Skip to comments.An Open Letter to Reformed Creationists
Posted on 10/14/2010 7:07:18 PM PDT by The Ignorant Fisherman
Dear Friends in Christ,
We thank the Lord for your faith in our magnificent Creator-God, the One who created all things out of nothing (Heb. 11:3), and who created this world and all that is in it in six literal 24-hour days (Exodus 20:11), to the praise of His glory. Many of you have supported sound creation research organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Answers in Genesis (AIG), and some of you are leaders in these organizations.
We recognize that many of our Reformed brethren are staunch creationists, and for this we thank God and we stand with you. We join with you in your uncompromising affirmation that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of all things (John 1:3; Col. 1:16), accomplished His finished work of creation in six literal days, not billions of years ago, not millions of years ago, but in the recent past, a mere thousands of years ago. We stand with you in opposing evolutionary dogma which has plagued our society for over 200 years, has poisoned the minds of young people, and has robbed God of the glory which is rightfully His as the world's great Designer and Creator of every living thing and every inanimate object.
(Excerpt) Read more at middletownbiblechurch.org ...
For those of you who really don’t know much about creation theories, I plead with you to scan this:
... and then go back and study it. I bet that you’ve never considered these things before, never even heard of the “orchard model” of creation. Please, for the love of truth, take some time and become informed. Just don’t roll your eyes and assume biblical creationists are ignorant luddites.
Thanks for the post. Bookmarked.
Hm. There’s a lot of good stuff in that article, but I don’t like how the author keeps criticizing a particular collection of Christians: Reformed creationists.
He wrote, for example, “I’m going to give several examples of how Reformed men (non-dispensational men) have abandoned the literal method of interpretation.”
Why do that? Why not simply promote the truth, rather than denigrate a particular group of people.
FWIW, I’m Reformed, and I’m a biblical creationist. And I hold most of the things that this author wrote to be true. So it’s kind of silly to accuse me wrongly, as though he’s the sage and I need to be corrected.
Bottom line: He makes some good points. I just wish he would have done so without demeaning as a group Reformed creationists like me.
Ha! Paleontology Schmaleontology.
If God plans to punish me for giving Him credit for evolution, He’s sure taking his time about it.
Read a funny quote last night from Anne Coulter about her friend in an obit, something about how if evolution is true, we don’t seem too worried about any other mammals or reptiles catching up or surpassing us....
My God, by His Word put the entire universe in place, in motion, and all in time better than any swiss watch. Your problem in needing to believe in the fairy tale of evolution is that whatever God it is you worship, he’s way too small.
And Peter says that ONE day with the LORD is as a thousand years, and how long did Methuselah live???? 969 years NOT quite ONE day with the LORD.
Creationists are NOT disproving evolution to claim it was only 6 literal days of creation when the WORD plainly says otherwise.
In my childhood days, in grade school in 1947, I saw Christianity come under assault by teachers that ridiculed Christian belief, and the content of the Bible. Evolution supposedly explained everything, they said my church was a collection of fools. For a while I thought they might be right.
But, then I found NASA scientists in the Bible Science Association that proved beyond any doubt that this is a very young earth. I learned the truth about the lies evolutionists tell us, and no longer doubt that the words of the Bible can indeed be taken literally - from cover to cover.
Again we have the problem of inconsistency. Gary North understands the days in Genesis 1 literally, in their normal sense, as do so many Reformed creationists. However, he understands the years in Revelation 20 in a non-literal way, in a symbolic way. It fits his theology to make the days of Genesis 1 be literal days; it contradicts his theology to understand the millennium of Revelation 20 as a literal millennium of 1000 years. Should not the text of the Bible determine our theology instead of letting our theology govern how we understand the text?
OK, this is mostly a dispensationalist vs. everyone else thing.
I am not at all impressed by the dispensationalist's claim to "literal, plain sense" interpretation. It's rhetoric and bluster, often. They simply can not make good on that, with respect to time texts.
Well, there are some good insights, no doubt, but the author unfortunately lumps all reformed creationists into one category of eschatology, and that just isn’t the case. For example, I follow Spurgeon on this as a historic premillenialist. Most of the prophecies usually understood as literal by dispensationalists will indeed find a literal fulfillment, national Israel’s restoration, the visible return of Christ at a time of great crisis, etc.
However, one can go too far the other way and demand that all prophecies are yet future, as though nothing but a little bare history was fulfilled in Christ, and that would rob us blind of some of the sweetest insights ever bequeathed to us as believers. I have no problem seeing Christ as the river of life, because he really is this to me, and to all believers. That does not preclude a future where such a river may have physical expression as well. God had a heavenly temple at the same time as he had an earthly temple.
So it seems imprudent to suggest that only the dispensationalists are being honest with Scripture. In fact, I have serious problems with some key dispensational conclusions (pretribulational rapture, fundamental changes in the mode of salvation per dispensational epoch, pyramids as models of the New Jerusalem (yes, I’ve really heard that), etc.
For my own part, I look at how poorly the nation of Israel anticipated the manner in which all the prophecies of Jesus would be fulfilled in his first appearing, and I wonder whether we might do as poorly, when the reality is finally accomplished and we can reflect on our own performance.
We recognize that many of our Reformed brethren are staunch creationists, and for this we thank God and we stand with you. We join with you in your uncompromising affirmation that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of all things (John 1:3; Col. 1:16), accomplished His finished work of creation in six literal days, not billions of years ago, not millions of years ago, but in the recent past, a mere thousands of years ago. We stand with you in opposing evolutionary dogma which has plagued our society for over 200 years, has poisoned the minds of young people, and has robbed God of the glory which is rightfully His as the world's great Designer and Creator of every living thing and every inanimate object.I sensed there was another shoe waiting to drop following the excerpt. And I was right....
But in spite of your wonderful stand for creation and for the God of creation, I have some serious concerns about the way you interpret other parts of the Bible. It is evident that you have departed from the normal, literal interpretation of Scripture when it comes to the last book of the Bible as well as hundreds of other prophecies that relate to Israel and God's future kingdom. If literal interpretation serves us well for the first book in the Bible, then why would we abandon this approach when it comes to the last book of the Bible? If many Bible prophecies were literally fulfilled when the Lord Jesus Christ came to the earth the first time, then why would we not expect literal fulfillment when it comes to hundreds of prophecies that relate to the future of Israel, the kingdom and the Lord's second coming?
....Many Reformed creationists embrace what has been called "Replacement Theology." This view teaches that the Church has permanently replaced Israel as the instrument through which God works and that natural Israel does not have a future in the plan and purpose of God.No Reformed, amillennial or postmillennial Christian that I know of believes that they're replacing the Jews in God's eschatology. In fact, it's the modern dispensationalist who thinks that the Jews have been replaced by the church until the church disappears in the rapture!
According to English and every other dispensationalist, the Church has replaced Israel until the rapture. The unfulfilled promises made to Israel are not fulfilled until after the Church is taken off the earth. Thomas Ice, one of dispensationalisms rising stars, admits that the Church replaces Israel this side of the rapture: We dispensationalists believe that the church has superseded Israel during the current church age, but God has a future time in which He will restore national Israel as the institution for the administration of divine blessings to the world.
-- From the thread Answering the "Replacement Theology" Critics (Part 1)
...the very category of replacement is foreign to Reformed theology because it assumes a dispensational, Israeleo-centric way of thinking. It assumes that the temporary, national people was, in fact, intended to be the permanent arrangement.
-- From the thread Replacing Replacement Theology
"The historical premillennialist's view interprets some prophecy in Scripture as having literal fulfillment while others demand a semi-symbolic fulfillment. As a case in point, the seal judgments (Revelation 6) are viewed as having fulfillment in the forces in history (rather than in future powers) by which God works out his redemptive and judicial purposes leading up to the end. Rather than the belief of an imminent return of Christ, it is held that a number of historical events (e.g., the rise of the Beast and the False Prophet) must take place before Christ's Second Coming. This Second Coming will be accompanied by the resurrection and rapture of the saints (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18); this will inaugurate the millennial reign of Christ. The Jewish nation, while being perfectly able to join the church in the belief of a true faith in Christ, has no distinct redemptive plan as they would in the dispensational perspective. The duration of the millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:1-6) is unsure: literal or metaphorical."
-- From the thread Four Views on the Millennium
Amazing that these men were hired by NASA when they obviously flunked freshman geology.
The Earth was not created in six days. If god was capable of creating a functioning world biosphere and all he would have done a much better job engineering his creatures particularly men. Posting things like this makes conservatives look like utter morons.
The bible was written by men trying to understand the work of god the best they knew how. It is not an infalliable document and six days for god could have just as easily meant six bllion years. The man created the universe after all no doube he percives time differently.
You said it.
I just had my tonsils out yesterday, and am very thankful for the 'creation' of high intensity pain relievers. It's almost ten years to the month that I had my wisdom teeth out.
In another 10 years maybe it'll be time for an emergency appendectomy. Some design.
The Bible NOWHERE claims that the 'days' of creation are describing literal 24 hour days. Furthermore, Genesis 1:1 is a declaration of what God did and in no way is indicative of how much time this 'age' lasted.
Those that penned the WORD of God were His hand picked chosen, and it has been the liberal mindset down through the 'ages' that have injected their mindset into and onto the various translations we now have today.
There are some among us that are blinded from the truth and the age of this earth obviously fits... But an old old earth in no way changes or alters what God did when HE and the US and OUR that participated in the creation and formation of flesh human beings. Genesis 1:26 Then a completely different account is given in Genesis 2:7 a couple of 'days' later when 'the' Adam was formed of the dust of the ground....
AND GOD said what He did was good, it has been His creation that think so highly of themselves that deem themselves high minded enough to tell the potter what He did or did not do with His 'clay'...
Oh I’m an old creationist myself I have no doubt the Universe was created and possibly god stepped in and created our world. Personally though I think he seeded life and let nature develop on his own. The idea that Earth sprang into being fully formed is downright silly and if you ask most creationists they’ll say that the Earth was formed in six literal days. And if god had a direct hand in making man he would be a much more efficent creature than he is now.
Creationists that claim this earth is a mere 6,000 years old are not getting their evidence from the WORD. None of them can tell me when exactly it was that the devil rebelled. And yet the devil is right there in the Garden symbolizing a serpent.
Also creationists ignore what we are told in regard to the formation of 'the' Adam... he flesh was formed but he was not alive until the 'breath of life' which means soul was breathed into his nostrils... Now that begs the question when were the souls created as Moses does not even address that question.
But Christ did say that to see the kingdom of God one must be born from above, not again as so many read the mistranslation. Just as Christ came from above and His conception is described so did and does every soul that chooses to 'see' the kingdom of God.... Now that does not mean that every soul will 'enter' the kingdom but they have at least performed the first requirement.
And what we see of flesh bodies is merely the vessel that houses that soul for whatever period of time that flesh lives on this earth.... It is a journey and at some point in a shortened time frame every soul returns to the Maker that sent it. Some return in good standing and others are separate by what is called a 'gulf' very well aware they fell short.
Flesh man did not walk this earth at the same time the dino tramped and crawled, and flew. Had they been here Noah would have been required to house them when that flood was sent to wipe out the flesh beings that got caught up in an attempt to destroy the blood line to Christ.
TOE has been an utter flop in the attempt to deceive God's children from the truth of why they are here, and these short time creationists ignore willingly what Peter said they would nearly a 'couple' of days back with the Lord.
This flesh age is set aside for any who will to decide just who they will believe, but some are blinded for their own good....
You're not familiar with the fall? It corrupted everything.
Time is relative. We already know that velocity and strong gravitational forces change time. Who knows what other variables could effect the same. Thus, what took 6 literal days at the time of creation could appear to have taken billions of years from man’s current perspective.
Except Chapter 20 of Exodus.
God took billions of earth years to create the universe. Then when He had Moses write about it in Genesis, He excerpted his work. He said, “Hey, if it’s good enough for The Ignorant Fisherman, then by God it’s good enough for me.”
To Reformists, God engineered the fall. Thus, in their perspective, it necessarily falls back on God.
I respect my Reformist brethren, but I know they are wrong in this regard.
With all its conservation laws, I think the Universe is more like an accounting system than a watch.
This misses the point. The point is that with advent of the fall one should not be surprised that man is flawed in his physical make up. Man was corrputed both spiritually and physically by the curse engendered as a consequence of the fall.
But from a reformed perspective, it could not be a “consequence of the fall,” since it was pre-engineered.
Now, some of us believe that the fall was not pre-engineered, but that it was a possibility. Reformists believe that if more than one outcome was possible, that somehow makes God less sovereign. I disagree. And I realize that saved Christians are going to disagree on this and other things, such as the length of time that creation took. I accept that and love my reformed brethren. Thankfully entry into heaven doesn’t depend on passing a “final exam” other than that outlined by Christ Himself.
I knew someone would claim that what Moses penned in Exodus 20 would be used as the measurement of 'time'. The problem is in pointing to Exodus 20 as ones measurement of the days of creation is it requires one to ignore the previous instruction given by Moses.
Apparently God knew what some would point to as His time standard to which is why all those many days later He would have Peter explain in specifics exactly how long those days of creation were. IIPeter 3.
You really think that Moses did not teach these children the previous instruction from "In the beginning".... forward. Wonder how Moses explained Methuselah 969 years which is followed by in a few verses that God shortened the life span of any flesh to 120 years.
The children knew they could not 'see' God and their flesh would stay alive. What Exodus is, is the formation of a 'constitution' by which these now freed children were to live by, be successful, protected and blessed. And the 'days' of Exodus 20 applied to them as to what they were to 'remember' and obey.
It sure is interesting to observed how few things Moses penned in Exodus is still observed these days and yet men of God pluck out of context what is being said to the children in their time as definitive answer to what they apply it to mean completely disregarding the whole instruction.
That certainly doesn't follow. Opening of a door is a consequence of my turning the doorknob which was my intention in turning the knob in the first place. God intended the results of the fall he engineered. Thus, no reason to be surprised by man's physical corrpution.
I understand your disagreement with the reformed perspective and I am not engaging that debate here. We can disagree on that point and still be friends and fellow witnesses for Christ.
I see nothing in your post which refutes (or even attempts to refute) the clear position in Exodus 20 that creation was six 24 hour days. You merely dance around the point. The context could not be clearer or more on point - relating a 24 hour sabbath to the 24 hour days of creation.
It’s a metaphor, not a geology lesson.
Mark 13:23 (Before one word of the New Testament got penned) Christ said "But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
The Christ immediately quotes Isaiah 13:10 which then makes Isaiah's writings one and the same as the 'gospel'. All of what got penned is about looking forward as to what started all this flesh age so the rebels will ultimately get sorted out, and for that final generation of flesh born as to what to expect to have happen prior to and during and after the return of Christ... Now some of these that call themselves Christian like the parable of the ten virgins are not going to have enough 'oil' with them when that day arrives. The 'oil' is the WORD and some of them will be so ashamed they will pray for mountains to fall on them, and some will claim they did this and that and Christ is said to say to some of them I never knew you.
IF the foundation of Christ from "In the beginning...." is faulty and built upon deception and willing ignorance these children are going to be in a world of hurt.
None of us can know where we will be when that 'day' of the Lord comes, but the instruction is to 'warn' what is ahead as per what God had His chosen holy prophets to pen. Picking and choosing words here and there is not part of what is required to stand against the fiery darts of the devil.
God had Peter put into writing how long a day with Him is. I have no authority to refute Peter but to read with understanding how not to be willingly ignorant. It really bothers me when God says some of His children are 'sottish' (sottish means stupid) (Jeremiah 4:22) and willingly ignorant and while ignorance is not the sin, staying that way sure is not going to better my standing.
Those children that were brought out of Egypt are like preschoolers that needed to be taught the basic concept of who, what, where, when, why, and even how. You must ignore what is written up to and long after Exodus 20 to claim that is the definitive standard of time measurement for how long the days of creation literally were.
Struck an exposed nerve there ...
There is no doubt that Moses wrote and understood that he was describing the creation of the world in regular 24 hour days.
And there was evening and morning ... the first day ...
And there was evening and morning ... the second day ...
You cannot claim he meant something else without committing intellectual and grammatical suicide. If you read the words you cannot come to any other conclusion than Moses meant 24 hour days.
It is an entirely different question as to whether he was correct.
Whys that ?
Why is that a requirement? What theological problem does not knowing when he fell present a young earth creationist? He fell before his appearance in the garden ... does it have to be more complicated than that?
That's not what Peter's statment means at all. Peter was explaining why Christ's return was taking longer than some expected and Peter was pointing out how time is relative to God. Under you analysis Peter would have believed that Christ was resurrected three thousand years after his crucifixion. Under your analysis when God told Jeramiah that the Jewish exile would last 70 years he really meant 25.5 million years.
The point is clarified as to what God was saying, by Peter, HE is the WORD and there is nobody in the flesh since, that can ever know exactly what Moses knew or did not know, as we are not mind readers.
Because the devil rebelling is why we have this 'flesh' age. And God had Moses pen the rebellion took place in Genesis 1:2 before the 'days' of earth clean up and the creation of flesh bodies wherein the souls that already existed were placed.
Christ Himself told Nicodemus, (John 3) that only those that were born from ABOVE not AGAIN could 'see' the kingdom of God. The devil will never be offered that opportunity as he was before this flesh age sentenced to death. And the devil is called 'death' in Hebrews 2:14. And in verse 10 of John 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" So it was NOT a new thing that Christ was teaching.
Its also frustrating that those (I assume you are ... ) who espouse a reformed theology just cannot stop from running to the New Testament to explain away the plain meaning of the Old.
Peter says the scoffers were willingly ignorant of IIPeter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of,
that by the word of God the heavens were of OLD, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then WAS, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 BUT the heavens and the earth which are NOW, by the same WORD are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Genesis 1:2 AND the earth was (wrong verb used here as it should be became without form, and void; and 'darkness' (another name for the devil) was upon the face of the deep.
AND the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Back to what God had Peter say the scoffers were willingly ignorant of IIPeter 3:8 BUT, beloved, be NOT ignorant of this one thing,
that one DAY is with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as ONE day.
verse 9 The LORD is not slack concerning His promise, (what promise?) as some men count slackness;
but is longsuffering to us-ward, NOT willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Here goes Peter again using that 'day' in verse 10 BUT the 'day' of the LORD will come as a thief in the night;
Now if everybody is expecting Jesus to return why would Peter say that His return would be like a thief in the night....
Because most everybody will believe the first supernatural entity upon this earth is Jesus, when it will be none other than the devil playing, 'come to me' I will save you, 'i am' Jesus and it is Written the majority of the inhabitants upon this earth still in flesh bodies will be holy seduced into by his deception.
We know how long Judah spent in Babylon as it is WRITTEN. We also are told what 'new' religion Judah brought back to Jerusalem with them as well, that too is WRITTEN.
I’m not even going to try ...
He says as he links to an article relying on the biblical flood story.
IT does not matter what you or anyone else thinks Moses meant. The WORD is said to be GOD. John 1:1 IN the beginning.... (that is Genesis 1:1 being quoted) was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God. And nowhere in the whole of the WORD are we told how long ago that Genesis 1:1 or 2 took place. This earth is filled with the evidence that something very catastrophic took place and nobody knows how long ago that took place. Except that it was far longer than a mere 6 thousand years ago. The closest we can possibly date is the formation of flesh bodies wherein the soul was placed.
You really think that God turned over to Moses the authority to write what Moses wanted to say... Moses was not even born in the flesh when most of what he wrote recording the creation record.
Becasue Peter takes up this whole topic in respone to those who say "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the begining of creation" (2 Perer 3:4). Thus, Peter is answering those who question why Christ hasn't returned and implemented the kingdom. Everything seems to be going just as it has since creation began. Peter answers by saying people should be patient and that time is different for God because to God, "one day is as a thousand years AND a thousand years as one day. "The Lord is not slow to fulfil his promise as some count slowness, but is patient towards you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." (2 Peter 3:8-9). Peter tells them not to lose heart and give up hope because it WILL happen and when it does it will be when they leaset expect, as a thief in the night. This is the same meaning the "thief in the night" analogy has when it is used in 1 Thes 5:2.
Question for you: How much water is contained in the mantle of the earth compared with how much water is in all the oceans on the earth’s surface?
Maybe, just maybe, you’re the uninformed one.
Whew. That site is extremely difficult to read and comprehend. Are you able to summarize its relevance to this discussion?