RickD wrote:K,
Did you really just argue for OEC/progressive creationism, and then say you're not an OEC/PC?
What's next, are you going to argue that one must trust Christ for salvation, but say you're not a Christian because there's too much baggage that comes with the name? Or maybe, you're not a believer in Christ because there would perhaps be no believers if there were no unbelievers?
I've got news for you. If you believe God created the earth, and you believe it's billions of years old, you
are an OEC.
Rick,
Thanks for pointing that out so I can elaborate more clearly.
I just want to make sure I'm coming to this on my own terms, and not someone elses.
Perspective is sometimes everything.
Firstly, take PC aka Progressive Creation.
What does that really mean?
Well looking at the conjoined meaning of the words YECs are also PC.
AiG I believe were the ones that coined this term to represent Rossists.
Are you comfortable being called a Rossist -- you heretic you?
It's already a done deal -- you're wrong.
PC is a modern unsupported invention by one heretical teacher aka Hugh Ross.
I stand corrected. Progressive Creation was apparently coined by Bernard Ramm who was a part of American Scientific Affiliation, an organisation founded by a group of orthodox Christian scientists (obviously, not to be confused obviously "Christian Science" or "Scientology').
In his book,
The Christian View of Science and Scripture, he advocated Progressive Creationism which did away with the necessity for a young Earth, a global flood and the recent appearance of humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_creationism (yes Rick, I caved into the great wikipedia!)
Nonetheless, I'd like to forgo the title and just speak the substance. I have a prejudice against titles and boxes, that's all. Makes me feel claustrophobic.
Or take Jac's accusation of there being no literal Day-Age/OEC interpretation of Genesis throughout history.
That may be true, because if I'm honest a Day-Age interpretation wasn't really forthcoming to the sophistication put forward by Hugh Ross in The Genesis Question.
An interpretation put forward by someone who was firstly
a scientist and secondarily
a Biblical scholar.
Do you not see the baggage that brings into the debate?
Now in Jac's eyes I need to perhaps show earlier theologians supported his re-interpretation, in order to have any corroborating authoritative support.
I don't want to do that.
Equally, it is probably true that there is also no YEC interpretation to such levels of sophistication.
The age of the Earth just wasn't a pressing issue and we can only presume what people thought on this.
I'm sure some thought the Earth was quite old, ancient and the like -- there are even passages in Scripture to support this.
BUT, it just wasn't an issue. So none of this may have necessarily been raised.
This does not mean a YEC interpretation was the default position up until the 20th century as YECs see it.
Put simply, there was no identification of a creationist position based upon a "Young Earth" or "Old Earth" distinction.
Again, it wasn't an issue.
What is the one train of thought or idea inherent throughout many of these labels I'm resisting?
Well, my position is a central thought in varying degrees to all:
God performed specific fiat creative acts in the world that spanned relatively long periods of time.
Not, that a Day-Age interpretation something akin to that in The Genesis Creation existed prior to 20th century.
Not, that there were strong supporters of a 4.5 billion year old Earth based on a Scriptural reading (which may reinforce the view that YEC was the default position and and OEC is purely scientific revisionism in light of our modern scientific knowledge).
Not a position with heretical ties to some scientist who is a Scriptural revisionist.
Perspective again, is sometimes everything. This may be pedantic on my part, but it's my time too.
I don't want to constantly break down strawmen arguments or irrelevant accusations due to my being this or that label.
I'm just wanting to support a basic idea without the labels and baggage that comes from that.