YEC and The Doctrine of Perspicuity of Scripture

[Timothy_Horton]

@t_aquaticus

What makes you think Genesis 1 is a straightforward historical narrative?

I too would like to see an answer to this. But I’m not holding my breath.

Anyone surprised the question about this claim was ignored?

[AllenWitmerMiller (Semi-Expired Professor & Minister.)]

@PDPrice

You’re a moderator now? I don’t see a badge.

I use the Leader badge instead because I no longer want to handle all of the moderator message notifications which go to the moderator group.

I’ve given you a lot of leeway because it encourages discussion—but don’t test our patience. Your behavior gets very close to trolling. Why not graciously reflect the love of the Lord Jesus Christ and join us in fostering the most congenial conversation possible? We are all human and err at times but boundaries are necessary and should be respected.

Please do your best to foster the goals of the peaceful in Peaceful Science. Your efforts will be greatly appreciated. Your Young Earth Creationist positions deserve a hearing, so please do what you can to present them in the best possible way.

[DaleCutler]

@r_speir

Ok, thinking here. That is real good.

It’s not good thinking if it is based on false presuppositions.

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@AllenWitmerMiller

I use the Leader badge instead because I no longer want to handle all of the moderator message notifications which go to the moderator group.

I don’t see any badge at all.

And I still don’t see where you’ve responded to those comments. You said I was pretending, remember? So go ahead and show me where you’ve addressed those specific comments that I had to keep repeating.

[Timothy_Horton]

@r_speir

Yet you have declared yourself to be an old Earth / young life Creationist who accepts the 4.5 BY age of the planet. Not very consistent in what you say, eh?

Oh you are so wrong. You don’t listen well apparently. I have never nor will I ever disavow a 6 day creation.

Ahem…

@r_speir

There seems to be a large collection here who do not understand what I am saying. So I have decided to do a series of small posts to aid in your understanding. We will start with this

1. I am not questioning the age of the earth.

You need to work on that memory if you’re going to switch stories.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@PDPrice

I still don’t see where you’ve responded to those comments

Speaking of which, still waiting…

@RonSewell

…original plan being Before The Fall . What is your version of pre-fall vegetarian sharks? How do pre-fall filter feeders avoid ingesting animal plankton? What does a pre-fall T-Rex look like?

[Timothy_Horton]

@PDPrice

And I still don’t see where you’ve responded to those comments

How many questions have you dodged with no response in the last week? Go ahead, take a guess.

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@RonSewell

Speaking of which, still waiting…

RonSewell:

…original plan being Before The Fall . What is your version of pre-fall vegetarian sharks? How do pre-fall filter feeders avoid ingesting animal plankton? What does a pre-fall T-Rex look like?

I have no idea why you would think I would be able to answer those, or how my not knowing those answers does anything to discredit anything I’ve said.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Semi-Expired Professor & Minister.)]

@PDPrice

I don’t see any badge at all.

Because the Leader badge appears on my member profile page, I’ve never seen a reason to emphasize it on every one of my post headers----but seeing how it is important to you, I just now enabled it there as well.

Now proceed with the discussion and stop being obtuse and contrary. Your behavior here will—fairly or not fairly—be considered by some readers to be reflective of your theology and attitude. Please present yourself in the best possible light which will encourage mutual respect and understanding. I entreat you as a fellow Christ-follower to reflect the love of Christ in your posts.

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@AllenWitmerMiller

Now proceed with the discussion and stop being obtuse and contrary. Your behavior here will—fairly or not fairly—be considered by some readers to be reflective of your theology and attitude. Please present yourself in the best possible light which will encourage mutual respect and understanding. I entreat you as a fellow Christ-follower to reflect the love of Christ in your posts.

I entreat you as a Christ-follower; you just accused me of pretending that you had not answered those comments. But you still haven’t, You’re still dodging. That doesn’t reflect well on you.

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

I’m going to shut this down for a little bit. Y’all need to take a breath, go enjoy a walk or something. And then we can come back to it later.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@PDPrice

Getting back to the overall meaning of 2 Peter 3; You are apparently endorsing Miller’s answer that the ‘earth’ mentioned there simply refers to the ‘continents of land’.

I honestly don’t know what to make of the passage. There seems to be some prophetic-type figurative language regarding the future, along with figurative language alluding to the past - unless there is a good explanation for “made out of water and by water” means. Other versions use “in water” or “through water”. It seems to me that the intent is not to establish a clear timeline of creation, but to establish God as Creator… Before insisting that the meaning is clear, recall that the following verses include verse 8 - “with the Lord, one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.” It does not seem this passage is an endorsement of a 6,000 year old earth/universe and 144-hour creation.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

Oops… missed the “closed” sign.

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@cwhenderson, it’s OK, we were just taking a breather

OK, so for the discussion to continue I think we need to get back to the original topic:

@PDPrice

God only wrote one set of Scriptures for all time. While the original hearers and writers were in one particular social context, God, who is both omniscient and omnipotent, is certainly capable of communicating in such a way that, given proper translation, anybody from any time period can understand at least the most important points of Scripture. This is known as the Doctrine of Perspicuity.

I see three issues for discussion:

1. Is the definition of Doctrine of Perspicuity as outlined above by @PDPrice the correct/common theological definition? If it varies by tradition it might be good to outline the range.
2. Assuming @PDPrice’s definition is correct, is the doctrine one that is authoritative for the Christian? Is this a core orthodox doctrine or one that has been used here or there?
3. How does the Doctrine of Perspicuity apply to Genesis (especially chapters 1-3) in particular? Can we agree on what the “most important points” are? Does it depend on interpretive framework? Does a YEC mean something different by the doctrine than a OEC/EC would?

So I’m opening the discussion back up, but please keep it on topics. I would suggest that non-Christians should maybe keep in mind that the discussion is about a Christian doctrine, which assumes a certain level of Christian worldview.

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@cwhenderson

I honestly don’t know what to make of the passage.

I appreciate this honest reply, and I think this passage is deserving of its own discussion thread.

[Chris_Falter]

@PDPrice

Is this concept- that the audience was not intended to believe the text as true history- something you can demonstrate to me from Scripture itself? Please do. Creation.com has articles critiquing the compromise views of both Walton and Keller. I don’t agree with them.

You appear not to have read them for yourself. Have you?

Today I read the creation.com critiques of Walton and Keller and found them quite weak. In particular, they do not address several of the key points that Walton and Keller make.

You see, PD, I am doing my very best to follow the admonition of Scripture in Proverbs 18:17:

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

How about you, PD? You’ve listened to one side and it seems right. Have you listened to Keller and Walton?

What do you have to lose? I’ve actually been quite edified and built up in Christian faith reading their works. You might enjoy that blessing, too, if you would be willing to put Proverbs 18:17 into practice.

@PDPrice

They are eisegeting, rather than exegeting, the text.

One way to eisegete is to insert your own culture’s understanding of words into a passage that has someone else’s different cultural context embedded in it. Would you agree with that?

But since you seem disinterested in exploring cultural context in Genesis, how would you know which side is eisegeting?

???

Best,
Chris

[DaleCutler]

@Jordan

Can we agree on what the “most important points” are?

YECs need to realize that in saying creation was “perfect” when it God clearly says “very good”*, they are making Jesus “Plan B”.

@DaleCutler

Any child can recognize that ‘very good’ is not ‘perfect’. If YECs could only understand in their infinite wisdom and respect for scripture that God’s plan was a two-creation model from before the beginning of the first, and that the first was therefore subjected to futility by design, before the fall.

---

*(“You’re calling God a liar” has been used innumerable times by YECs against Christians who oppose their flawed interpretation.)

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@DaleCutler

Can we agree on what the “most important points” are?

YECs need to realize that in saying creation “perfect” when it God clearly says “very good”*, they are making Jesus “Plan B”.

@DaleCutler, “perfect” vs “very good” is a good conversation, but I’m not sure if that’s exactly part of the Doctrine of Perspicuity.

However, it does make me think that the “given proper translation” part of @PDPrice’s version of the doctrine could be kinda fuzzy. @PDPrice, in your view does “proper translation” include an absence of interpretation (like we must have a literal Hebrew/Greek → English translation) and if not how would we know which interpretations are acceptable?