Creation Science vs. “Eology”

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by asterisktom, Sep 30, 2015.

  1. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    Disclaimer: I am not saying that outside evidences are without value. My concern is, in the building and articulating of the Scriptural worldview (including recent discussions I have had of how many “days” are “6 days”), which kind of evidences are exhibit A and which are exhibit B.

    A lot of coined words are born out of frustration and a perceived need for the term. I wrote “eology” in the subject line to differentiate a purely Biblical discipline from a science that mixes “Thus saith the Lord” with “This just in…”. I believe that in all areas of Bible study there should be a discipline that is foremost (and preferably exclusively) a Scriptural investigation of the study at hand and not a borrowing from Athens, Alexandria – or Cal Tech.

    When Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible discuss, say, eschatology or soteriology, they do not usually accredit current events/commentary or pop-psychology, respectively, with the same authority on those two topics as they do.

    But when it comes to beginnings, well, the attitude is often different. Methodology of argument is different. It bothers me when many well-meaning Christians hitch their wagons to dubious scientific apologetics instead of putting Scriptural evidences first. Which evidence should be more important, for instance:

    A. Exodus 20: 11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth” or
    B. the geologic table and it’s “index fossils”

    For Christians the answer, it seems to me, should be A. But how many Christians needlessly weary themselves trying to untangle knots and strands of contradictory outside evidence (often shifting as fashions change, cow replacing sacred cow) instead of using the same effort to really attempt to plumb the depths of God’s Word, taking Him at His
    word when He said that He really did say the last – and the best – word on our origins and on all things that have to do with life and holiness?

    John Owen’s words, though given in a somewhat different connection, seem appropriate here:

    The revelations that he has made of himself, and of the glorious
    properties of his nature, in the works of creation and providence,
    are, in themselves, clear, plain, and manifest: Psalm 19: 1, 2;
    Romans 1:19, 20. Those which are made in Christ are sublime and
    mysterious. Howbeit, the knowledge we have of him as he is
    represented unto us in Christ is far more clear,
    certain, steady, effectual and operative, than any we can attain in
    and by all other ways of revelation. The reason hereof is, not only
    because there is a more full and extensive revelation made of God,
    his counsels and his will, in Christ and the gospel, than in all the
    works of creation and providence; but because this revelation and
    representation of God is received by faith alone, the other by reason
    only: and it is faith that is the principle of spiritual light and
    life in us. What is received thereby is operative and effectual, unto
    all the ends of the life of God. For we live by faith here, as we
    shall by sight hereafter.”


    and

    “It is the knowledge of “God in Christ” alone that is effectually
    powerful to work the souls of men into a conformity unto him. Those
    alone who behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ are
    changed into the same image, from glory to glory.”

    These are taken from his “Christologia”.

    Instead of fighting Goliaths in Saul’s armor, I believe Christians should use the Sword with more confidence and precision, instead of being embarrassed (as some seem) or concessionary to the spirit of the age. It is only the application of God’s Word in this area of beginnings that we can make true headway and get people (and ourselves) more conformed to the image of Christ, Col 3:10.

    Oh, I am almost forgot. By “eology”, I mean the study of beginnings -to match the “eschatos” of eschatology. Both look primarily to the Word for their proofs.

    I would have chosen “archaeology” first, but the pottery people got to that word first and are squandering it in their misnomered application to something that should have been named something else. ; )
     
  2. Reformed

    Reformed
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,227
    Likes Received:
    57
    Tom, I am a "young earth" guy, so appealing to the scriptural proof of "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" is easy for me. As a Reformed "young earth" guy, I also confess Sola Scriptura. So again, this issue does not cause me any great anxiety. But in order to maintain my credibility when it comes to the doctrine of beginnings, I will offer a defense of sorts for my day-age friends.

    There are many "old earth" theologians (Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield come to mind) who based their opinion on scripture just as you or I would for a "young earth" position. They would say that their appeal to physical proofs (i.e. geology and archaeology) are no different than archaeological finds in modern day Israel that validate the existence of the Davidic kingdom. It is when physical proof takes precedent over Scripture that proponents of the day-age theory run into problems. The folks at Bio-Logos are well known for that.
     
  3. wpe3bql

    wpe3bql
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    12
    If you want an excellent resource that covers just about every imaginable aspect of the Young earth vs. the Old earth controversy PLUS covering everything you'd ever want to know about the Gap Theory, PLUS just about the very best single volume commentary on Genesis by a Scientific Creationist viewpoint, you can't get a much better resource than Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., The Genesis Record: A Scientific & Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings.

    I think it's still available through Amazon and costs about $30.

    Morris takes about 270 pages of his 700+ page commentary (That's close to 40%) in dealing with every thing from Chapters 1 though to the end of Chapter 11, which basically is everything the average person would ever want to know in Genesis about creation (Morris is definitely Young Earth) and the Genesis flood--he co-authored The Genesis Flood--plus a whole lot more.

    IMHO opinion:
    1) The Genesis Record is the best commentary around for reading about what the OP is about, and,
    2) The most well-known advocate of the Gap Theory was the Plymouth Brethren's C.I. Schofield, who in the early 1920's, came out with his Reference Bible. Were it not for that single volume Study Bible, most folks probably would have never even heard of the Gap Theory.
     
    #3 wpe3bql, Oct 1, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 1, 2015
  4. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    It's just a coined word, along the line of eohippus, the [assumed] "dawn/early horse". I was referring to the true dawn of time - Genesis. It was sort of tongue in cheek, since eohippus assumes evolution.
     
  5. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    Yes, I remember reading that in Warfield, a man I have admired in other respects. I guess my greatest caution is that the line between proofs and presuppositions is not always discernible. Proofs, after all, require articulation. Big rocks under little rocks; developed fossils under simple fossils; the physical artifacts are there for all. But they would seem to prove two contrary facts: slow evolution from simple to complex or flood-caused hydrologic sorting.

    I certainly agree with your last point. Often pphysical proofs - or seeming proofs - taking bullying precedence over "Thus saith the Lord." This is that magisterial use of science, rather than ministerial, as Jonathan Sarafati pointed out in his book (name escapes me).
     

Share This Page

Loading...