The Origins of Young Earth Creationism

I’ve been at a similar one once: a PCA service that regularly met in an SDA building in Honolulu (there due to a meeting).

1 Like

With the exception that at the most fundamental level, Baptists are Calvinists and SDA’s are Arminian…two completely opposing views on the predistination debate. We believe in an allknowing almighty God, however, we disagree completely with the Calvinist view of what that means for created beings. (i don’t know about you, but I’m pretty sure most Calvinist Baptists would be horrified to be compared as Seventh Day Adventists who just worship on Sunday instead of Saturday).

For example, some significant differences between the two organisations:

  1. the “state of the dead”. SDA’s believe in Soul sleep, Baptists believe in an eternal Hell
  2. SDA’s believe in the heavenly sanctuary investigative judgment doctrine, baptists do not
  3. SDA’s believe that the law (10 commandments) were not done away with at the cross in a new covenant. We believe that the New Covenant is, in fact, no different to the Old Covenant. The only difference is in the recipient. Instead of the Israelites being expected to take it upon themselves to read and keep a promise, God has now taken it upon Himself to write His laws on our hearts and in our minds instead of on two tablets of stone!
  4. from point 3 above, SDA’s worship the Seventh Day Sabbath according to the 10 commandments…mainstream baptists (with the exception of Seventh Day Baptists) do not
  5. SDA’s do not drink alcohol…Baptists are far as I am aware do
  6. SDA’s do not eat unclean meat…as far as I am aware this is not a Baptist doctrine (or at least I know that Fundamentalist Baptists have no issue with pork and eat it)
  7. SDA’s pay tithe to the church…Baptist tithing doctrine seems a bit ambiguous

The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 does not specifically refer to a tithe or 10 percent. It does say, “Christians should contribute by their means cheerfully, regularly, systematically, proportionately, and liberally for the advancement of the Redeemer’s cause on earth.” Do Southern Baptists Really Tithe? - Baptist Courier

  1. as mentioned at the start of this post, SDA’s are Arminian not Calvinist.

I think that I have reasonably answered your argument such that it is quite obvious, the two are not even close to being similar. Whilst I agree our origins began on a similar branch of the knowledge of the reformation era, we differ in some very significant doctrinal areas beyond this point. SDA’s are not Saturday worshipping Baptists in any way shape or form. Our doctrines even differ significantly from the Millerites that we are so closely associated with.

I am leaving this discussion…honestly dealing with people that come up with conspiracy theories is like trying to listen to the heehawing of donkeys.

On the one hand i am hearing widespread denominational earbashing of EG White as a plagerist, on the other David is claiming that her plagerised works were cited by Price, who was then quoted by another writer…honestly, do you have any idea what this means academically?

It means that because the first authors work is claimed to be plagerised, then subsequent work is fundamentally flawed and cannot be given any credibility. Price quotes plagerised work!

So here is the deal, either you stick with the “EG White is a discredited plagerists whom no one considered a viable writer with any authority” or,

You right here and now claim EG White did not plagerise and prop up the founding prophetess writings that form the basis of the SDA church!

Either way…its a win win position for me!

BTW can someone please get your time period right…I am now seeing a lot of arguments put forward about YEC that date in the 70’s, 80’s and even later now…have we fogotten that EG White died almost 100 years ago and that Price died around the same time? As i have stated before (although clearly no one noticed) Prices writings did not get any weight in the literal creationist view until after the 1960’s!

It is a straw man argument to continue on with this YEC rot. YEC is not a new thing, it has been around for 6,000 years and the reason for this is obvious…read the bible Genesis Chapter 1-3, the writings of Paul…its pretty obvious why a literal reading of the creation account is necessary.

If you do not believe in a literal creation account, then you are denying the need for salvation. The bible clearly states:

“and God commanded Adam, do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for in the day you eat of it you shall die”

“the wages of sin is death”

"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

Theistic evolutionists can try to explain this away all they like…TE’s are denying the words inspired by God in the Bible…TE’s are denying Christ…TE’s are rejecting salvation because TE’s are rejecting the need for a saviour.

Greetings! I consider you a brother in Christ. I am interested to read your comments. Have you ever posted on the SDA Spectrum discourse? I found it very interesting and insightful. https://conversation.spectrummagazine.org/t/how-not-to-argue-against-evolution/17801

Most of my own family are YEC nondenominational or Baptists. My parents were missionaries in West Africa,where I was born and grew up. Our hospital in Galmi participates in the SDA Loma Linda administered general surgery residency, training Christian surgeons to serve in Africa (PAACS). I have worked for a time in an SDA hospital (Jellico, TN), where I felt they gave terrific care. I considered working in the Southwestern Medical Clinic in Berrien Springs, MI, which is quite closely associated with the SDA movement (but they wound up not needing another doc, after all, at the time).

Blessings!
Randy

But his parents were Noah and Mrs. Noah!

Interesting list and I am sure you are right about a lot, though most Baptists would not know the difference, and on the issue of alcohol would just consider SDA to be “good Baptists” rather than the typical.
Armenian vs. Calvinism is interesting in Baptist circles. While there are some more fundamentalist Baptists who are stanch Calvinists, there is a strong Armenian tradition in many Baptist circles. So, it depends. I think the division is between General Baptists and Reformed Baptists, but in the Southern Baptist Convention, there is a lot of argument about it among those who care, with many on each side.

1 Like

Tell that to most of the local ones (hour due west of Charlotte) I know and they’ll definitely disagree with you. Most of them are strongly opposed to predestination, among other Calvinist doctrines that I am inclined towards.

It would almost be a truism to say that most Christians don’t know the history of their own denominations, wouldn’t it? For instance, in this case,

  • “There were two groups in early Baptist life: the Particular Baptists and the General Baptists. The Particular Baptists adhered to the doctrine of a particular atonement—that Christ died only for an elect—and were strongly Calvinist (following the Reformation teachings of John Calvin in orientation; the General Baptists held to the doctrine of a general atonement—that Christ died for all people and not only for an elect—and represented the more moderate Calvinism of Jacobus Arminius, a 17th-century Dutch theologian.” [Source: Brittanica]

I posted a statement of faith directly from a Southern Baptist group’s own website (of whom if i recall correctly a well-known scholar of the Baptist Calvinist theology is Dr James White - Alpha OMega Ministries). If you want to find out what Baptists believe, would you not research from their own statement of faith?

Again the point is completely missed, the claim was made that Baptists and SDA’s are the same…we are most definitely not…the SDA statement of faith is completely opposed to that theology!

The southern Baptists are alive and kicking and putting in a strong following (about 14 million of them if my numbers are correct)…i suggest you start listening to Dr James Whites youtube channel Alpha and Omega Ministries.

What you have not bothered to also include in your research is that the general baptist population are considered by the more traditional southern baptists, to have stray from their traditional calvinist roots! It is generally accepted that even the modern baptists still adhere to 3 of the 5 themes of Calvinism.

Also, my research tells me that Baptists generally do not accept that we can loose our salvation…

Most Baptists have held to what is called the doctrine of “eternal security” or “once saved always saved.” Historically, it has been referred to as the “perseverance of the saints.” https://www.baptistmessenger.com/baptist-beliefs-assurance-of-salvation-and-the-christian-life/

Seventh Day Adventism disagrees with this theology…we feel that the very definition of the perseverance of the saints in the book of revelation clearly outlines a TWO PART contract:

  1. they are those who “keep the commandments of God”
  2. and they are those who “have the faith of Jesus”

SDA’s do not believe “once saved always saved”, that is significant difference between the two denominations.

What i find interesting in this thread is how little about other religious denominational beliefs some supposedly well-informed individuals appear to demonstrate. I guess is a sense we are all at least a little guilty of making claims completely at odds with other denominational published beliefs and indeed even reasonable logical and consistent evidence outside of realm of hee-hawing donkey conspiracy theories!

JW’s make this same mistake which is i think generally agreed to be part of the reason why, once they are roped into that organization, they are so easily deluded by the false writings of Watchtower in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is further exacerbated by a tendency to seek to limit further and higher education (in a general sense) of their membership…its dark ages stuff!

I must reiterate however, this garbage that EG White is essentially the founder of the YEC movement is nothing more than a heehawing donkey conspiracy theory…particularly in light of the use of Price in the mix. That has already been categorically rejected by the current proponents of the YEC movement (which consists of organisations such as Creation Ministries. Its not that SDA’s do not believe in the movement, or that we are unhappy with the label, just that the claim is completely unsupported by logical and consistent factual evidence. Even the idea itself is not sustainable from your own Biologos heritage…her views were unscientific as she was not a scientist. Are you honestly trying to make the claim that Dr Kurt Wise (with his degrees in science) is a crackpot influenced by, what general religious communities claim, was a plagiarising heretic who did not have visions but rather psychotic episodes? That is an absurd proposition! Now i am quite happy if you wish to lay yourself at the feet of one of the founders of the SDA church with this…we’d love to have you in the fold and you can immerse yourselves in a real christian experience with good knowledge and understanding of the literal reading of the bible creation story also referenced directly by both the Messiah himself as well as the apostle Paul.

You recall incorrectly. James White is a Reformed Baptist. Southern Baptists are a bit of a big tent organization.

Which for some strange reason only you bring up.

2 Likes

I won’t burden you with all the details, but my Deaf stepmother was a Southern Baptist and her son (my stepbrother) was a Southern Baptist preacher to the Deaf in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Arizona, and California. I attended until I was adopted by a Missouri Synod-Lutheran just before I turned 12. I was fully immersed in baptism when I was nine and, as a P.K., had to memorize and recite all the articles of Luther’s Small Catechism before my father would confirm me when I was 14.

As for listening to James White, I have; and know enough about the Reformed Baptists to know I’d consider myself lucky if nobody blew a whistle on me and walked me to an exit within a month.

True, but … attention spans tend to be brief, IMHO, Besides, I’m 73: I could fall off my horse any day now.

I have Deaf SDA cousins and my mother’s maternal grandmother and great-grandparents were SDAs. I have enough esteem for them and, even knowing as little SDA theology as I do, I know enough to understand the importance of the Sabbath and not to offer them tea, coffee, or alcohol or ask for bacon with my eggs in the morning. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

You’re “preaching to the choir”. I don’t buy it either.

Hehehehe…you should offer them a coffee…they might take it to be polite :rofl:

2 Likes

TEs are wrong of course in the belief that God ‘guides’ evolution, He’s obviously deist in that regard; He grounds autonomous being from eternity and it does the rest, including all of the emergent [deterministic, probabilistic, optimal, ergonomic] laws [of] nature. Don’t worry, you won’t be able reach for let alone grasp that. But it’s there. It’s been said now. It’s there in your mind. A piece of grit.

But you are right. There is therefore no need for salvation. Regardless. There is the desire for life to have absolute meaning and to continue in transcendence, despite nature offering neither. I can make the Jesus story work in two best cases. The first as if there were no God (which nature declares). And the second if there were (which nature declares). (In different aspects. Mind and heart).

Lets go with the second. All aspects of creation look like God is not involved. So the Church, the Bible, the Jesus story all look perfectly natural. With no ill-will, no imputation of immoral, evil motives. Well not in the NT. Mainly. Just remove the supernatural and make it work. The novel writes itself. Naturally, it did. Based on as much historicity, science, psychology (personal and social), anthropology as history can bear. In that Godless gospel there IS an apparent thread of penal substitutionary atonement. It’s naturally inevitable. In the mind of the man Jesus, a product of enculturation.

Sounds like I’m going with the first!

Not so. Marimba:

All aspects of creation look like God is not involved.

So, God IS involved, let’s posit that. What changes? None of the natural looking stuff. None of the enculturation. None of the flesh. The Spirit changes. In the light of God. Made - paradoxically - flesh. Jesus goes infinitely beyond being the best of men, operating with the best of human intent.

God gives us meaning in eternity, beyond nature. And God, that God, is competent, not raging at His own inadequacy like a projecting rapist. Whatever the natural lacks in transcendence, He makes up for. The sinner’s prayer is natural. Of the flesh. A one time offer at participating stores only. And 7 x 70 times. And… It’s psychologically useful to a certain level of awareness. Even to the highest. As a ritual metaphor where words and feelings fail. It’s even essential for the flesh in that regard. For salvation in this life. But it’s nothing to do with the afterlife. And it is not in the slightest bit necessary to deny reality, eternal autonomous physical reality, in the name of transcendent reality.

There is hope. Just. Let’s be just regardless.

It may not comfort you, but you and I are not the only ones who think that the claim in this thread’s OP is absurd. In AiG, there’s a response by Jason Lisle to remarks by Phil Vischer at False History of Creationism Is Full of Beans (December 22, 2020):

  • Lisle is a Christian astrophysicist “who researches issues pertaining to science and the Christian faith. Lisle earned a PhD in astrophysics at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Dr. Lisle has worked at Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, and is the Founder of the Biblical Science Institute.”
  • Phil Vischer is a self-styled “neo-evangelical” and host of "The Holy Post podcast.
  • Specifically,
    • Phil: “YEC, as taught by [Ken] Ham and others, was born out of interpretations of a “vision” one of the founders of Seventh Day Adventists claimed to have had, which was turned into a book called “A New Geology” by one of her followers in the 1920s.”
    • Lisle: " False. We’ve all heard the myth that Ellen G. White started a belief in a young earth, but anyone who has studied history knows that such an idea is absurd. That the Lord created heaven, earth, the sea and everything within them in six days was taught by Yahweh Himself, and was written by His own finger in stone [Exodus 20:11]. The biblical timescale is affirmed by Jesus Christ in passages like [Mark 10:6] where Christ states that God created human beings (male and female) from the beginning of creation, not billions of years later. Indeed, Adam and Eve were present on the first week of the universe.
      Paul affirms in Romans 1:20 that people have seen evidence of God since creation , which would be impossible if human beings were not around for the first 13.8 billion years of time. Even Augustine (A.D. 354 – 430) stated, “Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man.” Clearly, “young earth” is not a new idea.
    • Phil: "That book [i.e. "George McCready Price’s book “A New Geology”–T.S.’ note] inspired the book “The Genesis Flood” in the 1960s, which birthed the modern YEC movement. Ken Ham read “The Genesis Flood” back in Australia as a youth, and has been spreading it ever since.
      Lisle: " Unfortunately, Phil doesn’t know history. He refers to a book by George McCready Price that was published in 1923 entitled The New Geology . But there were “Scriptural geologists” going back a century earlier who believed in a young earth and rightly understood geology in light of the global flood, as documented in Dr. Terry Mortenson’s book The Great Turning Point , which is based on Mortenson’s doctoral dissertation. In reality, the Morris and Whitcomb book The Genesis Flood was based largely on Dr. Whitcomb’s doctoral dissertation, which hermeneutically demonstrated the literal nature of Genesis, including creation and the flood. The evidence and arguments found within The Genesis Flood are based on science and Scripture. The book is a masterpiece of Christian scholarship, and it’s a shame that Phil denigrates it rather than reading it.
    • Phil: “[YEC”] is a surprisingly young movement."
    • Lisle: " So, we have seen that Phil’s claim here is false. The understanding that the universe is thousands (not billions) of years of old has always been the majority position of the church until the mid-1700s, and is affirmed by Scripture itself, (e.g. Mark 10:9, Exodus 20:11). There is no hint in Scripture of deep time, nor any indication in the Scriptures that believers of the time ever held to any other view than a literal Genesis in which God created in six literal days as the basis for our work week.
    • Phil: “Though there are old claims of a young earth (Bishop Usher, 17th century), the specifics of an alternate science called YEC is a recent, distinctly American phenomenon.”
    • Lisle: Demonstrably false. First of all, biblical creationists (those of us who understand that Genesis is literal history and accept its timescale) largely embrace all of operational science—not “alternate science.” My Ph.D. is not in “alternate astrophysics.” It is in astrophysics. I do physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. the same way as my secular colleagues. There is no “alternate science” here. The difference is in our view of history. I embrace the recorded history of the Bible, whereas secularists largely reject that history and substitute their own speculations about the past. Hence, we will disagree on how and when a fossil formed (its history), but we all agree on the fossil’s composition, mass, volume, density, etc.—its scientifically observable properties.
      With regard to the specific scientific details that confirm recent creation (such as C-14 in fossils, which demonstrates that they cannot be millions of years old), many of these discoveries are indeed recent. But that is true of the vast majority of discoveries in science! No one was doing quantum mechanics or the physics of relativity two hundred years ago. No one knew about black holes, quasars, or pulsars a hundred years ago. These are recent discoveries. Is that a basis for rejecting them? Does it make them “alternate science?” Clearly not. Phil’s reasoning here makes absolutely no sense.

So, … with all that “smoke” in the air, it’s hard for folks to see; hopefully, you can. If you aren’t able to, lemme **mansplain" it to you, . [ :laughing: Sorry. I recently added “mansplain” to my vocabulary and I’ll probably overuse it until its novelty wears off.]

Phil Vischer identified some dots and connected them, kinda like this:

  • Ellen G. White’s “vision” inspired Ellen G. White who inspired
  • George McCready Price’s book “A New Geology” (1923) which inspired
  • Henry M Morris III & John C. Whitecomb’s book (1961) which inspired Ken Hamm in Australia in 1974 whose efforts led to
  • Australian AiG 1.0 which inspired
  • American AiG 2.0 which inspires
  • The “recent, distincly American phenomenon” YEC.

It’s kinda like “the China Flu”, don’cha think?

What’s really interesting to me is that, given the previous information that I have shown you, we (i.e. you and I) can now see that the OP’s claim (that “young earth creationism came from the visions of Ellen G. White”) summarizes Phil Vischer.

What previous information?

So far what I’ve seen is references back to the extremely well-documented case that traces the roots of modern YECism (that is … with it’s attempted scientific mantle, and not the mere belief in a young earth) back to White as one of its primary sources. All I’ve seen from you guys is a lot of desperate hand-waving, ad-hominem, and telling us that we believe things we have never actually believed; with a fair amount of jabs at your caricature of TE sprinkled in.

I’m sticking with the scholars who pay attention to reality (and who attend to and cite those before them who have done the same.)

Added edit: [Actually - you do provide interesting information on Ham’s personal biography, @Terry_Sampson, so this reply probably should have been more to Adam than you. But that Ham is understandably influenced by his parents is all irrelevant to the earlier history of White and creationism. Influence on us extends back much farther than our own direct parents.]

2 Likes

Why the SDA rule against alcohol? Jesus’s first miracle at the wedding in Cana in Galilee was to make gallons and gallons of wine.

1 Like

Good points offered, Terry. I think the real problem is people talking past one another, as there is a difference between origins of a belief in a young earth, and origins of the modern YEC movement, but Phil and Lisle seem to conflate the two. It is hard to determine the roots of a movement, but I think it is safe to say the current movement contains roots that go through White, though other roots may come from elsewhere. I would agree that it is incorrect to lay the founding of YEC solely at her feet as some seem to do, but certainly it seems she had a part.

1 Like