Is YEC a Heresy ?

[jason]

What do people think ?

Incidentally I don't think so in the general case. But it is not hard to see it moving in that direction.

All of the major creationists organisations say that a YEC veiwpoint is not required for salvation, and I presume they believe that. So they are not yet adding to the gospel.

But at the same time, they throw around labels like "compromising churchian" and "useful idiot" to describe anybody who disagrees with them.

Now it does not take a genius to draw the conclusion that a "useful idiot" or a "compromising churchian" might be a christian but a suspect unorthodox christian. Clearly Socrates thinks this to be the case. And Socratism already accused me of "attack the inerrancy of the bible" for disagreeing with a YEC stance.

Not all young earthers think this, but the direction the whole thing is heading is extremely concerning.

When everybody who disagrees with you is an :"idiot" or a "compromising churchian", and anybody who understands the error free word of God differently to you is "attack scripture" it is not far to, "The non-YEC is not really a proper believer", and then to, "Not a YEC not a christian".

Certianly when I was YEC I did pursue this, "Something suspect in a non-YEC" line of thinking, and ascribed any non-YEC position to "compromising with atheists", just in line with the claims made by AiG's literature.

So it is heretical ? Is it adding to the requirements for salvation ? Is it becoming sola fide + YEC Belief ?

Not yet, but if they keep going the way they are, probably someday.

Jason

[dizzle]

Jason that made no sense at all, and I suspect you do not understand what heresy is in the way you are using it. Nothing you stated led in any way to heresy in the strict sense of the word. We are all heretics in the broad sense of the word. In the way you are using it, you are committing heresy in accusing others of heresy.

[jason]

You would not consider adding "belief in a young earth" as an implcit requirement for being a christian heretical ? It seems a lot like they are heading in the direction of adding it as a requirement for salvation.

That would, in my book, be the adding of something apart from Christs saving work to the requirements for salvation.

As I said, I don't think they do this yet, but it seems to moving in the direction of that being an implicit assumption. Perhaps heresy is the wrong word, but what word would be more appropriate ? Adding to the requirements for salvation is a bad thing after all.

Jason

[spl_cadet]

I don't think they are heretical, merely wrong. Their condemnation of orthodox Christians who are OEC simply is more proof of such imho.

[dizzle]

Cadet how many times do the YEC on this forum have to repeat themselves. None of us have condemned OEC. I am sure you would not tolerate such misrepresentation of a Catholic statement would you?

And Jason you are choosing to interpret things in that way despite the blatant and clear statements by OEC to the contrary. That is uncharitable and showing you wish to think the worst, yet you never seem to see the same in your own camp of which the example are plenty which is why I leveled the hypocrisy charge against you several times.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 01:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=287704#post287704)
Dee Dee Warren:

Cadet how many times do the YEC on this forum have to repeat themselves. None of us have condemned OEC. I am sure you would not tolerate such misrepresentation of a Catholic statement would you?

I'm not referring to people on this site. I was thinking of a Catholic YEC group actually (though they are also geocentrist and being boycotted by most of the Catholic community for other reasons, so that probably explains it).

[Sheepdog]

so, pointing out that there are OECers who are indeed not saved makes you a heretic? because of the friendly, inclusive nature of modern churches, you are bound to have many unsaved people in any congregation. so this is a rather silly objection. i guess i am going to hell in a hand basket since i believe that there are some unsaved TEers, YECers, OECers, and IDers.

[Socrates]

I have already pointed out how the most definitive book on Hugh Ross sold by AiG explicitly states that he is saved, and AiG's founding chairman was a saved theistic evolutionist for 40 years before becoming a YEC.

And AiG has never accused OECs of gnosticism or judaizing, as Ross has done to YECs. Nor have they portrayed a leading OEC as a dunce, as Ross did to the saintly scholar Archbishop Ussher. Jason had no problem with Ross for any of this.

[jason]

Yesterday @ 09:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=287704#post287704)
Dee Dee Warren:

And Jason you are choosing to interpret things in that way despite the blatant and clear statements by OEC to the contrary.
I suspect you mean YEC right ? Or else I am confused on this point.

That is uncharitable and showing you wish to think the worst
I am basing everything I said on Socrates' attitude and the use of labels like "churchian" and useful idiot that he an AiG bandy around freely.

To think that use of such language will not incline people to think that OEC's are evil and unsaved is short sighted in the extreme.

That AiG says this is not a salvation issue then goes on the way it does about "compromising churchuians" strikes me as more than a little disingenuous.

Jason

[jason]

Today @ 03:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=288133#post288133)
Socrates:

And AiG has never accused OECs of gnosticism or judaizing, as Ross has done to YECs.
Actually he did neither of those things. He said people will be led to a gnostic understanding of the universe by YEC's. not the YEC's were gnostics.

Nor have they portrayed a leading OEC as a dunce, as Ross did to the saintly scholar Archbishop Ussher. Jason had no problem with Ross for any of this.
Actually I don't think they should have portrayed ussher the way they did and I am still waiting to hear back from them on this point.

Given they did not accuse YEC's of being gnostics I don't see why I should have a problem with that.

Jason

[jason]

Yesterday @ 11:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=287903#post287903)
Sheepdog:

so, pointing out that there are OECers who are indeed not saved makes you a heretic?
No not at all. Actually I already said I don't think the position is heretical (not yet anyway).

Attaching those labels to anybody who disagrees with you (specifically useful idiot and compromising christian both labels that AiG and Socrates use with abandon) is when the problems start.

What sort of a model of dialogue and communication is that. "If you disagree with us then you are a defective christian sucked into a web of lies by the evil materialist atheist communist conspiracy !!" (Ok I exagerate a little).

Jason

[Sheepdog]

so in other words, no, YEC is not a heresy on those grounds?

[jason]

Today @ 05:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=288328#post288328)
Sheepdog:

so in other words, no, YEC is not a heresy on those grounds?
No. I think YEC groups are in danger of becoming heretical in the long run, but not at the moment.

We shall see were it goes from here.

Jason

[Warcraft3]

Is YEC a heresy?

No.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 07:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=288768#post288768)
jason:

No. I think YEC groups are in danger of becoming heretical in the long run, but not at the moment.

Lessee, so the Church Fathers and Reformers must have been headed for heresy in the long run since they were all YECs ... :hrm:

[spl_cadet]

Well the Reformers certainly went for heresy :tongue:

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=288961#post288961)
spl_cadet:

Well the Reformers certainly went for heresy :tongue:

They sure went for heresy, mainly in the established church, e.g. indulgences.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 08:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=288965#post288965)
Socrates:



They sure went for heresy, mainly in the established church, e.g. indulgences.

Yeah, Christ certainly set up a heresy filled Church :ahem:

Though it's interesting you should mention indulgences. I recently read a paragraph in the Catechism that makes them blindingly obvious.

I'll post that in another thread though when I write stuff up on it, since I don't want to hijack this one.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=288967#post288967)
spl_cadet:

Yeah, Christ certainly set up a heresy filled Church :ahem:

Not at Pentecost, but certain segments of the Church, even those founded by the Apostles, became heretical. That's why so much of the NT letters and the first part of Revelation was written -- to correct these heresies!

[Socrates]

From www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

(A) PRIORITIES The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.(B) BASICS
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself. ...(C) THEOLOGY The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.
Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.
The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.
Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.
All things necessary for our salvation are set down in Scripture.
Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in like manner to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.
Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.
Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God. ...Speaks for itself. If Jason can find a molecule of heresy in the above, he must inform us where.

[jason]

Today @ 04:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=288957#post288957)
Socrates:
Lessee, so the Church Fathers and Reformers must have been headed for heresy in the long run since they were all YECs ... :hrm:
I'm surprised you don't share the concern to be honest.

I guess I don't expect you to, but you should. The way YEC is pushed and any alternative dismissed as "twisting scripture" and "attacking the authority of the bible" it is hardly surprising that people will think that being YEC is required for salvation in the long run.

It is irrelevant that AiG and the like state that they do not think it is a salvation issue. The rhetoric that they endlessly use will turn it into one for many people. Heck it appears to be a borderline one for you at times.

Now I know you will ignore this post or just ad hom me to death, but I used to be a YEC and my attitude was identical to the one you now hold.

Jason

[dizzle]

Today @ 02:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=289158#post289158)
jason:


I guess I don't expect you to, but you should. The way YEC is pushed and any alternative dismissed as "twisting scripture" and "attacking the authority of the bible" it is hardly surprising that people will think that being YEC is required for salvation in the long run.

And they would be wrong. I believe that futurism at its core twists the Scripture and attacks the authority of prophecy. No one ever thinks I am saying that futurists are not saved. With Ross saying that YEC leads logically to gnosticism, should we then say that his statement will lead OEC to think that YECs are not saved, for gnosticism is a DAMNABLE heresy. Why are you so utterly inconistent?

It is irrelevant that AiG and the like state that they do not think it is a salvation issue. The rhetoric that they endlessly use will turn it into one for many people. Heck it appears to be a borderline one for you at times.

And the rhetoric used by OEC doesn't do that same? I remind you gnosticism is a damnable heresy.

Now I know you will ignore this post or just ad hom me to death, but I used to be a YEC and my attitude was identical to the one you now hold.

Projecting are we? I am sorry you cannot exorcise your own demons without impugning others. And you are not one to complain about ad hom Mr. Kettle.

[/QUOTE]

Yesterday @ 10:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=288157#post288157)
jason:


Actually he did neither of those things. He said people will be led to a gnostic understanding of the universe by YEC's. not the YEC's were gnostics.

Come on!!! You have a hissy when someone says that OEC leads to a comprimise on the Bible. Get some consistency and call me in the morning. Plus that article is heinously flawed. I have encouraged a friend to write a rebuttal. The fact that you would champion it is troubling.

[jason]

Today @ 04:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=288998#post288998)
Socrates:

If Jason can find a molecule of heresy in the above, he must inform us where.
Could you read what I said please.

Incidentally I could sign that statement of faith without problem. So to suggest it is relevant to the discussion at hand seems odd.

Jason

[jason]

Today @ 08:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=289170#post289170)
Dee Dee Warren:

And they would be wrong.
Yes they would.

With Ross saying that YEC leads logically to gnosticism, should we then say that his statement will lead OEC to think that YECs are not saved, for gnosticism is a DAMNABLE heresy. Why are you so utterly inconistent?
I'm not being inconsistent, that is not what he said.

He said YEC leads to an understanding of the universe that suggests everything we see is not as it appears to be.

And given I head Duane Gish offer the "light created in transit" as a possibility during an interview on Creation Update, given that as an explanation, you are left with a view that nothing in the material universe is as it appears to be, just as the gnostics taught.

If you offer light created in transit and appearence of age as explanations for things then you are going into the "gnostic trap" that Ross was talking about. And that is of great concern.

He did not say YEC's where gnostics, just that explanations like the ones noted above will lead to a gnostic interpretation of reality.

And the rhetoric used by OEC doesn't do that same? I remind you gnosticism is a damnable heresy.
I think Ross's point there was quite well made when it is understood.

Perhaps using the word gnostic was ill advised, but the point is still sound.

Come on!!! You have a hissy when someone says that OEC leads to a comprimise on the Bible.
You are going to need to explain how this is relevant to the comment just made ?

Plus that article is heinously flawed.
To which article are you refering ?

The fact that you would champion it is troubling.

It would really depend on exactly what you think I am championing.

Jason

[dizzle]

Today @ 06:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=289773#post289773)
jason:


Could you read what I said please.

Incidentally I could sign that statement of faith without problem. So to suggest it is relevant to the discussion at hand seems odd.

Jason

That is disingenous at best. Since the question is what creationist organizations think is essential, their SoF is highly relevant. Of course you prefer to disregard the plain statement in favor of your martyr complex.

[Socrates]

Today @ 05:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=289158#post289158)
jason:

I guess I don't expect you to, but you should. The way YEC is pushed and any alternative dismissed as "twisting scripture" and "attacking the authority of the bible" it is hardly surprising that people will think that being YEC is required for salvation in the long run.

Don't blame me for your lack of logic. AiG has explicitly said Ross is saved and its founding chairman was a saved theistic evolutionist for 40 years. These explicit statements must count for more than the implicit ones. And you agree that you could assent to the purely theological parts of the AiG SoF.

But Jason shouldn't whinge when AiG points out that non-YEC views have only been thought of by imposing outside views upon Scripture. Like it or not, this is denying the authority of Scripture and Sola Scriptura. Ross instead believes in Scriptura sub Scientia, as he makes clear when he says that nature is a 67th book of the Bible.

It is irrelevant that AiG and the like state that they do not think it is a salvation issue.

Rubbish -- it is most relevant that a leading YEC organization says so explicitly.

The rhetoric that they endlessly use will turn it into one for many people. Heck it appears to be a borderline one for you at times.

DD has already pointed out that Gnosticism was a heresy which Ross claimed YEC leads to. Ross also compared YECs to the people wanting to add circumcision to the Gospel -- people who the Apostle Paul anathematized i.e. damned to death as heretics.
And in case you haven't forgotten, you explicitly called YEC a heresy, in a wonderful display of pottesque melanism. :bonk:

Now I know you will ignore this post or just ad hom me to death, but I used to be a YEC and my attitude was identical to the one you now hold.

I doubt it -- for one thing, you were probably an evidentialist. What YEC literature did you read in your time?

[jason]

Today @ 01:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=289965#post289965)
Dee Dee Warren:

That is disingenous at best. Since the question is what creationist organizations think is essential, their SoF is highly relevant. Of course you prefer to disregard the plain statement in favor of your martyr complex.
Did I or did I not say repeatedly that I do not think that AiG or ICR teach YEC is essential for salvation ?

I did not.

What I said was, I am concerned that with the use of language they use to describe those who disagree with them, people would get the wrong impression.

And clearly Socrates in his plain statements believes those who are not YEC's are defective in thier christian belief even if they are saved.

So sighting a statement of faith that I could sign onto no questions asked hardly seems like a useful way to address the concern.

Jason

[jason]

Today @ 01:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=289989#post289989)
Socrates:

But Jason shouldn't whinge when AiG points out that non-YEC views have only been thought of by imposing outside views upon Scripture.
So you claim. But some of the church fathers did not ascribe to a literal genesis account. You have admitted this much yourself. What was there outside influence.

Like it or not, this is denying the authority of Scripture and Sola Scriptura. Ross instead believes in Scriptura sub Scientia, as he makes clear when he says that nature is a 67th book of the Bible.
The comment was tounge in cheek, and he does not deny Sola Scriptura at all. Neither do I.

Were have I ever denied inerrancy of said that the bible was mistaken. Nowhere. I disagree with your interpretation not the inerrancy of scripture.

DD has already pointed out that Gnosticism was a heresy which Ross claimed YEC leads to.
No he didn't. He said people will get a gnostic impression of reality.

Ross also compared YECs to the people wanting to add circumcision to the Gospel -- people who the Apostle Paul anathematized i.e. damned to death as heretics.
That is also my concern. Ross would also agree with me in saying that they do not at this time do that.


And in case you haven't forgotten, you explicitly called YEC a heresy, in a wonderful display of pottesque melanism. :bonk:

Ok. Produce a quote please. Or will you confirm for me once again that you don't read anything I write ?

I doubt it -- for one thing, you were probably an evidentialist. What YEC literature did you read in your time?
I still am an evidenialist.

You want exact titles ? I chucked most of it a year ago.

Go into a shop like Koorong Books (you mentioned your where an australian so I presume you know it) and have a look in the science section. A good chunk of what you would find I have probably read.

Jason

[Socrates]

Today @ 11:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=290008#post290008)
jason, replying to:

Socrates :soc::

But Jason shouldn't whinge when AiG points out that non-YEC views have only been thought of by imposing outside views upon Scripture.

So you claim. But some of the church fathers did not ascribe to a literal genesis account. You have admitted this much yourself. What was there outside influence.

Greek philosophy (neo-Platonism), in the case of the Alexandrian school of Origen and Augustine. But even they were adamant that the world was only a few thousand years old.

The vast majority of the church fathers believed the days were ordinary days, despite Ross's falsehoods claiming that they were day-agers.

:soc: Like it or not, this is denying the authority of Scripture and Sola Scriptura. Ross instead believes in Scriptura sub Scientia, as he makes clear when he says that nature is a 67th book of the Bible.

J: The comment was tounge in cheek, and he does not deny Sola Scriptura at all. Neither do I.

He said what has said! And his practice confirms that it was more than tongue in cheek.

Were have I ever denied inerrancy of said that the bible was mistaken. Nowhere.

I never said you did. It's the authority and sufficiency that you deny in practice.

:soc: DD has already pointed out that Gnosticism was a heresy which Ross claimed YEC leads to.

J: No he didn't. He said people will get a gnostic impression of reality.

No, he said that YECs ‘encourage a form of Gnosticism’.

:soc: Ross also compared YECs to the people wanting to add circumcision to the Gospel -- people who the Apostle Paul anathematized i.e. damned to death as heretics.

J: That is also my concern. Ross would also agree with me in saying that they do not at this time do that.

Ross actually said (Creation and Time, p. 162):

‘Much as circumcision divided the first-century church, I see the creation date issue dividing the church of this century. As circumcision distorted the gospel and hampered evangelism, so, too, does young-earth creationism.’

That's a pretty strong attack--note that he said that YEC distorts the Gospel which is an accusation of heresy, especially when he says that YECs do it just as overt heretics like the Galatian Judaizers did.

:soc: And in case you haven't forgotten, you explicitly called YEC a heresy, in a wonderful display of pottesque melanism.

J: Ok. Produce a quote please. Or will you confirm for me once again that you don't read anything I write ?

Oh come on -- even this thread title is indicative of what you've been posting!

:soc: I doubt it -- for one thing, you were probably an evidentialist. What YEC literature did you read in your time?

J: I still am an evidenialist.

That's the problem. Instead of the propositions of Scripture as the presuppositions of a philosophical system, you have autonomous human reasoning.

J: You want exact titles ? I chucked most of it a year ago.

Yes I do. You are evidently pathetically ill-informed about the issue.

[jason]

Today @ 03:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=290109#post290109)
Socrates:

Greek philosophy (neo-Platonism), in the case of the Alexandrian school of Origen and Augustine. But even they were adamant that the world was only a few thousand years old.
Irrelevant. If they did not ascribe to a 144 hour creation week you cannot cite them as agreeing with you on a literal 7 day creation.

I never said you did. It's the authority and sufficiency that you deny in practice.
But I do not.

No, he said that YECs ‘encourage a form of Gnosticism’.
Which in context it does. It does, if light in transit and "appearance of age" arguments are used.

‘Much as circumcision divided the first-century church, I see the creation date issue dividing the church of this century. As circumcision distorted the gospel and hampered evangelism, so, too, does young-earth creationism.’
I know. And it does hamper evangelism and people get the impression that to be a christian requires that you be a YEC.

If people have that impression outside the church than for those people it [b]is[/]b a distortion of the gospel.

Oh come on -- even this thread title is indicative of what you've been posting!
If you bothered to read the opening post you will note that I said it was not heretical, just that I was concerned that the potential was there. The name of the thread was simply intended as an attention getter.

So now it is you who is spreading lies it would seem. Is that a fair assessement ? Or simply that you don't bother reading what people write, ignore context and just make it up as you go along ?

That's the problem. Instead of the propositions of Scripture as the presuppositions of a philosophical system, you have autonomous human reasoning.
Is that your phrase of the week ?

Yes I do. You are evidently pathetically ill-informed about the issue.
Not really.

Jason

[dizzle]

Again Jason you are simply defending what you see as legitimate polemic on the OEC side, despite the EXTREME inflammatory effect, yet do not allow those of other persuasions to have their own converse positions, ie OEC leads to comprimise that leads to other undesirable results. This is why I consistently say you are engaging in hypocrisy and very muddled thinking.

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=290142#post290142)
jason:

Irrelevant. If they did not ascribe to a 144 hour creation week you cannot cite them as agreeing with you on a literal 7 day creation.

And who did? But it's fair to cite them as agreeing with YEC, and citing MOST of them as agreeing with 7x24 when they did!

[Ross's Gnostic heresy charge]
Which in context it does. It does, if light in transit and "appearance of age" arguments are used.

Not that most YEC organizations believe light-in-transit -- for that very reason! DD and I have both rejected this argument on TWeb. But "appearance of age" is misleading. YECs don't deny the matter despite the gnostic charge, but the age interpretation attached to it. There is also a difference between that and functional maturity. This is amply explained in The earth: how old does it look? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp)

‘Much as circumcision divided the first-century church, I see the creation date issue dividing the church of this century. As circumcision distorted the gospel and hampered evangelism, so, too, does young-earth creationism.’

I know. And it does hamper evangelism and people get the impression that to be a christian requires that you be a YEC.

If people have that impression outside the church than for those people it is a distortion of the gospel.

:shoot: No, Ross actually compared YEC itself (NOT merely the false impressions people might get) to the Judaizing heretics.:poke:

As DD says, they can be polemical (even if misguided), but it's rank hypocrisy to make these accusations then play the martyr about anti-OEC comments from YECs. I hope Charlene is also following this thread.

Would you please tell us what YEC material you have read? For comparison, I have read Hugh Ross's The Genesis Question and Creation and Time; his and Archer's contribution to the Hagopian book The Genesis Debate, Archer's rationalisation for OEC in Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties and A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Walter Bradley's contribution to Inerrancy, and this is not an exhaustive list. Have you similarly read some of the leading YEC books?

[jason]

Today @ 10:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=290471#post290471)
Socrates:

And who did? But it's fair to cite them as agreeing with YEC, and citing MOST of them as agreeing with 7x24 when they did!
Philo and Augustine to name 2.

Not that most YEC organizations believe light-in-transit -- for that very reason!
Good. But as I noted Duane Gish offered that as a possibility in an interview a couple of months ago.

Would you please tell us what YEC material you have read?
Alright then.

Innumberable copied of Creatin Ex Nihlo
Creation and Change Professor Douglas Kelly
Did Adam have a Bellybutton? Ken Ham
In the Beginning Was Information Dr. Werner Gitt
The Lie: Evolution Ken Ham
Darwin's Black Box Dr. Michael J. Behe
Darwin's Enigma Luther Sunderland

Those are just taken from browsing AiG's website. So I have read those books. Others are well.

Jason

[Socrates]

Today @ 10:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=291491#post291491)
jason, replying to:

Socrates :soc::

And who did? But it's fair to cite them as agreeing with YEC, and citing MOST of them as agreeing with 7x24 when they did!

Philo and Augustine to name 2.

Hey, this is not an accurate rendition of what I said. In Post #30, the sequence was:

:soc: Greek philosophy (neo-Platonism), in the case of the Alexandrian school of Origen and Augustine. But even they were adamant that the world was only a few thousand years old.

J: Irrelevant. If they did not ascribe to a 144 hour creation week you cannot cite them as agreeing with you on a literal 7 day creation.

My question “And who did?” was in answer to Jason's above, i.e. “Who has cited people as agreeing with a 144hr creation week who didn't?”

It's especially unfair to answer Philo and Augustine when I had already named Augustine as a non-literal proponent (who was still a staunch YEC). Philo was not a church father but an unsaved Jew who was influenced by the same philosophy that Origen and Augustine were. And Philo also believed in instantaneous creation like Augustine, so once again his error is in the opposite direction from OECs so it's crazy to invoke him in support.

:soc: Not that most YEC organizations believe light-in-transit -- for that very reason!

J: Good. But as I noted Duane Gish offered that as a possibility in an interview a couple of months ago.

Yes well, but Dr Gish has never been an “age” specialist, and he is over 80. His main works make it clear that he supports YEC (as he must to be vice president of ICR), but also that even billions of years would make no different to the strength of his particular arguments about gaps in the fossil record or the impossibility of chemical evolution. This gives the lie to Ross's claim that YECs oppose millions of years because it might make evolution possible.

But the fact that Dr Gish is not an “age” specialist is probably why ardent Rossite Dr James Dobson selected him rather than specialists like Drs Humphreys or Austin or even Ken Ham to debate Ross -- and even then, Dobson had to leave Gish's best points on the cutting room floor before he marketed the debate tape.

:soc: Would you please tell us what YEC material you have read?

J: Alright then.

Innumberable copied of Creation Ex Nihilo
Creation and Change Professor Douglas Kelly
Did Adam have a Bellybutton? Ken Ham
In the Beginning Was Information Dr. Werner Gitt
The Lie: Evolution Ken Ham
Darwin's Black Box Dr. Michael J. Behe
Darwin's Enigma Luther Sunderland

Those are just taken from browsing AiG's website. So I have read those books. Others are well.

Hang on! Behe is not a YEC book but ID, even though AiG stocks it. Dr Gitt is a YEC but the fine book cited above is does not involve the age of the Earth. Sunderland was also a YEC AFAIK but that book doesn't make an issue of the age of the earth. I dunno which particular YECs from Creation mag you've read. The Lie and Creation and Change are excellent but it doesn't seem like you've read them very carefuly. Dr Kelly interacts directly with some of Ross's crasser exegetical arguments.

[jason]

Today @ 12:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=291650#post291650)
Socrates:

My question “And who did?” was in answer to Jason's above, i.e. “Who has cited people as agreeing with a 144hr creation week who didn't?”
Sorry.

It's especially unfair to answer Philo and Augustine when I had already named Augustine as a non-literal proponent (who was still a staunch YEC) Philo was not a church father but an unsaved Jew who was influenced by the same philosophy that Origen and Augustine were. And Philo also believed in instantaneous creation like Augustine, so once again his error is in the opposite direction from OECs so it's crazy to invoke him in support.
It is irrelevant whether they believed in instantaneous creation or not. What is essentail is that they both thought that genesis was not to be read literally. I have my own problems with origens theology that I would not cite him anyway.

But the fact that Dr Gish is not an “age” specialist is probably why ardent Rossite Dr James Dobson selected him rather than specialists like Drs Humphreys or Austin or even Ken Ham to debate Ross -- and even then, Dobson had to leave Gish's best points on the cutting room floor before he marketed the debate tape.
Ummm ... NFI what your talking about. The comment was made in a Creation Update interview. The interview was friendly and informal and can be found on the RTB website.

I suspect if Ken Ham wanted to participate in such a discussion RTB would be happy to have him. He did chicken out of a discussion with Eugenie Scott and Hugh Ross on some US radio program, claim he would be ganged up upon.


Hang on! Behe is not a YEC book but ID, even though AiG stocks it.
That was a joke.

Dr Gitt is a YEC but the fine book cited above is does not involve the age of the Earth.
Yes I know. I still think it is a fine book.

Would you care to recommend a book ?

Jason

[Socrates]

Today @ 11:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=291674#post291674)
jason:

Sorry.

'Tis OK :soc:

It is irrelevant whether they believed in instantaneous creation or not. What is essentail is that they both thought that genesis was not to be read literally.

But they still accepted a YEC view. Note that Ross claims that he DOES read Genesis literally (although he has a very non-literal definition of "literally!), so it is counterproductive for him to cite these Alexandrian commentators.

I have my own problems with origens theology that I would not cite him anyway.

Good. Ross did.

I suspect if Ken Ham wanted to participate in such a discussion RTB would be happy to have him. He did chicken out of a discussion with Eugenie Scott and Hugh Ross on some US radio program, claim he would be ganged up upon.

This is an unfair caricature. AiG explains why they pulled out at www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4134.asp :

Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis had agreed to a debate on the Mike Rosen show on radio station KOA in Denver on October 11 between himself and Eugenie Scott (well-known anti-creationist and director of the National Center for Science Education).

Even though the host of the program, Mike Rosen, is known to be aggressively anti-creationist/anti-Christian in his philosophy, Ken had no problem agreeing to the debate with Dr. Scott.

Just two hours before the debate, Answers in Genesis found out that Mike Rosen had also asked Dr. Hugh Ross from Reasons To Believe to participate in the debate. Dr. Ross is a well-known progressive creationist – he promotes the idea of the Big Bang, billions of years of Earth history, local flood, soulless people before Adam and Eve, etc. Dr Ross opposes much of the teaching of creationist ministries like Answers in Genesis because of our stand on six literal days of Creation, no death, bloodshed and disease before sin, global flood, young Earth, etc.

As soon as we heard that Dr. Ross would be participating in the debate, we realized that this could end up being a very poor Christian witness for the secular community with two people representing Christianity but holding very different views (i.e., Ken Ham and Hugh Ross) and an ardent evolutionist/humanist (Eugenie Scott) who would agree with much of what Hugh Ross was stating in opposition to the literal creation position. In addition, the host would side with those against the literal creation position, so we recognized that this would not be prudent to continue with the debate.

Our ministry relations director, Mark Looy, called the host, Mike Rosen, and stated that we would be willing to go ahead with the debate if we could also have one of our adjunct scientists, Dr. Russ Humphreys, as a participant in this program to help even things up.

Mike Rosen refused to allow Dr. Humphreys to be a part of the program. Mark Looy then explained that Ken would be only too willing to debate Eugenie Scott or Hugh Ross individually on separate programs, but that we would not be prepared to continue under the current new circumstances. Mike Rosen refused, and so Answers in Genesis decided that it would be best not to participate.

It should be noted that it was Mr. Rosen who changed the terms of the debate after we had agreed for Ken to debate Dr. Scott.

It should also be stated that Answers in Genesis is willing to debate the topic of creation/evolution and the book of Genesis under conditions that are fair and agreed upon.

If you require further information, call our Media Department at 859/727-2222 ext. 450.

:soc: Hang on! Behe is not a YEC book but ID, even though AiG stocks it.

J: That was a joke.

Oh yeah? I expect better from you -- cf. Prov. 26:18-19. Meert claimed that saying the anti-Christian Gould was in heaven was also a joke, but that's just what I expect from a Bible-hater like him.

[Gitt book] Yes I know. I still think it is a fine book.

:zzz: I have to pinch myself to see whether I'm dreaming :nc: Jason actually admitted that a YEC can produce something worthwhile.

Would you care to recommend a book ?

You already have the Doug Kelly book which explains the Hebrew properly. Van Bebber and Taylor's critique of Creation and Time would be useful in showing more of Ross's errors. Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2 would outline the Creation/Fall/Flood/Migration model which Ross doesn't understand, and refute the most up-to-date evolutionary arguments.

[Socrates]

www.equip.org/free/CP0701.pdf

Essential Christianity. We hear a lot of discussion about essentials and non-essentials, but what are the essentials of Christianity?

When we talk about the essentials of Christianity we're referring to the basic elements that make up and characterize our faith, and which, of course, separate it from other beliefs. Let's survey these doctrines.

First, we believe in the authority of Scripture, which is another way of saying that the Bible is God's inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word. It's the ultimate source for knowledge about God, as well as the definitive guide for our daily lives.

Next we affirm the existence of a triune God or one God in three distinct persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This God is self-existent, eternal, unchanging, omnipotent, omnipresent, holy, righteous, and loving. God created the universe from nothing and He rules over His creation sovereignly including both human and angelic beings.

We also hold that man is a physical and spiritual being who is created in God's image. But because of his sin or transgression, man has lost his fellowship with God. The extent of sin is so great that its effects continue to this very day in the form of cruelty, suffering, and death.

By God's grace, Jesus Christ - Who is fully God and fully man - as sent to save us from our bondage to sin. We believe that Christ was born of a virgin, died for our sins, physically rose from the dead, and will one day return to judge the world and deliver His people. Faith in Christ is the only means by which mankind can escape eternal damnation and judgment.

Finally, we recognize the church as God's ordained institution headed by Christ. The church is composed of all believers, and is organized for worship, for fellowship, for the administration of the sacraments, for spiritual growth and support, and for evangelizing the world.

Much more can and will be said, but we hope this summary has encouraged you to continue studying Christian doctrine.

[jason]

Today @ 01:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=291810#post291810)
Socrates:

But they still accepted a YEC view. Note that Ross claims that he DOES read Genesis literally (although he has a very non-literal definition of "literally!), so it is counterproductive for him to cite these Alexandrian commentators.
He does read it literally. As do I. I found this comment by J.P.Moreland when talking about a young earth useful.

Now...I'm not a Hebrew exegete. But I will tell you that two of the best-known exegetes of the Old Testament in the American evangelical community are Gleason Archer at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Walter Kaiser at Gordon Conwell. Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer are respected in the entire United States as being faithful expositors of the Old Testament. Both of them know eight to ten Old Testament languages, and they both have spent their entire lives in Hebrew exegesis. Both of them believe the days of Genesis are...vast, unspecified periods of time, and are in no way required to be literal twenty-four hour days.

Now...my view, then, is this: if all of the Old Testament scholars at our seminaries that I trust, that love the Bible and that I respect their credibility were saying that it's required of us to believe these days are twenty-four hour days, I'd have a problem. But if there is enough of these men that I trust--I'm not talking about people that are trying to give up real estate here and are just bellying up; I'm talking about men that the community recognizes to be trustworthy authorities of that Hebrew exegesis are saying that this is an option--then I'm going to say in that case it's permissible "The Age of Earth" (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/moreland_jp_age_of_earth.shtml?main)By Dr. J. P. Moreland


Good. Ross did.
Well perhaps he should not have.

This is an unfair caricature. AiG explains why they pulled out at www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4134.asp :
Still ... I don't think it would have been as bad as they think. If the two christians had agreed to be mutally respectful and concentrate on what they agree on rather than on what they disagree on they could have done wonders. Oh well. Perhaps we should try that tack. After all we disagree on only a few minor things (and that is essentailly only an interpretation of scripture, neither of us regard the bible as errant or subject to the findings of science).
Oh yeah? I expect better from you -- cf. Prov. 26:18-19. Meert claimed that saying the anti-Christian Gould was in heaven was also a joke, but that's just what I expect from a Bible-hater like him.
I was hardly firing flaming arrows. There was no possibility of confusion on either of our parts for mistaken Mike Behe as a young earther.

Although I find it encouraging that you feel the need to hold me to a higher standard. Thank you.

:zzz: I have to pinch myself to see whether I'm dreaming :nc: Jason actually admitted that a YEC can produce something worthwhile.
I think YEC's do some good work. I just think your mistaken about the age of the earth and the nature of the fall.

You already have the Doug Kelly book which explains the Hebrew properly. Van Bebber and Taylor's critique of Creation and Time would be useful in showing more of Ross's errors. Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2 would outline the Creation/Fall/Flood/Migration model which Ross doesn't understand, and refute the most up-to-date evolutionary arguments.

Ok I will see what I can find. Can you recommend a good source in Sydney Australia for them ? Which part of Oz are you from BTW ?

Jason

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=292013#post292013)
jason:

He does read it literally. As do I.

OK then, so why cite non-literalists like those of the Alexandrian allegorical school in support?

I found this comment by J.P.Moreland when talking about a young earth useful.

Now...I'm not a Hebrew exegete. But I will tell you that two of the best-known exegetes of the Old Testament in the American evangelical community are Gleason Archer at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Walter Kaiser at Gordon Conwell. Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer are respected in the entire United States as being faithful expositors of the Old Testament. Both of them know eight to ten Old Testament languages, and they both have spent their entire lives in Hebrew exegesis. Both of them believe the days of Genesis are...vast, unspecified periods of time, and are in no way required to be literal twenty-four hour days.

Now...my view, then, is this: if all of the Old Testament scholars at our seminaries that I trust, that love the Bible and that I respect their credibility were saying that it's required of us to believe these days are twenty-four hour days, I'd have a problem. But if there is enough of these men that I trust--I'm not talking about people that are trying to give up real estate here and are just bellying up; I'm talking about men that the community recognizes to be trustworthy authorities of that Hebrew exegesis are saying that this is an option--then I'm going to say in that case it's permissible "The Age of Earth" (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/moreland_jp_age_of_earth.shtml?main)By Dr. J. P. Moreland


First, as I pointed out, these Hebrew scholars do not believe that the days were ages because of the Hebrew but because the literl day contradicts uniformitarian science. So it is NOT independent evidence.

Second, that Moreland article is chock-full of fallacies, as AiG's rebuttal shows Are (biblical) creationists ‘cornered’?—a response to Dr J.P. Moreland (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1001cornered.asp).

Third, I'm surprised you would give this article any credence with the crass things Moreland says about the four corners of the earth, which Ross would probably not agree with if he was pressed on the issue.

Still ... I don't think it would have been as bad as they think. If the two christians had agreed to be mutally respectful and concentrate on what they agree on rather than on what they disagree on they could have done wonders. Oh well. Perhaps we should try that tack. After all we disagree on only a few minor things (and that is essentailly only an interpretation of scripture, neither of us regard the bible as errant or subject to the findings of science).

However, this is naive about the way a misochristic host and an atheistic evolutionist like Eugenie Scott would play the Christians off against each other. Just look at the assorted God-haters on TWeb, and what DDW pointed out at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=283354#post283354

I was hardly firing flaming arrows.

According to the proverb, you were likened to such a person, since you deceived then said "Was I not joking?" (aka "J/k").

Although I find it encouraging that you feel the need to hold me to a higher standard. Thank you.

Of course. I've already said that YOU are not a heretic, unlike some professing Christians who attack YEC -- and they are heretics not for their anti-YEC but for denying or at least being evasive on foundational doctrines.

Ok I will see what I can find. Can you recommend a good source in Sydney Australia for them ? Which part of Oz are you from BTW ?

I'm from the Sunshine State (cringes at our Premier's asinine decree to put "The Smart State" on numberplates -- cf. Proverbs 27:2). For the books, I suggest AiG(Sydney), 20A Parkes St, Ryde, tel. 9808 6000.

[jason]

Today @ 06:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=293208#post293208)
Socrates:
First, as I pointed out, these Hebrew scholars do not believe that the days were ages because of the Hebrew but because the literl day contradicts uniformitarian science. So it is NOT independent evidence.
If they really thought it could be read no other way I think they have enough integrity to say so.

However, this is naive about the way a misochristic host and an atheistic evolutionist like Eugenie Scott would play the Christians off against each other. Just look at the assorted God-haters on TWeb, and what DDW pointed out at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=283354#post283354

Actually it would simply mean that both parties would need to put there differences aside and refuse to get into arguments over the bits they disagree about. It isn't that hard really.

According to the proverb, you were likened to such a person, since you deceived then said "Was I not joking?" (aka "J/k").
How exactly did I deveive you ? To deceive you would require that I intended for you to be misled by the inclusion of Darwins Black Box, but given I knew you would immediately recognise it as not belonging I could not have been intent on deceiving you.

But I suspect you are simply pulling my leg at this point.

Of course. I've already said that YOU are not a heretic, unlike some professing Christians who attack YEC -- and they are heretics not for their anti-YEC but for denying or at least being evasive on foundational doctrines.
Depressing isn't it. Oh well.

I'm from the Sunshine State (cringes at our Premier's asinine decree to put "The Smart State" on numberplates -- cf. Proverbs 27:2). For the books, I suggest AiG(Sydney), 20A Parkes St, Ryde, tel. 9808 6000.
Oh yeah I know where that is (around the corner almost).

Jason

[dizzle]

Things seem to be progressing here a bit towards better mutual understanding, I hope that continues.

[jason]

As do I Dee Dee.

Jason