It is no uncommon when examining the doctrinal statements of fundamentalist churches that both dispensational pre-trib premillennialism (Left-Behind-ism) and Young Earth Creationism are both elevated to essentials.
Dispensationalism owes its popularity to C. I. Scofield who was a genius. A misguided genius, but nevertheless a genius. Scofield did something that was then novel. He published his Scofield Reference Bible (1909, rev. 1917) in which he embedded his notes and extensive cross-referencing scheme--unambiguously written from a dispensational viewpoint, into the biblical text rather than in a separate commentary. Combined with the fact that his notes were written with an air of absolute authority left many believers with the impression that Scofield's commentary had been vetted by ages and sages.
So, back to the fundy churchs that demand fealty to both dispensationalism and YEC-ism.
What about the hero of dispensationalism, the undisputed heavyweight champion, C. I. Scofield? He needn't apply. Maybe the Methodists will take him. Why?
Because C. I. Scofield was an Old Earth Creationist.
It is interesting--dispensationalism is the only systematic theology developed in the scientific era. As such, Scofield was well aware of fact that geology teaches us that the earth is old. So he embedded a particular form of OEC into his notes: the gap theory. He taught of an unknowable (from scripture, at least) long period of time between the first verse of the bible and the second. When he picks it up in the second verse he sounds like a YEC--he taught literal 24-hour days and even included Bishop Usher's calculations (with the dreaded 4004 BC result) in his original notes. So many people think was a YEC. But he wasn't.
Even in the 1967 New Scofield Reference Bible (from which the Ussher chronology was purged) the notes in Genesis state that the age of the universe is unknowable from scripture.
nice work! :-)
ReplyDeleteOf course, the common trait between the dispensationalists and YECs is the inability to read Scripture as it was written. Adhering to a literacy that was never intended by the original authors, they read Western ways of thinking into an Eastern work.
ReplyDeleteAsk any dispensationalist to describe the land that was promised to Abraham. Without exception they will respond with a piece of real estate in the middle east.
Ask St. Paul what was promised to Abraham and his descendants, and he wrote "the world".
As an absolutely convinced beyond doubt amil persuaded by the like of Ridderbos, Vos, Gaffin, Robertson that hermenuetic determines eschatology, I long ago discarded the primative Scofieldism of my teen years.
ReplyDeleteBut I progressively became more and more significantly convinced that the Bible accurately describes Creation as, well, creation. The more (decades more) I thought about it, the more certain I grew (primarily from exegetical reasons, but also as a graduate level scientist/engineer) to the idea that YEC as popularly presented simply ignored the text. The Book does not tell us that the earth is young, only that it was recently created. Vast difference.
Contra David's post, geology cannot teach us the earth is old. (To assert that it can denies the very nature of scientific enterprise: we weren't there; ain't now way to duplicate the conditions. Science per se cannot even combat 'Last Thursdayism'.) At best geology can tell us the earth looks old.
How old do you suppose Eve looked to Adam minutes after her being formed when he first beheld her? As one friend put it, "Old enough", heh. True enough. But while a babe, not a baby. Adam walked in a garden. With fruit bearing trees. And soil. And water in its rivers. All implying weeks and years and decades, tho but days old. Warmed by a sun, which physics tells us looks billions of years old (has to be in order to have the right properties for, you guessed it, man to live on earth, sort of as if God knew what he was doing....)
The problem with "Thursday-ism" is that it's self defeating. For if the earth were created with the appearance of age, then there is nothing to prevent the earth from having been created last week. Jesus didn't really die and rise again -- it's just a story in a book with the appearance of age.
ReplyDelete"Nothing to prevent"? True for the pagan, who can't prove nor disprove '5 microseconds ago ism'. Not so for the Christian, who has access to the only eyewitness account. From a Book that insists on history, declaring Its author Lord of history.
ReplyDeleteRoy, you wrote, "The Book does not tell us that the earth is young, only that it was recently created." Created with the appearance of age is Thursday-ism. If the world could be created with the appearance of age, then the Bible could also be created with the appearance of age. It's a self-defeating philosophy.
ReplyDeletewrf3, you may easily persuade me of my error of 'thursdayism' by providing just one example of something, anything, that would at anywhen of your choice not have an appearance of age.
ReplyDeleteThe big bang at the instant of explosion. An ovum at the moment of conception. A photon (since they move at the speed of light, they don't experience time. Their internal clock is stopped).
ReplyDeletewrf3,
ReplyDeletebzzzt. Wrong. How do you know the universe isn't cyclic?
bzzzt. Wrong. Before the ovum there were parents, there was sperm and egg. Ovums don't just pop out of nowhere.
bzzzt. Wrong. That photons don't (as far as we know, perhaps)experience time doesn't mean we don't date them, that they have no appearance of age to us. How else would we measure the speed of light? or use light to measure distances? or how would they shift frequencies?
3 strikes. That batter's out. Bring on the next batter. Or, better yet, realize that nothing in creation does not have an appearance of age.
What I'm really asking you to ponder is creation ex and eis nihilo. Even nothing did not exist before God created it. (Nope. Can't wrap my mind around it, either.) Any created thing would have all the features appropriate to that created thing.
We don't know whether or not the universe is cyclic, and we won't know until we can accurately measure the mass of the universe. But that's not the point, which I'll summarize shortly.
ReplyDeleteAs for the ovum example, you are comparing the ages of the unfertilized ovum and the sperm with the age of the newly fertilized zygote.
In any case, everything has the appearance of age. What you are arguing is that the appearances are deceiving. You might as well argue that the newly fertilized zygote is millions of years old, or that the singularity at the moment of expansion is really trillions of years old, or that the redshifted photon was emitted nanoseconds ago.
In addition to pointing out the obvious (appearance of age does not tell the whole story), I'm also noting another factor which discussion typically omit. Age *from when*? Who gets to set time zero? By what standard?
ReplyDeleteIn addition to pointing out the obvious (appearance of age does not tell the whole story), I'm also noting another factor which discussion typically omit. Age *from when*? Who gets to set time zero? By what standard?
ReplyDeleteRoy wrote: In addition to pointing out the obvious (appearance of age does not tell the whole story)
ReplyDeleteBut you're claiming that it doesn't tell any story; that is, the appearance of age is meaningless.
Age *from when*? Who gets to set time zero? By what standard?
By the standard of the normal passage of time.
What you're actually claiming is that we can't believe what we see when we look at Nature, but we can believe what we see when we read Scripture according to certain (foreign & unscriptural) hermeneutic. Yet Nature and Scripture are the handiwork of the same Creator. They are one coherent unified testimony to His power and trustworthiness. Yet you claim that God deceives us in one aspect of His revelation to us, but is honest in another.
Hello Roy.
ReplyDeleteWhy exactly do you subscribe to your "Young Earth Creationism" belief system? I'm agnostic(although leaning towards the "God" side of the spectrum more or less), and from what i have heard....im just not buying the theory.What do you mean by, nothing in creation does not have an appearance of age?
I'm not trying to score debating points, wrf3, Michael. Really asking you to do some very serious thinking of paradigm shifting difficulty.
ReplyDeleteWhat would hinder your accepting that what Adam in Eden saw had recently, within minutes (Eve) to no more than 5 days (everything else) been created? Ask yourself that question honestly. To nail down that 'honesty', list a couple or 9 items that you find yourself waffling on. Then take the time to at least mentally list what leads to that waffling. Then ask how that list limits the Creator. As specifically as you can, what is it that you are saying God may not do?
You object, wrf3, that the appearance of age is meaningless. The unstated part of your sentence is "unless there were previous moments". But apply your objection to anything created. How would it not look like the thing created, with all of that thing's features. Eve looked like a babe, not a baby. (And, btw, when Jesus changed water to wine, the tastewitness steward of the feast said the seconds old wine had all the properties of wine. A history. Same for the loaves and fish Jesus created. Histories. All appropriate to that created. Including, but not limited to, apparent age. Creation does not merely imply this feature. It involves it.)
Well Roy,in my opinion, all the items i waffle on can be summed up into one question. (I know this is a big debate in the christian community). Who are we humans to decide what anything is? Is it out of the question that God cannot manipulate time? How do we know how long a day was in the creation of the earth period? I THINK(still working on my system) god can do anything, however he can also chose what he wants to do. Would you agree with this?
ReplyDeleteAlso, for this particular story, i believe that it should not be taken as face value, as i agree with wrf3's analysis of the bible being written for the Eastern Mind, not the literal western mind.
However, I will make the list and get back to you Roy, if that was your initial intention for me creating said list.
Roy wrote: Really asking you to do some very serious thinking of paradigm shifting difficulty.
ReplyDeleteWay ahead of you there, Roy. I used to be an atheist. Then a young-earth creationist. Now an old-earth creationist. Having shifted paradigms, I know how difficult it can be.
What would hinder your accepting that what Adam in Eden saw had recently, within minutes (Eve) to no more than 5 days (everything else) been created? Ask yourself that question honestly.
Do you really think that I haven't? Is your ego that big that you think those who disagree with you are dishonest with themselves?
As specifically as you can, what is it that you are saying God may not do?
God may not "not exist." But that's not the issue. The issue isn't what God may, or may not, do but what God actually did.
In your world, there is nothing to prevent everything from being created yesterday. I didn't really witness the birth of my children, I was created 10 minutes ago with those ideas planted in my mind. Jesus didn't really die and rise again, it's just a story put in a book that had no existence until moments ago.
(And, btw, when Jesus changed water to wine, the tastewitness steward of the feast said the seconds old wine had all the properties of wine. A history. Same for the loaves and fish Jesus created. Histories. All appropriate to that created. Including, but not limited to, apparent age. Creation does not merely imply this feature. It involves it.)
Transformation is not creation ex nihilo. Besides, as of minutes ago, that never really happened.
wrf3,not a matter of ego, but a legit question probably phrased better a different way. Did not mean offense. Forgive, pls.
ReplyDeleteHowever poorly question asked, however, did note you did not answer. Pls try to state what it is that bugs you about God creating something that has exactly the proper attributes of that something.
In my world, THE ONLY WAY that I know everything did not snap into existence last Thursday is that the Bible's record tells me differently. Apart from God's guarantee of regularity, order, I'd have no certainty of anything, with only the ultimacy of chance. (Observe how those who deny God on the one hand end up borrowing his rule on the other.)
In my world, God, not man, detemines when to set the clock at time zero. In my world anyone other than God does not know for sure, thus making their *arbitrary* decision rest upon a herd of (unstated, and sometimes hotly denied) assumptions.
Turning to focus not on what God could do, but what he actually did.
Here's something the record he gave in Genesis tells us that gets little attention. Creation did not happen in an instant. God tells us he created in piecewise continuous steps. That means we cannot examine what is 'normal' after the completion of creation and impose it as 'normative' during the time of the creating. Thus, eg, we are not surprised at light before sun. During the creation week God directly intervenes to hold together in a 'non natural' manner that which works after the finish of creation.
RE water to wine: while recognizing your demural, do you think that water had built into it (before the transformation) all the properties present in the stuff the steward called best wine? Stuff we know now as innate to good wine, eg, yeast particles, grape fragments, DNA history? Those loaves and fish: did the initial pieces have all the mass that even the fragments left over had, much less that which fed the multitude? Put simply, I'm not persuaded your demural squarely faces the wonder Jesus accomplished.
Michael, the only way we CAN know: take God at his word.
ReplyDeleteRegarding taking Genesis at face value: what hinders us from concluding that the original audience of Genesis would have concluded "Not terribly long ago in the time of 6 days God made everything including our first parents"? What would hinder that audience from observing, "We know it was what we (the audience) would call 6 days because God gave us the 4th Commandment with 6 days built into it"
Is the blog title itself meant to be ironic? Perhaps a double or triple entendre?
ReplyDeleteHeddle, you're a fundy too, of course. The distance between preterism (your particular view) and its rival interpretations (what you are dissing here) is not significant when compared to a skeptical evaluation of the Bible. The hallmark of fundamentalism is the absence of the latter, a quality you have demonstrated in the past. "The Bible is the inerrant and sufficient inspired word of God" is pretty close to the definition of fundamentalism (your words).
See this for context. My aim isn't to be arbitrarily antagonistic, but I had to respond since this post is just weirdly ironic, or something.
Keen observation, George. You recognize a central issue: what does it mean to take the Bible as the final authority. Granted, other parties to the discussion with me might argue (they do) that they simply have a different understanding of what the text says. But in my conflicts, er, discussions with such dissenters, I pointedly ask what in the text of the Bible itself would tell, say, the original audience to think the dissenter's picture that described by the Book.
ReplyDeleteYour observation, George, also answers Michael's earlier question as to why I suscribe to young earth creationism. (Although one ought observe that I have rejected *because of the text*, ie, for exegetical reasons, the YEC position nearly always presented, to wit: the recently created earth looks young. It didn't to Adam. Why should it to me this thousands of years later?) Why? Because that's what the Book says.
One final comment: of course the Creation looks big and ancient. Bigger and older by not additons of millions, but factors of millions in the last 150 yrs, btw. And likely to grow bigger and older as folks continue pushing observational limits, notwithstanding the string of assumptions it takes to reach conclusions from the observed data. Why "of course"? Because that which is created gives a small hint about the characteristics of The Creator.