young earth...

......I probably would have walked away unsaved.​

Rob

 

Fearfully the same here.