Comments on derek vreeland's blog: Conversations with a Young Earth Creationist

I am a Creationist.

2008-06-01T10:39:00.000-05:00

I am a Creationist.

Rodney,My systematic theology prof was Larry Hart ...

2008-02-03T17:14:00.000-05:00

Rodney,

My systematic theology prof was Larry Hart from ORU. A good Southern Baptist! He has carried on the evangelical position from Erikson, Grudem, LaSor and others that the author's intent behind Genesis is the WHO of creation and not the WHEN of creation. In the beginning, GOD....

LaSor has noted that Moses would have been working to establish the truth that creation was the act of the one, true living God and not the result of the many different gods in the various polytheistic religions of ancient Mesopotamia.

This interpretive insight is why I consider myself a creationists with no other adjectives needed.

Thanks for the comments!

Derek

Richard You write:I have taken a stand that, I gue...

2008-02-03T17:05:00.000-05:00

Richard

You write:I have taken a stand that, I guess, puts me into the Young Earth category. I have chosen this stand because I feel that it helps me to fight the spiritual strongholds in non-Christians minds.

But can't we equally defeat evolution without accepting a Young Earth Position? AiG ties together millions of years and evolution as one issue, but I seem them as two different issues. Yes, evolutionists need millions of years to argue for evolution, but it seems to me that we can defeat evolution on philosophical, biological, and palentological grounds. I don't see anything non Christian about millions of years of cosmic history.

You also write, If I say that the very foundations of the Bible are metaphoric or poetic I can actually feel a loss of confidence in my evangelism efforts.
I am not saying that the foundations of the Bible are metaphoric or poetic. The foundations of the Bible (i.e. Genesis) is historical fact. I do not see that theistic evolution is compatible with a historical understanding of Genesis. My issue is that Genesis chapter 1 is written as poetic prose. It is not written in the language of science (How could it be when Moses lived during a pre-scientific age?). Gensis is not written in the language of history (How could it be, Adam and Eve were not created until the sixth day?). So Genesis is true history, but it is recorded using poetic language. Check out my sermon: "Maker of Heaven and Earth."

Thanks for the comments! Keep up the good work in Taiwan.

Derek

Thoughtful and thought heavy my friend! I can app...

2008-02-02T15:18:00.000-05:00

Thoughtful and thought heavy my friend! I can appreciate very much you putting some mental homework into this issue. I believe your insights are thoughtful in whether believing in young earth is absolutely essential doctrine. (Free tidbit: Even as a self-described unsure, you have proven rather orthodox on Jesus, atoenment, church, etc.)

Personally, I do believe that much of this issues hinges on how one reads the scriptural text. Dr. Robert Stein,retired NT professor from Southern Seminary, used to tell us that Scripture was written by a specific author at a specific time to a specific audience with a specific meaning. At the end of the day, Stein would say that it is the author of the text that determines the meaning because he meeant something when he said it.

This seems rather self apparent when we read about the fruit of the Spirit in Galations or God loving the world in John. Not that this task of interpreting is always easy (a la having both "old earth" and "young earth" creationists attempting to take Scripture seriously), but I have found this to be helpful in considering even these difficult issues.

I keep finding myself, with Stein's leading, asking did the author of Genesis believe that when he says "there was evening and there was morning, the first day (Gen. 1:5)...the second day (Gen 1:8)...etc. if he means a literal twenty four hour time period? Yes, I know that there are texts that are not intended to be taken literally. I know that biblical authors use sarcasm at times. However, the plain meaning of a Genesis 1:5 as written would make sense with 24 hours. Could I be wrong? Of course. But I am working on the premise that when the electricity bill comes, the power company literally means they want their money by the end of the month.

At the end of the day (figurative), I believe it is good to allow room for some honest disagreement. Derek, you help me to be more thoughtful. So even with disagreement, if it is all leading us to take more seriously the Bible, then I say, "Roll on my brother!"

Hey Derek,Thanks for the correction. I understand ...

2008-02-02T00:44:00.000-05:00

Hey Derek,

Thanks for the correction.

I understand you think/feel/think-&-feel-simultaneously (?????) that they are spending a lot of effort in the lesser important places (ie defending a young earth position). Now that is, as you point out, not their position. Their young earth position is part-and-parcel with Orthodoxy for them.

Whether it is or it isn't, I think that waaaayyyyy toooooo many believers gloss over Genesis and Creation and the Fall. It was just myth (used in the derogatory form) and has an appropriate place besides "The Night before Christmas."

What you have done with your post, which I greatly appreciate, is to emphasize the need to more carefully study the Text itself, and its implications for Christian faith and practice. For that, I thank you.

William,You may have misread me. I am not offended...

2008-02-01T19:42:00.000-05:00

William,

You may have misread me. I am not offended that Mortenson has attacked some of my favorite theologians. I am actually critiqueing an essay he wrote on his critique of them.

I don't think I am motivated by an emotional reaction at all. The emotional reaction to my post is in the opening where I remark that Ken Ham's comments are fighting words.

My motivation to write such a long post in response to the Young Earth View is based on the fact that I think they are fighting the wrong battle.As I wrote, "the young earth view is plausable it just isn't necessary."

Derek

I think what AIG has done is that they have forced...

2008-02-01T15:46:00.000-05:00

I think what AIG has done is that they have forced Christians everywhere to take a stand on Biblical issues and doctrines that were not so high in public debate before. It's the same thing that Darwin and other evolutionists forced on society many years ago, that is to take a stand. The truth is that Christians believe a lot of things that can't be proven with facts. It's the nature of Christianity to believe without seeing--faith. I don't know how old the earth is exactly, but I have taken a stand that, I guess, puts me into the Young Earth category. I have chosen this stand because I feel that it helps me to fight the spiritual strongholds in non-Christians minds. I live in Asia, and over here evolution is a rock-hard science. When I talk to people about Christ one of the first things that I have to address is that we are not descended from other life forms, that we were made by God. And then I always have to explain why death and sickness came into the world, Genesis 3. Hardly anyone in Asia has a sense of where they came from. Genesis is a valuable tool for missionaries in foreign countries. We have to build a foundation of origin in the native mind before they can even begin to understand why they need a saviour. I find that if I favor the old earth position that it lends a hand to thinking that is contrary to my efforts in evangelizing the foreign mind. If I say that the very foundations of the Bible are metaphoric or poetic I can actually feel a loss of confidence in my evangelism efforts. Derek, I know that you are well read and that you have a knack for understanding and explaining deep doctrinal issues. Your stand is that knowing the age of the earth is not important but that believing that God created it is important. I'm glad you've taken a stand. What I learn from your article is not so much about Genesis, but at some point we need to take a stand and be confident.

Hey Derek,Thanks for posting on this. And thanks f...

2008-02-01T12:19:00.000-05:00

Hey Derek,

Thanks for posting on this. And thanks for staking out your own thoughts and creating an atmosphere of loving God with your mind.

Couple of observations. I know AIG has strong opinions concerning Young Earth Creationsim, but consider the field they're in. Most Evangelicals (not to mention the "scientific" community at large) equate Young Earth Creationism with a belief in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. The Young Earth Creationists are of necessity a tough & thick skinned variety. Asking them to be a bit softer in their field is akin to asking Barney to lead us to a picnic in Jurassic Park.

Secondly, thank you for pointing out that the Young Earth Creationists have some things to consider (ie astrophysics and other "MULTIPLE scientific fields"). Thank you for also pointing out that Mortenson has a humble spirit about this. I think that it is good and right to point their holes out.

But towards the end of your post I understood you to be offended at their strong defense and their criticisms of favored authors. Certainly our friend who first responded to your post comes across that way: "Wait ... those guys got me through seminary!"

To me your truly good critique has entered the Vortex of the Emotional. In other words the only criticism lofted at Mortenson at this point is that he has criticized the home team.

Please correct my misunderstandings. Thank you again for your insightful post. I remain a Young Earth Creationist; so it is good to hear actual dialogue from those who are gracious enough to give it in lieu of diatribes. Thank you.

Grudem still gets me through tough moments of serm...

2008-01-30T15:51:00.000-05:00

Grudem still gets me through tough moments of sermon preparation!

You are right to say that these young earth guys are at odds with MULTIPLE scientific fields. When you hold to a young earth, you have to contend with arguments from biological, geology, paleantology (sp?), cosmology, and astrophysics...

God help em...

Great post. He is picking on Erickson and Grudem. ...

2008-01-30T15:43:00.000-05:00

Great post.

He is picking on Erickson and Grudem. Wait...those guys got me through seminary! Ha.

Of course there are issues with old earth creationism. But geesh...maybe multiple fields of science have an issue or two with young earth?

When these guys start framing the debate based on orthodoxy thats when I start getting creeped out.

Cheers.