"This doctrine of six day creation was ... the consensus of the theologians, ministers and elders at the Westminster Assembly"

I agree with the author concerning a literal six-day creation and found the article quite helpful, but I was a bit disheartened to read that all fundamentalists are ignorant. :)

This is an awesome article, because it hits all of the points. A few comments

[Quote] But be patient. In time it will be seen that those humble Bible believers were right all along: it was a six-day creation.[/Quote]

I am not sure how he defines “time”, but I don’t believe that time will come until the return of Christ. I don’t believe science will ever reach this conclusion on it’s own.

[Quote] Yet the whole structure of God’s design for the history of mankind, according to the apostle Paul, can only be rightly understood as the (true) ‘story’ of two Adams.[/Quote]

This in my opinion is the whole crux of the theological argument. You can’t get around a literal Adam, without taking huge theological leaps, or even doctrinal slips.

The author did not need a Creation Museum or resort to the teachings found in a Creation Science book. He took the argument straight from the Scriptures. Exactly planted where it should be. The foundation must always be Scripture and the Truth must always start and end there.

Thanks SI for the link. It’s a good read.

Just some sidenotes:

****Our church family in 2013 is using the Answers (AiG) Sunday School curriculum from kindergarten to adults. As I have been teaching the teens, I have been pleased with the lessons. Being in the 2013 3rd quarter, I just spent a four weeks with the teens on the flood. Worldwide, mind you, and not a regional as ESV study Bible might suggest. If we can believe in humans living to almost a 1,000 years, why can’t we believe in a universal flood?

****On October 4-5, our church, Berean Baptist Church will be hosting a Creation Conference. Don Landis, the President of Jackson Hole Bible College and chairman of the board for Answers in Genesis, will be our speaker. You are all invited.

****Though some OPC men might consider Douglas Wilson, Christ’s Church, and New Saint Andrews College in Northern Idaho, out of bounds on some particular issues, the ministry up there is stalwart on 6-day creationism. Canon Press provides a good read or two on the topic - http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Six-Days-Defense-Traditional/dp/18857676…

“The author did not need a Creation Museum”

Its seems prerequisite now that a week cannot go by on SI that there is not at least one swipe at Ken Ham and AiG. There was a thread last week opened regarding the ark encounter, just for the purpose of belittling it. Now this swipe. I really do not understand this. I do understand that many here don’t agree with Ken Ham’s approach to ministry. That’s your privelege. But I do not understand how it benefits the body of Christ to use a public forum like this to just keep beating on a brother. I can think of many churches and para-church organizations populated with professing, and I assume genuine believers, but with whom I have a disagreement as to approach to ministry. It would be wrong for me to bring up their names only for the purpose of belittling them or attempting to encourage others to do the same. After all, God might very well use such ministries, and accomplish eternal fruit, while I am instead throwing rotten tomatoes. I am not bringing this up to start an argument, but rather to graciously remind everyone that we fight against the darkness of this sin saturated world, and that sinners will know we are genuine by our love for one another.

For what it’s worth, Darrell, I see the discussion as Christian debate. AiG will debate with brothers fighting against darkness who interpret with “day-age”, “analogical days”, or “literary framework” views, etc. That is good. Likewise, it is both fair and good, that Christian brothers may challenge AiG on a quarter of a billion dollar projects presented to brothers and sisters.

Of course, for me living in the LDS corridor, there is a core fundamental being systematically destroyed which I desire all the brothers to throw their back toward in support. God created ex nihilo, separating God from the creature.

et

[Darrell Post]

“The author did not need a Creation Museum”

Darrell, for me it is not a swipe at Ken Ham and AiG, but a swipe at the approach. I have no doubt that Ken is a Christian and that both he and the organization have great intentions. I also have no doubt that people are impacted by what he has done. What I am concerned about is that many of our young people have just missed the deep Scriptural basis and the theological and doctrinal constructs around a literal creationism. Instead we resort to the arguments about how science disproves evolution. I have seen way too many young people, even in our bible colleges who were caught up in the arguments on how radio carbon dating is wrong, and how canopy theory proves the flood…. and then once they got older and studied science realized that it all fell apart. http://biologos.org/ is filled with these young people as well as other institutions. I have spent a long time combating these young people who grew out of creation science, and studied AiG materials and went to churches that taught this and have since abandoned a literal 6-day creation, yet they had no clue on really what the Bible stated. That is what we are missing. They have no clue that if they abandon 6-day creation they have a host of other Scriptural problems. They feel the two (theistic evolution) and Scripture can live in harmony. This is what you don’t need a $50 million + museum to tell you. The article above is the type of things we should be teaching and not a model showing a dinosaur.

If Ken Ham wants to do this, all the more power to him. I have no fault with him. I just think we are focusing on the wrong stuff and I as well as others have been combating it and will be combating this approach for years to come.

I hope you would agree there is a difference between a face to face debate, and an internet blog where someone can be unknowingly named over and over by unknown adversaries and receive harsh and critical comments. If you do not agree with the projects Ham has launched, then donate your monies elsewhere. But beware that God might use AiG, and even the Ark Encounter in ways you did not anticipate—which is a good reason to be careful with our words toward a brother. But however God uses or doesn’t use AiG, I see no point in the repeated criticisms.

dgszweda, have you been to the creation museum? I think you have wrongly lumped AiG in with other groups who have used other approaches. The creation museum is largely a walk-through gospel tract. The basis of his whole approach is the authority of Scripture, not about how science disproves evolution. They start the museum in the very FIRST display talking about the basis for the Christian is the authority of the Scriptures, and based on this starting point, different conclusions are reached versus those whose starting point is evolution.

I grew up being taught the canopy theory. A couple weeks ago, an AiG teen lesson taught me to steer clear from this theory because of problems. So we have two biblical sources for the water: (1) foundations breaking up, (2) rain coming down from the windows of heaven. AiG got me thinking of water being projected into the skies from explosive magma and then coming down. We will be reforming in our understanding until the day we die.

And teens do like to ask questions. Like when a couple weeks ago, when an 8th grade homeschooler asked, “Did Noah and his family have a hard time breathing in the ark? How high up where they in elevation?”

But with any Sunday School lesson, creationism hermeneutic, or scientific interpretation, let us continually be Bereans who are thrilled to behold God through the face of Jesus Christ.

You are quite correct about the Creation Museum. They have done a first-class job with it. It is anything but a shallow presentation. It should give anyone who ridicules a literal interpretation of Genesis something to at least think about.

Darrell, that’s right. What is the staring point? God’s Word or man’s.

The very first display at the creation museum is a scene with wax figures - two archeologists on a dig. The video playing on screens above the scene present them as “friendly” colleagues who are working together on the dig. They present one of them as a scholar whose starting point is evolution, and they present the conclusions about what he is seeing in the dig, and these conclusions are based on his starting point of evolution. Then they present the conclusions of his colleague, whose starting point is the authority of the Scriptures. Their conclusions were different, even though they had the same data and materials in the dig, because they had different starting points.

That is the first display at the AiG creation museum. Then there are multiple displays that deal with origins, and where the Scriptures came from, so that the authority of Scripture is clearly shown…then the displays show how in recent times culture has abandoned the authority of the Scriptures and the fallout that naturally follows. Then the museum takes you to the garden of Eden, and walks the visitor through a gospel tract, starting with Adam, the fall, the flood, babel, and it ends with a very well done video drama “The Last Adam” which accomplishes the exact vision expressed in the link at the top of this thread…connecting the first adam to the last Adam, Jesus Christ.

So I conclude based on my own visit to the creation museum last fall, that it is in complete harmony with what the Presbyterian/Reformed author in the link above was advocating. When I attended the creation museum, I had no idea what to expect, but after I walked through it, I concluded they hit the right tone, and presented a Scripture-saturated case for Christ and His creation.

[Darrell Post] Its seems prerequisite now that a week cannot go by on SI that there is not at least one swipe at Ken Ham and AiG. There was a thread last week opened regarding the ark encounter, just for the purpose of belittling it.

For reference here is the thread from last week

• Since I was an early poster on that thread
• My comment was not to belittle Ham and AIG
• I take exception to Ham’s statements:
  • “the building of a full-size Ark can stand as a reminder to the world of salvation”: My response: No need of a full-sized ark for this purpose.
  • “an Ark would also stand as a warning of coming judgment—to condemn those who reject God’s clear Word”: My response: ditto
  • “Yes. It’s time! It’s the right time to rebuild Noah’s Ark. We believe that God has called AiG to construct an Ark according to the dimensions in the Bible, to remind people of the truth of God’s Word and call them to salvation”: My response: Good for him. He believes “God has called” AIG to construct an Ark. I find this statement incredulous.

Not sure how many have seen the GIANT roadside crosses. I gather there may more than two of them. Here’s the ones I’ve seen:

• Effingham, Illinois: World’s Largest Cross. Location
• Groom, Texas (from 2nd page of this website: “Meet God’s chosen builder Steve Thomas and his wife, Bobby”)

I regard Ham’s mandate and call the build the ark as silly as Steve and Bobby’s! I’m not buying that!

There have been fundamentalists who have held to a literal six day creation but not to that of a young earth.

“We believe that God has called…” I would suggest you might be reading a little too much into this. People use this sort of language all the time….”I believe that God has called … me to this pastorate….or….us to open a seminary….or…us to start a mission board.”

You have made it quite clear that in your view AiG / Ken Ham is to some extent misguided and wrong-headed. My point is why use a blog to keep beating this drum? [A similar thread was also opened a few months back in response to a CT article.] There are all sorts of ministries, churches, para-church orgs that I do not whole-heartedly agree with, and yet there is no compelling reason to name them, and criticize them in this format. It does nothing to edify the body of Christ, and in the end such criticisms could turn out to be going against a place where God has chosen to produce eternal fruit.