Yesterday, Justin Taylor did a post questioning the calendar day interpretation of Gen 1. To judge by reactions I've seen, this generated some shock waves.
Some people seem to think this represents a sinister shift away from the status quo ante. Now, I don't think Justin made a very strong case for his position.
But I'm struck by how many people seem to find his position surprising or even shocking. Yet OEC has been pretty mainstream in evangelism, including Calvinism and/or Dispensationalism, for generations.
The SBC is noncommittal on YEC. Reformed denominations like the OPC, PCA, and URC are noncommittal on YEC. Likewise, most prominent Reformed seminaries are noncommittal on YEC, viz. WTS, RTS, WSC, Covenant Seminary, Knox Seminary.
An exception is GPTS, which represents Old School Southern Presbyterian theology. But even R. L. Dabney, in his old age, promoted the ruin-reconstruction theory in his epic poem ("The Christology of the Angels").
Likewise, I don't believe that DTS, the flagship of Dispensational seminaries, has ever been committed to YEC. And many venerable Dispensationalists espouse the gap theory/ruin-reconstruction theory, or the day-age theory.
So Justin's position doesn't represent a novel trend or sudden defection from the status quo ante. Why do some critics act so surprised or shocked? Are they just unacquainted with modern church history?
Keep in mind that this is distinct from evaluating his proposal. I'm just struck by how many of his critics find this startling.
One reason may be if this is seen in the context of concerted efforts like BioLogos, John Walton, and Peter Enns to redirect the church and redefine Christian theology. But to my knowledge, there's no evidence that Justin is part of that agenda. To the contrary, I believe he's behind the publication of recent books defending the historicity and inerrancy of Scripture.
One of the elders of my PCA church, Dr. David Snoke, has written a book on OEC:
ReplyDeleteA Biblical Case for An Old Earth
He'd probably appreciate if Triablogue readers would go out and buy a bunch of copies of it :-)
They actually had a brief sermon series on Genesis, and they brought in John Collins for a weekend. This was an opportunity for me to have a discussion with several of my kids on YEC vs OEC. I mentioned to them that I tended YEC; they were shocked at first that I might disagree with Dave and my pastor on this. But after we talked about it, they ended up moving in the YEC direction. I think it's hard to be adamant about it either way.
The URC on the East coast is strongly young earth. While there is not a denominational position, if someone looking to be ordained in the URC on the East coast adhered to an old earth, he might not pass his ordination exam.
ReplyDeleteI tend to be YEC because I think the exegesis is more compelling than that of OEC and that the science appealed to to support OEC isn't as compelling as many make it out to be. Additionally, the miraculous necessarily eludes naturalistic discovery. (Then there's the curious matter of Jewish eschatology, which is interesting but only relevant if it applies to Revelation 20.) The only reason I'm inclined to invest in the matter are to advocate for sound hermeneutical thinking over and against the tide of opinion that inflates the epistemic reliability of scientific discovery.
ReplyDeleteAt seminary (RTS), I only remember one professor who strongly favored YEC. I didn't find his arguments that compelling. Most of the others I discussed this with took alternative (orthodox) positions.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right in suggesting the response arises from a kind of epistemic closure (if you will). There are certainly some Evangelical blogs that operate in a circle--that cannot tolerate differences on non-essentials and shut out those who do--and I wouldn't be surprised if their exposure to competing or alternative views is limited. Most of the people who write for those blogs, and their readers, tend not to read relevant scholarship on these (or similar) subjects.
I try always to believe what Steve believes. Life is easier that way.
DeleteThat would make an excellent bumper sticker.
DeleteThat did make me smile, John. I've never come up against Steve in a debate, and, quite frankly, I hope I never do :-)
DeleteHi Danny -- I was half-way joking in that last comment, but in all the years I've been doing this, I've not seen a clearer thinker than Steve -- one who is more considerate of all the various positions, and the most focused on the truth. Aside from that, he has incredible patience -- not only blogging here day after day for year after year, but also in his ability to deal even with such a persistently misguided soul as "guy fawkes"; if I recall, Steve responded objection-for-objection with him, for hundreds of comments, and debunked every single "objection" that was put forth.
DeleteBehind the scenes, too, he is incredibly generous with his time and his erudition, helping me to sift through positions and suggesting various ways of taking on various projects.
So yes, I've come to trust him to a very great degree, on a lot of things.
Hi John,
DeleteI appreciate your response, and the personal insight with your dealings with Steve.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that Steve is a brilliant thinker and formidable debater. I followed those exchanges with 'guy fawkes' and you're right, Steve walked through every relevant 'objection,' debunking the lot. As is the usual, standard procedure with Steve.
I appreciate all you Triablogue brothers do here, John. Outstanding.
I find it ironic that I studied the text of Genesis and concluded that it would allow for an old earth, and then I looked at the science and it gave me doubts about an old earth.
ReplyDeleteIs there a work that takes all the good aspects of YE and OE and ID together, without compromise on essentials ? (like Adam and Eve specially created, in the image of God, etc.)
ReplyDeleteI guess that would depend one what you think the good aspects are.
DeleteI appreciate the focus of the OE and ID on the cosmological and telelogical (purpose, design), irreducible complexity for discussing the issues with hard atheists and skeptics. I think there approach is more effective to begin with with hard atheists, skeptics, scientists; - though I thought Ken Ham was right in what he said to Bill Nye the science guy; when a person goes up against those guys from the very first breath as "six day, 24 hour creation" - the skeptic then dismisses them and everything else is related to that issue. Whereas, it seems to me, we can begin with stuff from ID, Stephen Meyer, Philip Johnson, Michael Behe type of arguments, then move from there later into the details.
DeleteI think the ID and irreducible complexity and teleology works better at the beginning of an argument; and the YE and OE issues are in house debates between Christians, as long as the OE are not Theistic Evolutionists or like the Bioslogos types. But OE has to explain animal death, and I am still wondering what a good apologetic is to all the fossils of supposed humanoids. Some OE and ID proponents say that they are "Soul-less bipeds" ( ?) that existed before Adam and Eve. What is the answer to that issue?
The exegesis of six day creationism is the best exegesis; I agree, as far as I know. But I don't know how to answer the other questions of the all the humanoid fossils and other scientific type stuff that atheistic scientists throw at us.
"I don't know how to answer the other questions of the all the humanoid fossils and other scientific type stuff that atheistic scientists throw at us."
DeleteWhile not stated, that seems to be the real issue among many Christians. Many of these questions are answered by AiG. People dismiss AiG because they are presuppositionalists and too many Christians have a gut reaction against assuming that the Bible is true first. However, despite being up front with their presuppositions, or rather because of their presuppositions, the AiG folks actually do good science. Naturalists just don't like them pointing out the weaknesses they would just as soon deny. The fact is that science is less certain than many in the scientific academy would have us all believe. There is a limit to what we can know and be certain of using naturalistic means. But there are other means of knowing things and revelation from God is one of those means, and it is far more certain. Although the quantity of information is limited, the quality of information gives us far greater certainty about some things.
Jay Wile also has some good YEC resources
Deletehttp://blog.drwile.com/
Ken:
Delete"and I am still wondering what a good apologetic is to all the fossils of supposed humanoids."
I don't think there's any presumption that these are primitive humanoid ancestors rather than extinct apes.
Ken:
Delete"But OE has to explain animal death"
What do you think OEC needs to explain in that regard?
Can we presuppose the Bible is true without addressing the day / yom issue of Genesis 1 at the beginning of conversations with atheists, etc.? Ken Ham seems to say that up front very first thing. I would think irreducible complexity, cosmological and teological and moral arugments, based on Romans 1 and 2, would be more effective to focus on at the beginning, rather than the yom/day issue.
DeleteOE has to explain animal death -
YE says that Romans 5:12 says all death started after Adam's sin. But in OE animal death is going on for thousands and millions of years. OE says Romans 5:12 means human death, but YE says it means all death - God killing the animals for the skins for clothing Adam and Eve points to shedding of blood for forgiveness and was the first death, even animal death. Al Mohler talks about this in his lecture he gave a few years ago, "Why does the Earth appear to be old.
I don't think Rom 5:12 is referring to death in general. In context, it's referring to the the cause or source of human death. The origin of human death. For exegetical analysis:
Deletehttp://www.upper-register.com/papers/animal_death_before_fall_print.html
I tend old earth myself, but not because of the text. I believe that the text doesn't really speak to the issue. I'd be pretty close to Justin I suppose. I see the days as part of the imagery of God as a temple-building king. I handle it in the same way I handle the Spirit hovering in verse 2 and the expanse in verse 6 and the lights in verses 14-16. I don't care for the way Hugh Ross tries to force long ages into the days, I find it pretty weak. But I also object to how some people try to force our modern understanding back into the text.
ReplyDeletePeter, that is ironic. I am the other way. I think the passage is best understood as not teaching either direction. However I tend toward old earth only because of the science.
Good post Steve.
By the way, I also don't see why some people would capitulate to an old earth just because that is the current scientific majority. I recently attempted to try and fit Genesis 1-11 into the traditional view of the history of the cosmos but have found it very difficult to find a fit. Going old earth solves some problems, but it creates new ones.
ReplyDeleteSince you mention it, here's a up-to-date exposition of the moral argument for God's existence:
ReplyDeletehttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/