Should SI add young earth creationism to its doctrinal statement? (see details in first comment)

Forum category

Poll Results

Should SI add young earth creationism to its doctrinal statement? (see details in first comment)

Yes! Votes: 25
No, but something about non-evolutionary creation would be good Votes: 9
Yes, but I don’t like the wording of the one you’re proposing Votes: 1
No, you can interpret Genesis 1 differently and still be a fundamentalist Votes: 15
Other Votes: 1

(Migrated poll)

N/A
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 0

Discussion

[MikeC] Exegetically, the six creation “days” of Genesis 1 can only be taken in their normal, literal, 24-hour sense:

1) The preceding phrase “there was evening and there was morning” indicates a normal rotation of the earth – one cyclical day (with the divine Source of light)

2) Hebrew “yom” with numerical adjectives in Hebrew ALWAYS refers to a 24-hour, normal day

3) Comparing the order of the week in Ex 20:8-11 with the creation week confirms this normal interpretaion of “day”

4) Genesis 1 distinguishes between “day,” “night,” “morning,” “evening,” “years,” and “seasons” (different Hebrew terms)

So if the language plainly indicates literal, 24-hour days, what’s the real motivation for “analogizing” or “poeticizing” (sp?) God’s Holy Word?
Well it might be worth reading the views of others before questioning their motives. I realize you are firm in your conviction that there is nothing exegetical for you to learn that would change you mind on the matter but you still have an obligation to discover the arguments of others before approaching with aspersions regarding their motives.

[Alex Guggenheim]
[MikeC] Exegetically, the six creation “days” of Genesis 1 can only be taken in their normal, literal, 24-hour sense:

1) The preceding phrase “there was evening and there was morning” indicates a normal rotation of the earth – one cyclical day (with the divine Source of light)

2) Hebrew “yom” with numerical adjectives in Hebrew ALWAYS refers to a 24-hour, normal day

3) Comparing the order of the week in Ex 20:8-11 with the creation week confirms this normal interpretaion of “day”

4) Genesis 1 distinguishes between “day,” “night,” “morning,” “evening,” “years,” and “seasons” (different Hebrew terms)

So if the language plainly indicates literal, 24-hour days, what’s the real motivation for “analogizing” or “poeticizing” (sp?) God’s Holy Word?
Well it might be worth reading the views of others before questioning their motives. I realize you are firm in your conviction that there is nothing exegetical for you to learn that would change you mind on the matter but you still have an obligation to discover the arguments of others before approaching with aspersions regarding their motives.
Alex, can you refute Mike’s points? Or point to a resource that makes a direct refutation of them based on exegetical grounds?

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Jay made a good comment http://www.sharperiron.org/forum/poll-should-si-add-young-earth-creatio…] above
[Jay C.] BTW, discussion / defense of YEC or 6x24x7 or other views of creation should probably be moved to a new thread :)
The purpose of this thread is to discuss this point: Should SI add young earth creationism to its doctrinal statement?. So let’s stick to that point!

My view is http://www.sharperiron.org/forum/poll-should-si-add-young-earth-creatio…] here . Since that time I have voted.

Don’t you think it would be kind of weird for SI to narrow our doctrinal statement so that many of the great fundamentalists of the past would not be welcome? You know, the old gap theory Scofield crowd — remember them?

We have to draw the line somewhere, but where we draw the line for discussion can be broader that what we would tolerate in our churches. For example, I would not tolerate a guest speaker in our church who would try to convince our folks of infant baptism, because we do not believe it and do not find it a tolerable teaching (I would allow him if he avoided that subject, assuming he embraced the fundamentals).

It seems to me like discussion has died down on SI — we don’t want it to turn into one of the many virtually deserted discussion boards, do we? BTW, it was not only after the theory of evolution evolved (don’t you love my play on words) that people began thinking the text of Genesis could be taken broadly. Here are some quotes from a Jewish Midrash from the middle ages:

From Genesis Rabbah:
Other worlds were created and destroyed ere this present one was decided on as a permanent one.
It is forbidden to inquire what existed before creation, as Moses distinctly tells us (Deut. iv. 32): “Ask now of the days that are past which were before thee, since the day God created man upon earth.” Thus the scope of inquiry is limited to the time since the Creation.
I agree, heremeneutically, that a literal 6 day creation seems likely. But is that a fundamental? I think not.

"The Midrash Detective"

Greg

I am surprised you are unfamiliar with any arguments contrary to his views. The thread isn’t devoted to debating the issue from what I understand so I will forgo the debate for now. It might surprise you that I may well indeed agree with his exegesis. The point isn’t the issue of exegesis, though it has been rebutted by those whose arguments rightfully cannot be impulsively dismissed, rather it is his wholesale questioning of the motives of those who disagree with his views. This certainly is not a path toward the valid consideration of any issue. He might find, on a case by case basis, some with bad motives but such bad intentions must be proven and not merely on the basis of disagreeing with exegesis and certainly not in a wholesale fashion that is without prior discovery.

In addressing creation, the Westminster Confession uses the term “in the space of six days” in both the Confession and the longer and Shorter Catechisms. That seems to make the belief in 6/24 awfully close to an historic fundamental.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

[Alex Guggenheim] Greg

I am surprised you are unfamiliar with any arguments contrary to his views. The thread isn’t devoted to debating the issue from what I understand so I will forgo the debate for now. It might surprise you that I may well indeed agree with his exegesis. The point isn’t the issue of exegesis, though it has been rebutted by those whose arguments rightfully cannot be impulsively dismissed, rather it is his wholesale questioning of the motives of those who disagree with his views. This certainly is not a path toward the valid consideration of any issue. He might find, on a case by case basis, some with bad motives but such bad intentions must be proven and not merely on the basis of disagreeing with exegesis and certainly not in a wholesale fashion that is without prior discovery.
I didn’t say I was unfamiliar with any arguments contrary to his views. I simply have not heard any convincing arguments to the contrary that are based on the text and that address these fundamental exegetical considerations.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

As I see it, SI is a bigger umbrella than this one issue- and I am a staunch YECist. I hold similar convictions about Baptism- yet, I don’t believe SI should add credobaptism to its doctrinal requirements. I know for a fact that one of the elderly professors who was at FBBC when I attended held to the Gap Theory. I don’t think that sitting under him was particularly harmful. I would ask what the particular damage would be allowing a diversity of views on this matter- there are plenty of other areas where such latitude has been granted in the past. If we went back a couple of generations or so, I am sure that there would have been a much higher percentage of self-identified Fundamentalists that did not hold a clear YEC position as most do today- if for no other reason than the prevalence of the Scofield Bible. I am by no means saying it shouldn’t be an issue of importance in other contexts (it is a defining issue in the church association our congregation is in, for example). But for the purposes of online discussion, I believe the diversity would be acceptable.

That being said, I could understand if SI leadership would desire to implement a more specific statement in this area for those who submit front page articles or appear in the blogroll, for example.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

I agree with both Greg and Ed on this. If we are trying to be as wide as fundamentalism is…..you don’t add this. If we’re wanting to “correct” fundamentalism than do it, but understand we have turned a new page here at SI. In the past we’ve been an open forum and while we’ve allowed individuals to challenge the movement (and that’s cool because SI gave me a forum to challenge the movement about making personal preference issues the same as Biblical orthodoxy, leadership, decision-making, hyper-fundamentalism, et. al.), I’m not sure that as an “SI group” we’ve made it a point to “put fundamentalism in it’s place.” From Susan and Aaron’s comments, it’s almost as if we, SI, are now going to run to the rescue of these poor “would-be” fundamentalists that apparenlty just haven’t been able to think their way through basic theology and it’s relationship to this issue. It smacks a little “off” at least to me - and don’t forget - I’m a young earth, 6 day kind of a guy. Frankly I’m very sure that having a healthy view of the text of Scripture (vis-a-vis not having a certain view of a certain English Translation) is much more important than Young Earth vs. Other views. And yet SI has been hesitant to directly take on the KJV only crowd. Taking an SI stand against blatant Arminianism and anti-Lordship Salvation [redacted slightly] is more important than this…..and yet we’ve not done that (as a group). Here at SI, we’ve not even taken a group stand against the sacramental view bouncing in some of our “extreem” ministries that view the blood of Jesus as having some non-human mystical element that was sprinkled on a literal thrown in Heaven (cfc - this kind of sacramentalism would result in a hearty “amen!” from the Pope). The young earth view is a good view. I believe it is the best view. Historically it’s not been the “only view” within Fundamentalism….and for good reason. There is enough “wiggle room” to allow an older earth reality than the time-table recorded in my Grandfather’s Scofield’s Study Bible. Gang, this simply is not a fundamental. Now that doesn’t mean we can’t add it to the doctoral statement. I think we’ve added a few other “belief’s” that are not “fundamentals” in the narrow sense of the word. It’s all good….I’ll be joyful no matter what we decide. “Hurray for our team!” You know.

Straight Ahead,

Joel




Edited slightly to remove someone’s name who might feel personally attacked—though that was not the intent

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

IMHO, this whole discussion boils down to two things:

1. What is a fundamental?

2. What is the role of SI in the realm of ‘fundamentalism’?

The first question we can all discuss. The answer to the second is already laid out in the ‘about SI’ webpage.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

So I stewed on my previous post a little more and I want to add some more to it now.

One of Phil Johnson’s http://www.swordandtrowel.org/articles/deadright_.pdf] original criticisms in the “Dead Right” lecture from 2005 was that Fundys didn’t take doctrine seriously enough:
In fact, by the 1970s, American fundamentalism had already ceased to be a theological movement and had morphed into a cultural phenomenon—a bizarre and ingrown subculture all its own, whose public face more often than not seemed overtly hostile to everyone outside its boundaries. Frankly, I thought that sort of fundamentalism deserved to die. And I knew it eventually would, because the most prominent hallmark of the visible fundamentalist movement was that its leaders loved to fight so much that they would bite and devour one another and proliferate controversies—even among themselves—over issues that no one could ever rationally argue were essential to the truth of the gospel…..

…But it is clear that the more serious-minded and reflective fundamentalists are concerned about the future of their movement. Read the fundamentalist chatter on the Internet, and you’ll see that in just the past month or so, a large volume of fundamentalist bandwidth has been devoted to a discussion of what fundamentalists can do to keep their brightest young minds from abandoning the movement. Look for the transcript of the address given by Dr. Kevin Bauder to the American Association of Christian Colleges and Seminaries. That is a fundamentalist group, and Dr. Bauder is the President of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, a fundamentalist seminary. His message is an encouraging and perceptive analysis of what’s wrong with fundamentalism from a thoughtful and articulate fundamentalist who loves the movement and wants to see it back on track.

A LACK OF DEFINITION

I’m convinced that the ultimate failure of the fundamentalist movement was guaranteed from its very inception, because the original fundamentalists didn’t do enough to make sure that there was widespread understanding and agreement about which doctrines were truly fundamental. Of course, virtually all evangelicals agreed that certain doctrines were fundamental—like the deity of Christ and the authority and inspiration of Scripture. But what about the doctrine of eternal punishment, or the doctrine of total depravity? Are those

fundamental also? How many vital doctrines are there? Is it possible to make a complete list?


Those questions were never carefully and thoroughly and thoughtfully addressed, as far as I have ever been able to ascertain, in any of the vital literature of early fundamentalism. There was general agreement that some doctrines are primary and some are secondary. At least five of the fundamentals were generally agreed upon, because they were the focus of debate between fundamentalists and modernists in the Presbyterian denominations from the very beginning of the war with modernism. But the hard work of explaining clearly, from Scripture, how to determine whether an article of faith is essential or not was (for the most part) left undone. There was very little clarity in the distinctions that were made between primary and secondary doctrines. And frankly, unless we first agree on the question of how to decide which doctrines are fundamental, at the end of the day, it means very little to say that we “cling to the great fundamentals.”…

A LACK OF DOCTRINAL CLARITY

Now, you might think that a movement that was devoted to making a defense of fundamental doctrines would become the most biblically literate and theologically astute movement since the time of the Puritans. Fundamentalists should have produced the finest theologians, the most skilled Bible teachers, and the best writers. Fundamentalism should have been a literate movement—theological, devoted to doctrinal instruction, and (to borrow language from Titus 1:9) “able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” Fundamentalism as a movement has historically exemplified none of those things.

Billy Sunday, known more for his histrionics on the platform than the soundness of his doctrine, quickly became the public face of early fundamentalism. Although some of the more thoughtful early fundamentalists expressed grave concerns about Billy Sunday’s style, they were in effect shouted down by the rest of the movement.
Frankly, I thought he was right then and I still think he’s right today. The article is a good read, and it’s well worth reading or revisiting for those who aren’t familiar with it. But I say all of this because I think we’re still mirroring some of this confusion. So maybe what we really need are a bunch of Fundys to get together and come up with something like a shorter Westminster Catechism of Fundamentalism.

Any takers?

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Does taking something seriously = streamlined conclusions? Or could taking something seriously also involve opportunities to examine and weigh out issues with those who draw conclusions that contrast from your own?

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

[Joel Tetreau] I agree with both Greg and Ed on this. If we are trying to be as wide as fundamentalism is…..you don’t add this. If we’re wanting to “correct” fundamentalism than do it, but understand we have turned a new page here at SI. In the past we’ve been an open forum and while we’ve allowed individuals to challenge the movement (and that’s cool because SI gave me a forum to challenge the movement about making personal preference issues the same as Biblical orthodoxy, leadership, decision-making, hyper-fundamentalism, et. al.), I’m not sure that as an “SI group” we’ve made it a point to “put fundamentalism in it’s place.” From Susan and Aaron’s comments, it’s almost as if we, SI, are now going to run to the rescue of these poor “would-be” fundamentalists that apparenlty just haven’t been able to think their way through basic theology and it’s relationship to this issue. It smacks a little “off” at least to me - and don’t forget - I’m a young earth, 6 day kind of a guy. Frankly I’m very sure that having a healthy view of the text of Scripture (vis-a-vis not having a certain view of a certain English Translation) is much more important than Young Earth vs. Other views. And yet SI has been hesitant to directly take on the KJV only crowd. Taking an SI stand against blatant Arminianism and anti-Lordship Salvation [redacted slightly] is more important than this…..and yet we’ve not done that (as a group). Here at SI, we’ve not even taken a group stand against the sacramental view bouncing in some of our “extreem” ministries that view the blood of Jesus as having some non-human mystical element that was sprinkled on a literal thrown in Heaven (cfc - this kind of sacramentalism would result in a hearty “amen!” from the Pope). The young earth view is a good view. I believe it is the best view. Historically it’s not been the “only view” within Fundamentalism….and for good reason. There is enough “wiggle room” to allow an older earth reality than the time-table recorded in my Grandfather’s Scofield’s Study Bible. Gang, this simply is not a fundamental.
Well, there’s alot to answer here but I want to stay fairly close to the topic at hand. First,
From Susan and Aaron’s comments, it’s almost as if we, SI, are now going to run to the rescue of these poor “would-be” fundamentalists that apparenlty just haven’t been able to think their way through basic theology and it’s relationship to this issue
That wasn’t at all the point of what we said. My own observation was about the nature of doctrine. There’s never going to be a list that can work for all time because new generations are going to face new errors and need to adjust doctrinal emphases to answer them. Another way to look at it is that there have always been “unlisted” fundamentals. They are unlisted because everyone takes them for granted. Then, when some ideology comes along that attacks the principle, we have to say something in response to express what was already a deeply held conviction. Is 6x24 one of those? I don’t know. I’m not asserting that at this point. I’m just saying this does happen and its how doctrine tends to develop.

It’s why there was no precise articulation of the doctrine of the trinity until centuries after Jesus ascended.

But it’s the furthest thing from my mind (and I think Susan’s as well if I know her at all) that SI has a prescriptive role in defining what fundamentalism is. We’ve never intended to communicate that what you have to believe/not believe to be a member here is synonymous with what “true fundamentalism” is. We do associate the ideas of the DS w/fundamentalism because statements here and there that define the site’s nature describe it as a place “for fundamentalists.” But the DS is not intended to say “this defines fundamentalism for everyone.”

Rather, we have to have some kind of working parameters to try to find a good middle here. The good middle would be something between “Do I really have to defend my belief in the trinity in the forum here?” and discussions like “I agree… yep. me too… . you disagree? out you go!… now where were we, oh yes, I agree… me too… me too… “

So the goal is not to define fundamentalism in some “true” way for everyone and certainly the goal isn’t to filter everyone who comments down to a carbon copy of everyone else who comments.
…is much more important than Young Earth vs. Other views. And yet SI has been hesitant to directly take on the KJV only crowd. Taking an SI stand against blatant Arminianism and anti-Lordship
The relative importance of one area of doctrinal difference vs. another is a big subject and I don’t want to go into the other issues you mentioned here. Each would need a thread of its own. But you do raise a good question here: why would 6x24 be worth saying something specific about vs. other doctrinal issues? That’s been talked about some already in other threads on the subject… the doctrinal implications of leaving room for evolution in the creation account are pretty major because you really invite problems with the historicity of Adam and Eve and the Fall and much topples with that. (But several have pointed out, correctly, that there are views that are not quite “mainstream 6x24” that are also not evolutionary)

In any case, as I posted earlier in this thread, I’m more inclined at this point to go to a two-tier approach that adds some particulars about what the site leadership believes. We could certainly include some language to convey that we’re not really attempting to define the boundaries of fundamentalism.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

The Bible says that the earth was created in six days. (I’d consider that a fundamental.)

The genealogies of the Bible date the human race at 6000-10,000 years old. (I believe that’s true as well.)

Science tells us that the earth is older than this.

To reconcile this we have these choices:

- The earth was created with the appearance of age.

- The earth is older than mankind. (explained by the Gap Theory in the Scofield Bible and now defended with other reasoning that I can’t recall right now.)

Personally, I’ve opted for the appearance of age idea. I never liked the Gap Theory and am enamored of its descendants.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

[Joel Tetreau] I’m not sure that as an “SI group” we’ve made it a point to “put fundamentalism in it’s place.” From Susan and Aaron’s comments, it’s almost as if we, SI, are now going to run to the rescue of these poor “would-be” fundamentalists that apparenlty just haven’t been able to think their way through basic theology and it’s relationship to this issue. It smacks a little “off” at least to me - and don’t forget - I’m a young earth, 6 day kind of a guy.
Joel,

I don’t get this at all. I understand that by calling ourselves a website for and about Fundamentalism and its concerns, we are kind of saying that WE ARE FUNDAMENTALISM (regardless of Aaron’s response to you)* so we should be as broad and as narrow as Fundamentalism or we are not properly fulfilling that role.

What I don’t get is your insistence that we would be trying to drive Fundamentalism toward this conclusion. I think Fundamentalism and Conservative Evangelicalism is already there.

There are truly a few elderly professors and pastors hanging on who still espouse the Gap theory, for instance, from an earlier era in Fundamentalism, but they are a vanishing breed. My experience is that anyone younger who is trying to adopt another theory besides 6 literal days is usually on their way out of Fundamentalism, and not moving toward the Conservative Evangelicals but even further to the left. I think the movement has moved on, and lovingly tolerates the few older gap theorists still around. I admit Framework guys are on the increase, but most of them that I’ve met are well out of the movement and far to the left of even mainstream Evangelicalism. The ones I know think the CE guys are too conservative, and are beginning to question other fundamental ideas, such as substitutionary atonement or sufficiency of Scripture.

Maybe the ones I’ve met aren’t representative.

Comments?

Mike D

_________

* Sorry, Aaron. I know you’re the owner. But I get what Joel means by this.

Ron, that helps. Because it is possible to classify views on Gen. 1 along those lines…

1) Comprehensive 6x24 creation (nothing existed before day 1 except God) view

2) 6x24 creation leaving room for “something” before it

3) Interrupted 6x24? (“Gap” theory and variants)

4) No 24hr days at all (usually this is a theistic evolution view)

It’s interesting to try to sort out the approaches, but probably doesn’t help a whole lot in answer the poll question—except that it helps to note that there are views of Gen1 that do not embrace naturalistic evolution (any evolution of species) but also do not hold that everything that is was made in 144 hours.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Ron Bean] Personally, I’ve opted for the appearance of age idea. I never liked the Gap Theory and am enamored of its descendants.
Ron, the appearance of age idea has really grabbed my attention lately. I know that some have dismissed it as making God a deceiver, but I think that’s oversimplifying.

I might express it this way: Certainty less than 10,000 years ago, God created the heavens and the earth as described in Genesis 1 & 2. But included in this creation are such intagibles as time. He created it as a story fully told, from beginning to end (God Himself not being a dweller in time). The “story” runs backward in time before His creative act, as well as forward in time after His creative act. Being inhabitants of this “story”, we cannot see outside of it. So we may see some signs that the universe may have existed for billions of years. Or we may be misinterpreting. Either way, we still have a definite statement from the “Author” that at this particular point in His created time “story”, the actual creation (“writing”) took place.

NOTE: One of the benefits of friendship is that you can share your most bizarre theories and not be eaten alive if you are sharing with a true friend. With this post, I am doing so. Please treat me as a friend.

NOTE: One of the benefits of friendship is that you can share your most bizarre theories and not be eaten alive if you are sharing with a true friend. With this post, I am doing so. Please treat me as a friend.
I’ll be your friend, Mike. Sometime I’ll share my bizarre theories on limited atonement and the eternal state of children dying in infancy and test that friendship.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

[Ron Bean] I’ll be your friend, Mike. Sometime I’ll share my bizarre theories on limited atonement and the eternal state of children dying in infancy and test that friendship.
Do tell! But perhaps in a private message. Some folks can get right prickly when it comes to alternate theories on limited atonement.

No decayed animal matter before eating of the tree. No death till sin. How did we get 1,000,000 year old fossils?

Is there any possibility that this thread will remain on topic?

If SI contends for a literal hermeneutic of Scripture (which it does), then I don’t see a compelling need to expand that to YEC in the DS. If someone holds something other than YEC and (at least in their own mind) is able to reconcile that with a literal hermeneutic, I think SI should be broad enough not to make that something that needs to be monitored by the thought police, er, moderators. If credobaptists can successfully interact with paedobaptists, Calvinists and Arminians with Armenians, and Bible College graduates with University alumni (even those whose degree now has International status), I think that we have reason to believe there is value in someone with those differing views to share enough commonality in other areas that pertain to the Christian faith that there would be value in their participation in forum discussions.

But hey, that’s me.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

[Greg Linscott] even those whose degree now has International status
Just what I needed, a good chuckle. (I graduated from there)

[Pastor Harold] No decayed animal matter before eating of the tree. No death till sin. How did we get 1,000,000 year old fossils?
Greg Long, Alex, and Pastor Harold - please use http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-creation-yec-24x6x7-and-other-theor…] this thread to discuss Creation theories and not sidetrack the SI DS thread. Thanks.

MODERATOR NOTE

Further discussion on Creation theories in this thread will be “unpublished” (hidden) and poster will be directed to use that thread in it’s place. Thanks.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

[Greg Linscott] If SI contends for a literal hermeneutic of Scripture (which it does), then I don’t see a compelling need to expand that to YEC in the DS. If someone holds something other than YEC and (at least in their own mind) is able to reconcile that with a literal hermeneutic, I think SI should be broad enough not to make that something that needs to be monitored by the thought police, er, moderators. If credobaptists can successfully interact with paedobaptists, Calvinists and Arminians with Armenians, and Bible College graduates with University alumni (even those whose degree now has International status), I think that we have reason to believe there is value in someone with those differing views to share enough commonality in other areas that pertain to the Christian faith that there would be value in their participation in forum discussions.

But hey, that’s me.
Great answer. Why not put literal hermeneutic in the doctrinal statement and drop this idea entirely? That’s the real issue anyway. And it still leaves us the breadth of discussion so many of us desire. I could support such a proposal.

Aaron, your clarification is good. I will try not to assume what I assumed of you and Susan on the point of adding 6 day to the Doctoral Statement. It’s just you both mentioned that “fundamentals” sometimes are forced to the surface because of the specific “gospel challenge” of the day. It just sounded like you were taking on fundamentalism and helping it with this fundamental. I will concede the point in light of your response. Mike, your point is also well made - many of the non 6 day guys are older men. Many of the younger men come at the non-6 day from a different angle. My thanks for the moderator who protected a certain individual from my last post….You guys are tender!

Straight Ahead!

jt

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

I did use that term… probably too loosely, but I’m not sure that’s the case. For example, before folks came along denying the bodily resurrection, everybody either assumed a bodily res. or just didn’t think about it one way or the other. So in creeds and such, just said “rose again.” But w/the deniers arose a need for a stated position on that.

In our day, there are several important doctrinal issues that weren’t being thought about much in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s—at least here in the U.S.

For example,we have “everlasting suffering” in our DS. But if it weren’t there (most versions I’ve heard of the famous “five fundamentals” don’t mention it… do they? Can’t remember now!) would we be having this discussion about whether to add something to the DS to answer annihilationism?

And in the future it may be necessary for fundamentalists (or whatever they are calling themselves at that point) to be more precise about justification.

But are we trying to say “we’re defining fundamentalism for everybody”? Well, nobody can really do that. Closest we could get would be to say “this is what ‘fundamentalism’ is for the purposes of the site.”

Given that fundamentalism is increasingly amorphous, I doubt that there will ever be a day again when there is a really strong and exhaustive consensus on what the term includes. But there is still alot of overlap in how folks use the term so I’m not among those who believe it is meaningless.

It’s kind of like “car.” Some would use that to include trolley cars; many would include trucks, SUVs, crossovers and train cars. Some would say “No, it only refers to automobiles.” But they all agree on something with wheels that conveys things—usually people—from one place to another.

So probably we need some language in the “About SI” pages that says “Hey, we don’t presume to tell you what your definition of fundamentalism needs to be. But for what we’re trying to do here, we’re defining it as ….” and then eventually another document that communicates something like “In case the diversity here unnerves you, rest assured that the folks in leadership are committed to the following beliefs in addition to those in the DS….”

Seems like a sort of happy medium. In the end, the aim is to have discussions where there is enough similarity among us that we can benefit and enjoy one another’s perspectives but enough difference that we can be tested with ideas and views that are unlike our own. I don’t have any delusions that we’ll see a day when everybody agrees that we’ve found that balance. There will always be some thinking “It’s too restricted” and some thinking “It’s too open.” That’s to be expected.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

I read this quote recently: “That God created is more critical than the duration of creation.” And it appears that many doctrinal statements emphasize the “that” without getting into the “duration.” Seems to make sense.

[NathanL] I read this quote recently: “That God created is more critical than the duration of creation.” And it appears that many doctrinal statements emphasize the “that” without getting into the “duration.” Seems to make sense.
While I understand what this is aiming at, I am not sure I agree. If we throw out the duration, we throw out the literal hermeneutic. Along with it goes the authority of Scripture (not to mention the various doctrinal implications that are rooted in the creation account). In this day and age, I think this is a crucial area in which biblicists must be crystal clear. I have no problem interactacting here with people who have divergent views, but I think an ammendment to the DS would clarify which were the divergent views and allow visitors to identify which is generally accepted among fundamentalists.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Is there room to be somewhat agnostic on this 6 x 24 question? Allowing that 6 x 24 is possible but that perhaps Scripture allows something else. Even if I conclude that 6 x 24 is the most likely view, shouldn’t we allow some latitude for those who have a conscientious, Scripturally-based view different than ours?

We don’t have Credo-Baptism as a fundamental. The reason is that alternative interpretive schemes that do justice to Scripture and respect Scripture look at the issue differently. Doesn’t the same apply to the 6 x 24 debate?

I like the potential of saying a literal hermeneutical approach is important. Various interpretive ideas all use the idea of literal and some claim other views are not literal, but almost no view claims to be non-literal, however. I think we have to take Scripture as its authors intended Scripture to be read, but this is not always our modern, rationalistic, idea of literalness.

That being said, there are non 6 x 24 views which aim to let Scripture speak for itself. Texts such as Gen. 2:5 “When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground” deserve to be accounted for in the debate too.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

[NathanL] I read this quote recently: “That God created is more critical than the duration of creation.” And it appears that many doctrinal statements emphasize the “that” without getting into the “duration.” Seems to make sense.
It’s true that the fact of creation is more important, but this is not the same as saying the process is not important at all, especially in a cultural setting where many worship science and believe Scripture must be continually reinterpreted to fit within the confines of what Science says is possible. But I don’t really want to fuel anti-science attitudes either if I can help it. They both have their place, but Science operates within a sphere that is completely subsumed in the larger sphere of what Scripture addresses.

If we get relationships like this straight, it really does solve a host of problems. I like the idea of the site saying something “strong” in the area of 6x24 but still allowing some diversity in the membership and in discussion.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Aaron Blumer] I did use that term… probably too loosely, but I’m not sure that’s the case. For example, before folks came along denying the bodily resurrection, everybody either assumed a bodily res. or just didn’t think about it one way or the other. So in creeds and such, just said “rose again.” But w/the deniers arose a need for a stated position on that.

In our day, there are several important doctrinal issues that weren’t being thought about much in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s—at least here in the U.S.

For example,we have “everlasting suffering” in our DS. But if it weren’t there (most versions I’ve heard of the famous “five fundamentals” don’t mention it… do they? Can’t remember now!) would we be having this discussion about whether to add something to the DS to answer annihilationism?

And in the future it may be necessary for fundamentalists (or whatever they are calling themselves at that point) to be more precise about justification.

But are we trying to say “we’re defining fundamentalism for everybody”? Well, nobody can really do that. Closest we could get would be to say “this is what ‘fundamentalism’ is for the purposes of the site.”

Given that fundamentalism is increasingly amorphous, I doubt that there will ever be a day again when there is a really strong and exhaustive consensus on what the term includes. But there is still alot of overlap in how folks use the term so I’m not among those who believe it is meaningless….”

Seems like a sort of happy medium. In the end, the aim is to have discussions where there is enough similarity among us that we can benefit and enjoy one another’s perspectives but enough difference that we can be tested with ideas and views that are unlike our own….
Exactly, Aaron, on all points. When an assumed doctrine is challenged, we have to respond and make a judgment. A lot of clear Bible teaching is intentionally made unclear in the name of hermeneutics, but really is nothing but a departure from Scripture. However, the three chapters about creation and the fall are greatly condensed summaries; no one can disagree with that. And they are inspired summaries, we all believe. As Bob Hayton said, we have to leave room for an admission of agnosticism on some points (not knowing). We do not know what we do not know.

We needed a good, lively subject to kick around, and we found it. Some really good thoughts with a lot of sensible thinking on all sides, IMO.

As far as defining fundamentalism, I still like Joel’s A-B-C approach.

"The Midrash Detective"

Off topic a bit perhaps, but related.

Two other paradigms are out there these days in regards to the relationship between theology and science (I’m saying “theology” rather than “Scripture” on purpose because we need to include what Scripture teaches an implies not just what it says).

One alternative reverses the relationship of theology and science, making science king. I suppose this might be the Enlightenment model.

http://sharperiron.org/sites/default/files/paradigm3.png

Another really popular way of looking at it is two separate spheres, and never the two shall meet.



http://sharperiron.org/sites/default/files/paradigm2.png

This one is the least tenable. Why? Where is “reality” in that model? Many who advocate this arrangement have clearly not thought about it more than ten minutes. Do we have two realities, one for science and one for theology? So when I’m sitting in church and lightning strikes, which reality am I in? It’s absurd. Theology speaks to all of life including science and defines the limits of what science is able to discover about reality.

Edit: I suppose that for some the “separate spheres” paradigm is intended to mean that theology and science each deal with distinct parts of reality. This is not much of an improvement. What happens when they both make assertions about the same thing, as in the case of creation? One or the other must dominate. So I think very few really hold to the “two separate spheres” model, though many give it lip service.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

For the record: 24(6+1).

But, I voted “yes but different wording” (mainly because I still hold out hope that Tim Keller will someday join :bigsmile:).

Something along the lines of … I affirm the historicity of Adam and Eve and accuracy of the Genesis account of origins.

I haven’t waded through all the above, so forgive me if this has already been recommended.

Also, It might be a bit sticky to put a blanket denial of evolution in the statement. At least some YEC believe that new species (after the original kind, of course) have evolved in the last 6000 years.

[DavidO] Also, It might be a bit sticky to put a blanket denial of evolution in the statement. At least some YEC believe that new species (after the original kind, of course) have evolved in the last 6000 years.
Interesting. I’d like to read more about that. I have noticed many YEC folks using more careful language, distinguishing between micro-evolution and species evolution, for example.

I don’t recall seeing any argue that new species have evolved since the flood. Perhaps you can post a link.

I appreciate the doctrinal statement suggestion as well.

This is on the unfinished business list around here (which is a pretty long list!), but I do hope we can publish something along the lines of a 2nd tier DS one of these days—that expresses doctrinal particulars that are important to the team beyond the membership doctrinal statement. It might be more descriptive than prescriptive though… “Some important things the current SI team believes…”

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

I don’t have any handy links, but its fairly simple. There are dozens of species and subspecies of Garter Snakes in North America. Do we really think that Noah took two of each on the ark? Let’s say for the sake of argument then that they all descended from one generic striped snake. They have diversified to the point where many types can no longer interbreed with other types. Since this meets at the criteria for at least one species definition, voila!

Of course there are others who speculate that Noah only took one pair of snakes on the ark, so that would make pythons, rattlers, and garters all descended from a common anscestor snake. Tough sell, if you ask me (and I see no reason to adopt that latter position other to accomodate science), still, its a YEC, literal flood position.

The idea that species have come about since the flood is neither new nor controversial. I believe Ham’s organization claims that “kinds” are not equivalent to our modern classification of species. There can, for example, be interbreeding between species that does not always result in infertility. The Creation Museum has a couple exhibits where they display the results of this interbreeding.

Dave Barnhart

I should speak for that group, likely small, would would be unable to affirm SI’s statement if the change in view were implemented.

My inability would not stem from a firm commitment to an alternate view, but a simple lack of confidence in the plausibility of YEC primarily as a theological and exegetical position, and secondarily as a scientific position.

Speaking of which YEC, that seems to me to be a fundamental and unclear point in this discussion: the age of the earth and the time-span in which God actively created are two distinct, though closely related, questions. As much as some prefer to collapse this distinction and metamorphose every creation discussion into a “see how x leads to y which leads to z” argument, I think there will only be an increase of people, even in Fundamentalism, who question the very young age of the earth.

Here I’ll offer an example, the point of which is not to discuss the validity of the question (that’s for the other thread), but to illustrate a sliver of the complexity people sometimes fail adequately to consider. There are at least three, independent scientific data sets that make believing in a YEC problematic. The first is biological data, and that’s usually the only set considered since it has to do with the evolution of life or the lack thereof.

The second set is geological, which is independent in its data from the question of the legitimacy of Darwinian theories of the development of life.

The third data set comes from cosmology/astronomy (e.g. planetary formation, the big bang).

One could probably add many more data sets that have nothing whatever to do with Darwinism, but all of which independently provide data for thinking the earth or solar system (or whatever) is relatively old.

Questions about YEC are often so unfruitful because of how they are framed; if the frame of discussion excludes factors relevant to the question, it will necessarily produce less than profitable results. Thus it is worth keeping in mind that one could, for example, completely ignore biology and still have a huge set of scientists who think they have excellent evidence for thinking the world is old (in fact, the PCA, which is conservative by any standard, recently released a statement by geologists which said that all PCA geologists that they were aware of affirmed an old earth).

The above is one of literally hundreds of “complexifiers” (a barbaric term, I agree) that people should bear in mind when contemplating why a person might not affirm YEC. There are theological, exegetical, historical, philosophical, and scientific issues that plenty of good, very conservative, people remain in disagreement about.

I don’t post much at SI these days (a wife and graduate school make it less feasible, among other things), and I affirm its right to narrow membership/participation in accord with its vision.

But I agree with those on this thread like Ed who think this particular narrowing wouldn’t improve discussion. In fact, it would mean certain questions that many people have couldn’t be easily broached, and I think that would be unfortunate. SI seems to continue to play a salutary role in letting people have serious and important conversations that they may not easily have elsewhere.