Saturday, August 20, 2016

Does Denying Young Earth Creationism Make Someone A Heretic?

For anyone who keeps up with this blog's YouTube page, recently I put out a video blog responding to apologist Frank Turek's most recent video about the age of the universe.  You can watch the blog here:


After I had released this video blog and shared it in all the venues that I could, I had a friend message me back about the video with some comments he had.  He agreed with me that Frank Turek was way wrong about how long the six days of creation are, but he disagreed with the part of my video where I called Frank Turek a heretic.  His argument for why Turek was not a heretic was that Turek did not deny any of the non-negotiable doctrines of Christianity.  My friend then went on to say that Turek's view was aberrant, not heretical.  

The obvious implication of this line of reasoning is that Young Earth Creationism is not a non-negotiable doctrine of the Biblical worldview, and denying the Young Earth Creationism timeline doesn't make someone a heretic.

In response to this claim, we will rehash what Jesus has said about the age of the universe and earth that I have gone over in my other video blogs, we will go over the dictionary definitions of the words Aberrant and Heretic, and then we will put everything together and talk about the implications.

Before we go on, I want to note that this post is NOT about attacking my friend.  My friend understands that the Bible clearly does not teach billions of years, and he recognizes that the YEC timeline is the only timeline that the Bible lays out as being the correct timeline of history.  My friend is not a heretic in any way, shape, or form.  All I hope to do is show my friend, and others who think like him, that Jesus allows no wiggle room when it comes to the age of the universe and Earth. 
   
Jesus taught that the YEC Timeline is true


For those of you who are not familiar with my previous video blogs or my blog post Was Jesus Radical?!, there are two specific passages where Jesus teaches something that can only be true if Young Earth Creationism is true.  Here are those passages:

Matthew 19:1-6:  When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan.  Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?'


'Haven’t you read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.'"

Mark 10: 1-9:  "Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?'

'What did Moses command you?' he replied.


They said, 'Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.'


'It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,' Jesus replied. 'But at the beginning of creation God "made them male and female." "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." So they are no longer two, but one flesh.  Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

As we can see in the above passages, Jesus is clearly saying that man and woman (Adam and Eve) were created at the beginning of creation.  In order to understand why that teaching can only be true if Young Earth Creationism is true, please look at the chart below where I graph out the timelines of the most popular interpretations of the creation account of Genesis 1:1-2:3 and insert the creation of Adam and Eve on each timeline:




As we can see in the chart above, if we insert the creation of Adam and Eve into the Gap Theory timeline, we have Adam and Eve being created 6,000 years ago on a 14-billion-year timeline.  If we insert the creation of Adam and Eve into the Day-Age Theory timeline, we have Adam and Eve being created roughly 2 billion years ago on a 14-billion-year timeline.  Finally, if we insert the creation of Adam and Eve into the  Young Earth Creationism timeline, we have Adam and Eve being created on day six of a 6,000-year timeline. 

When we look at Jesus' words in Matthew 19:1-6 and Mark 10:1-9, which of these timelines best lines up with Jesus' statement that male and female were created at the beginning of creation?  The answer is that it is only the YEC timeline that lines up with Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19:1-6 and Mark 10:1-9.

Definitions of Aberrant and Heretic:

Since my friend brought up the word Aberrant to describe Frank Turek's OEC beliefs, we're going to let the Merriam-Webster Dictionary define the word for us.  According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the first definition of Aberrant is:


"Straying from the right or normal way."

It should be rightly pointed out that my friend was not incorrect in describing Turek's OEC beliefs as being aberrant; since Jesus clearly taught that the Young Earth Creationism timeline is true as I showed in the section above, and since Jesus is supposed to be the sole authority whose way is right, Turek is clearly straying from the right way when he teaches that the Earth and Universe are billions of years old.

However, that very same Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a heretic as the following:

"someone who believes or teaches something that goes against accepted or official beliefs"

Since Turek's teaching that the Earth and universe are billions of years old directly contradicts the clear teaching of the YEC timeline by Jesus in Matthew 19:1-6 and Mark 10:1-9, this means that Turek is teaching something that goes against the official teaching on the age of the Earth and universe that Jesus gave, making Turek a heretic by definition.
 
Conclusion:

Some of you reading this post might be thinking the following:

"Ok, you've shown us that Jesus endorsed the Young Earth Creationism timeline by teaching that male and female were created at the beginning of creation, but how does this make someone who rejects Young Earth Creationism a heretic?"

If you were thinking that, then I'm glad, because Jesus himself explains how this makes someone a heretic.  Let's take a look at John 3:10-15:

John 3:10-15: 'You are Israel’s teacher,' said Jesus, 'and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.'”

Verse 12 is the key verse in the passage, where Jesus asks how they can believe him when he speaks about heavenly things in light of the fact that they don't believe him when he talks about earthly things.  How does this relate to rejection of YEC being a heresy?  It's quite simple:
 
The age of the Earth/universe qualifies as an earthly thing since it's talking about how old the Earth is, and the Gospel message of salvation is definitely a heavenly thing since it comes from Heaven, so by using substitution, Jesus is clearly saying in John 3:12 that if you can't trust him when he endorses the YEC timeline by teaching that male and female were created at the beginning of creation, then you can't trust his Gospel message of salvation.  To teach that the universe and Earth are billions of years old undermines the credibility of the Gospel, according to Jesus, and that makes the YEC timeline of the Bible a non-negotiable doctrine.

So while it's true that someone like Frank Turek believes in many of the non-negotiable doctrines of the Biblical worldview, the fact that he denies one of the non-negotiable doctrines of the Biblical worldview qualifies him as a heretic, regardless of how nice of a guy he is or how many correct beliefs he has.

This makes me think of the character Fritz from the The Chronicles of the Schoenberg Cotta Family, who said the following:

"In speaking of the great truths, of God freely justifying the sinner because Christ died, (the Judge acquitting because the Judge himself had suffered for the guilty), I had endeavoured to trace them, as I have said, beyond all human words to their divine authority. But now to confess Luther seemed to me to have become identical with confessing Christ. It is the truth which is assailed in any age which tests our fidelity. It is to confess we are called, not merely to profess. If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle-field besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point."

There is a war going on out in the world:  Evolutionists know that the evidence against Evolution is staggering, but they also know that their theory will always be plausible so long as everyone believes that the universe and Earth are billions of years old because they'll have all this unobservable time to hide their evolutionary belief in.

So when a Young Earth Creationist like myself attacks their belief in billions of years by pointing out where the belief originated historically, pointing out that the Bible teaches that the Earth and Universe are only 6,000 years old, and pointing out scientific evidence that limits the age of the Earth and universe to only a few thousand years old like the Bible says, the Evolutionist will vehemently attack Young Earth Creationists for taking away the only thing that makes their evolutionary beliefs plausible.

What's really sad is that over the course of the past couple centuries, so many Christians have been indoctrinated into believing that the universe and Earth are way older than what the Bible clearly teaches that they will stand with the evolutionists in condemning Young Earth Creationists for teaching that the Earth and universe are roughly 6,000 years old, regardless of the fact that the Jesus they claim to follow endorses and teaches the YEC timeline.

In the case of Frank Turek, his refusal to accept the YEC timeline proves that his loyalty does not lie with Jesus of Nazareth, no matter how much he thinks he is being loyal to Jesus by affirming all the other non-negotiable doctrines.  Frank Turek affirms many non-negotiable doctrines, but when Satan and the World attack the YEC timeline that Jesus and the Bible clearly espouse, Frank Turek joins the world in condemning the YEC timeline instead of being loyal to Jesus and defending the YEC timeline.

My fear for Frank Turek is that if he dies as he currently is, and he stands before Jesus, he will hear the following words:

"I never knew you.  Away from me, you evildoers!"

12 comments:

  1. So if Turek has ONE teaching which can be considered heretical, that means he is not saved? Are you not then adding to salvation requirements? According to Scripture as long as he believes Christ died for his sin, that He is the son of God who rose from the dead, etc, then he is saved.

    I agree with this teaching of his being heresy by the definition you provided, however I think historically one has not been considered a heretic unless his teachings violate specific doctrines in regards to the character of God and Christ, etc. I think that someone who lacks total understanding of the YEC position (such as Turek) is not unsaved, just lacking understanding. If everyone who lacked total understanding of cardinal doctrines were thereby unsaved, then there wouldn't be many real Christians saved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "According to Scripture as long as he believes Christ died for his sin, that He is the son of God who rose from the dead, etc, then he is saved."

      You might want to give proof texts for that one.

      In Catholicism, you deny ONE text passage of the Bible, you are a heretic and you are heading for Hell.

      Delete
    2. There are plenty of Bible texts which say the only need for salvation is faith in Christ as your savior. There is no requirement to understand all the doctrines.

      Roman Catholicism is an apostate and heretical belief system, so what they say is irrelevant.

      Delete
  2. "There are plenty of Bible texts which say the only need for salvation is faith in Christ as your savior."

    You might want to proof text that one a bit.

    "There is no requirement to understand all the doctrines."

    Understand, no. But there is a requirement of accepting what one does understand is there.

    "Roman Catholicism is an apostate and heretical belief system, so what they say is irrelevant."

    Matthew 28:20 "all days".

    Which non-Roman-Catholic Church or belief system has been historically visibly there all the time as recipient of this promise by Christ?

    If you are a Protestant, I suspect you would not consider Orthodox, Monophysites of Ethiopia and Armenia, Nestorians as the alternative for a Church which was always and all days there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Faith alone saves (just a few of many):

      John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47; 20:31
      Acts 16:31; 10”43
      Romans 1:16; 3:22, 25; 4:4-5; 10:9; 11:6
      Gal. 3:22
      Eph. 2:8-9
      Titus 3:5
      Philippians 3:9

      The ENTIRE Church was visible until Romanism invaded and corrupted it. However, there were always remnant Christians who refused to bow to Rome and Rome spent hundreds of years persecuting them. All that did was make them grow stronger until the Reformation took place.

      I am not a “Protestant,” in that the term applies to the denominations which came out of the Reformation “protesting” against Romanism.

I am a Christian who follows only the teaching found in the Bible.

      Delete
    2. John 3:16, 36 - not a deal.

      John 3 also speaks of :[17] For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. [18] He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [19] And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. [20] For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. [21] But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God.

      In other words, not just faith, but also doing truth.

      From there, it is apparent that "believe" means more than "only believe".

      John 5:[24] Amen, amen I say unto you, that he who heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath life everlasting; and cometh not into judgment, but is passed from death to life.

      We must confer with Matthew 13 which speaks of bearing fruit.

      We must also confer with Luke 6:[47] Every one that cometh to me, and heareth my words, and doth them, I will shew you to whom he is like. [48] He is like to a man building a house, who digged deep, and laid the foundation upon a rock. And when a flood came, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and it could not shake it; for it was founded on a rock. [49] But he that heareth, and doth not, is like to a man building his house upon the earth without a foundation: against which the stream beat vehemently, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.

      In other words, once again, one must hear the word and do it.

      Not just hear and believe without any doing.

      John 6: [47] Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

      We are immediately confronted with the Blessed Eucharist. And in the last line we are confronted with the necessity to keep Christ's commandments, by a side reference to:

      John 15:5 I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.

      This refers to the works of grace.

      1 John 4:16 And we have known, and have believed the charity, which God hath to us. God is charity: and he that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him.

      Abiding in charity ...

      1 John 2:10 He that loveth his brother, abideth in the light, and there is no scandal in him.

      Loving one's brother ...

      1 John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God.

      Confessing the faith ...

      1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him, sinneth not; and whosoever sinneth, hath not seen him, nor known him.

      Not sinning ...

      1 John 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments, abideth in him, and he in him. And in this we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

      Keeping Christ's commandments ...

      All these things then go with believing.

      Delete
    3. John 20:31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.

      It does not say "that believing and doing nothing else, you may have life", it says "that believing you may have life" and that life certainly involves some other acts than just believing.

      Acts 16:[30] And bringing them out, he said: Masters, what must I do, that I may be saved? [31] But they said: Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

      The guard understood that believing in the Lord Jesus Christ implied obeying Him.

      Acts 10: [43] To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him.

      Remission of sins involves a turning away from sin, so belief here means a belief which actually does turn away from sin.

      Luther tried to say turning away from sins was not necessary when going to confession, but it is.

      Delete
    4. Romans 1:[16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek.

      Power of God implies God has power enough to change someone's life from sin, and salvation is elsewhere, by Christ, identified with a turning away from sin (Zacchaeus and St Matthew).

      Romans 3:[21] But now without the law the justice of God is made manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. [22] Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction: [23] For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. [24] Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus, [25] Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins,

      Believing is here contrasted with the law of the old covenant, but not compatible with remaining in sins "for the remission of former sins".

      Romans 4:[1] What shall we say then that Abraham hath found, who is our father according to the flesh. [2] For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. [3] For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. [4] Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt. [5] But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God. [6] As David also termeth the blessedness of a man, to whom God reputeth justice without works: [7] Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. [8] Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin. [9] This blessedness then, doth it remain in the circumcision only, or in the uncircumcision also? For we say that unto Abraham faith was reputed to justice. [10] How then was it reputed? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

      In other words : circumcision has nothing to do with it ... works? Own works certainly have nothing to do with it, BUT:

      Delete
    5. [2] By works: Done by his own strength, without the grace of God, and faith in him.

      [2] Not before God: Whatever glory or applause such works might procure from men, they would be of no value in the sight of God.

      [3] Reputed: By God, who reputeth nothing otherwise than it is. However, we may gather from this word, that when we are justified, our justification proceedeth from God's free grace and bounty; and not from any efficacy which any act of ours could have of its own nature, abstracting from God's grace.

      [4] To him that worketh: Vis., as of his own fund, or by his own strength. Such a man, says the apostle, challenges his reward as a debt due to his own performances; whereas he who worketh not, that is, who presumeth not upon any works done by his own strength, but seeketh justice through faith and grace, is freely justified by God's grace.

      [7] Whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered: That is, blessed are those who, by doing penance, have obtained pardon and remission of their sins, and also are covered; that is, newly clothed with the habit of grace, and vested with the stole of charity.

      [8] The Lord hath not imputed sin: That is, blessed is the man who hath retained his baptismal innocence, that no grievous sin can be imputed to him. And, likewise, blessed is the man, who after fall into sin, hath done penance and leads a virtuous life, by frequenting the sacraments necessary for obtaining the grace to prevent a relapse, that sin is no more imputed to him.

      [9] In the circumcision: That is, is it only for the Jews that are circumcised? No, says the apostle, but also for the uncircumcised Gentiles: who, by faith and grace, may come to justice; as Abraham did before he was circumcised.

      The comments are by Bishop Challoner, so that I should not glory of my work of research, and I will take a pause before continuing with the rest of your passages.

      Delete
    6. "The ENTIRE Church was visible until Romanism invaded and corrupted it."

      Are you saying that Romanism invaded and corrupted the entire visible Church?

      "However, there were always remnant Christians who refused to bow to Rome and Rome spent hundreds of years persecuting them."

      Now you need to document that all the guys whom Romanism was persecuting (Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Priscillianists ...) were:

      1) agreeing with each other;
      2) and (best for you if you consider them the remaining Church) with you;
      3) and are present at each century.

      Can you do that?

      "I am not a “Protestant,” in that the term applies to the denominations which came out of the Reformation “protesting” against Romanism.

I am a Christian who follows only the teaching found in the Bible."

      Sounds you came from the Reformation too. If not immediately, then by intermediates.

      Delete
    7. Love the shotgun approach. First, doing the works comes AFTER faith and salvation. Doing works doesn't save anyone. Works are the proof that we are there, not how we get there.

      Roman Catholicism didn't exist as such until beginning of the late 4th Century. ROME decided they would run things. Seems as time went by the Eastern church didn't agree.

      Everyone who refused to follow Rome was then considered heretics and for centuries Rome proved they were not of Christ as they executed those who didn't fall lock-step with them.

      I can tell you to study history other than the ROMANIST revisionist history of the church. But I noticed from your profile that you are well indoctrinated so the discussion is worth my time.

      And, no, I did not come from reformation or denominations or teachings of the reformation, and disagree with much of what those who came out of it still teach because they didn't leave Rome far enough behind. You can read my exposure of the frauds and heresies of Rome in my series on Roman Catholicism in June 2010. However, since you are steeped in your deception, I will not engage you in discussion - it isn't worth my time.

      Delete