I would say that Luther probably is the closest to having been a young earth creationist in the modern sense. His commitment to wooden, literal readings would have put him in quite a bit of common company with Ken Ham and his ilk. Of course, he was also a geocentrist for the same reason.
1 Like
Itâs important to note that in the early 16th century it was still scientifically respectable to be a geocentrist, independent of oneâs Scriptural interpretation. Heliocentrism was not definitively established until the 17th or even early 18th century. In the mid 17th century, for example, the Coriolis effect from the Earthâs rotation was not yet detectable by the best experiments of the time.
That being said, you are right in pointing out that geocentrism is a notable instance of even conservative Christians eventually letting their hermeneutics be affected by science once a scientific theory is definitively established.
4 Likes
Sure; some of the older theologians match up with YEC on some points â a young earth and a tendency to literalism among others. But the term âYECâ was born in a particular cultural context, in which evolution and the higher criticism of the Bible and theological liberalism were central shaping factors. YEC as we know it, though it may hold certain positions held by ancient theologians, is a product of the modern era â a product of reaction against key features of the modern era. Luther didnât have to cope with evolution or higher Biblical criticism, and the most âliberalâ doctrines he had to worry about were those of Erasmus. But Erasmus was an arch-conservative compared to the higher critics and the liberal theologians of the nineteenth century. So I think the YEC / yec distinction is helpful. Nonetheless, you make a good historical point, that not all earlier theologians were the same, and that some of them display attitudes characteristic of later YECs.
3 Likes
One thing i never got about the argument for gaps was Cains story.
Cain is Adamâs Son (do you see a gap here?).
If this is so, then Adam lived during a time where there was
a) Language.
b) Agriculture.
c) Animal husbandry
d) Cities ( Since Cain actually Founded one).
Doesnât this put a hard boundary on when Adam lived?
This is a problem for Old earth creationists, esp the reasons to believ model as they require Adam and Eve to have lived around 100k plus years ago (maybe ven 200k years ago).
I can see how Gaps in the genealogy can help in Stretching Adamâs time from 6000 years ago to perhaps 15k or 20k years ago⊠hundreds of thousands of years seem like too much of a stretch
1 Like
I agree the gaps wouldnât be huge. This is a problem if we take the narratives at face value about the historical and cultural details and push Adam too far back. So options seem to be (a) relatively recent Adam; (b) anachronisms in describing Adam et al. to make them look and feel more recent (this could be intentional); or © these are non-historical narratives. Seems the OECâs best option is (b), which is what, e.g., Jack Collins does. I think Craig too. Not sure about Rossâwhther he goes for anachronisms or goes against the normal science story (archaeology, anthropology) here.
3 Likes
But isnât this precisely how the GAE changes the balance for OECs?
I believe that Ross proposes a vast, lost civilization.
2 Likes
I suspected this, which is unfortunate (Ross is so good on most things but biologyâŠand exegesis/hermeneutics. Way too concordist for me.)
1 Like
Exactly! Itâs a huge help to them.
1 Like
In this specific case, how is it concordism? He isnât reading science into Scripture here, but proposing a fantĂĄstica history. It seems concordism is more like when he sees the Big Bang in Scripture.
What do you mean by concordism here?
I didnât mean to imply concordism in this case specifically, just generally in his approach to Scripture. Is there any scientific/historical good reasons for him to imagine a lost world/civilization? I think he also believes human technology was super advanced in the hoary past. Perhaps that comes from a concordist bentâŠnot sure.
I have heard this claim too. But then, and sometimes in the same sentence, â⊠but the Resurrection is meaningless without the literal foundation of Genesis.â
2 Likes
Thatâs not the same thing as essential doctrine.
So generally when I hear opponents of a view attributing something to it that turns out to be totally false, I discount it as a straw man argument, and that seems to be the case here. Carry on.
Can you clarify that for me? Which is essential, which is false, which is strawman? (honest question)
Essential doctrine means âwhat you must believe in order to be considered a Christianâ. YEC is not included in that set of doctrines. Essential doctrine does NOT mean ârequired to supply meaning to essential doctrineâ.
So when someone says they think YEC is required to make sense of the Resurrection, for example, they are not claiming that YEC is essential doctrine. People can have contradictory or false beliefs and be considered a Christian. We donât require logical perfection, and neither does God.
What about the alternative hypothesis: That they actually made a totally false claim? How do you rule that out when we can actually present evidence that they made this claim?
I categorically disagree. When Answers In Genesis or other YEC organizations say that young earth creationism is not an essential doctrine, then turn around and say that Christianity cannot make sense without it, they are trying to eat their cake and have it too. They are simply being dishonest.
Exclusivity is one common marker of cult-like behavior. There is a strong interest in avoiding the impression that the group practices complete exclusivity. As a result, they take pains to deny open exclusivity in their theology. However, their business model requires that they practice a form of exclusivity regardless. They need to maintain a position as the sole arbiter of truth and the sole source of authority.
How can they teach creationism as an essential doctrine while claiming they are nonexclusive? Well, they create a disingenuous middle ground. They claim that their particular brand of young earth creationism is 100% necessary to an accurate understanding of the gospel, but hedge by saying that you can still be saved even if your understanding of the gospel is flawed.
You might think that this allows for a middle ground where they can accept other viewpoints or agree to disagree. However, all it really does is allow them to practice exclusivity without naming it as such. No matter who they interact with, they will simply say, âYEC is not an essential doctrine BUT if YOU were a real Christian, then you would listen to our arguments and agree with us.â
5 Likes
But here is what we have all missed. It may really matter to God after all what we believe about evolution and creation. If that is the case, well, you fill in the blanks. Neither AiG, nor you, nor I can definitely say what will âpass as salvationâ on that day. We can glibly claim, Oh it doesnât so long as I believe in Jesus and the Resurrection. But Mormons do that. Other fringe groups do the same. Truth is, and I repeat, if in the end God really did care all along what you or I believed about his creation, then seems to me, since he is God, he will be the one to make the final decision about oneâs salvationâŠnot us.
If so, then all I can say is âwhat a toolâ.
4 Likes