I’m not sure if it is naïve ignorance or utter disregard for the truth, but the theistic evolutionists of the “Covenant” Creationist theory seem to associate the reformed evangelical orthodox view of creation with “Fundamentalists” which is only a “straw-man” argument. John “Death” Scargy writes:
Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.
Jeff Vaughn is also on record claiming:
Every young-earth creationist book ever written seethes with dispensationalism. There is not a single exception. The two subjects are inseparable.
Indeed Jeff Vaughn goes out of his way to suggest that a 6 day literal creation view is only of recent origins.
There are a lot of accusations made that modern young-earth creationism is the view the church has always taught. That there is a widely acknowledged “father” of the movement and that his book in 1961 started that movement, demonstrates that it is not the historic view, or at least had not been the historic view of the church for a long time.
However, what the proponents of “Covenant” creation are not telling you, what they are not forthright about is this; that they are inserting into the Biblical account a view that is antithetical to God.
The underlying premise of the “Covenant” Creationist is the denial of creation ex nihilo, creation out of nothing. As Samuel Frosts correctly points out in his concluding remarks of “A Brief Critical Analysis of Beyond Creation Science: Some Preliminary Concerns,” Christianity espouses creation ex nihilo:
Genesis confronts us with an opening story that is at complete odds with our senses. Science has done everything it can to show it up as mere mythology – something so stupid that only a complete moron with no “scientific” traning would believe. By hammering this for centuries, many Christians have forgotten the awe: the God that creates in ways that completely escapes our imaginations. The God that speaks and in an instant: it is.
Mr. Frost is spot on! Christianity espouses a God who creates out of nothing. This isn’t the “Big Bang” as some naïve hyperprestist’s would suggest:
You pitted against each other God creating the “ACTUAL heavens and earth” with the “big bang”. What if God’s method of bring the “ACTUAL” heavens and earth into existence was the “big bang” and it wasn’t in the infinite past?
The “Big Bang” doesn’t contemplate something out of nothing, but the rapid expansion of something that already existed.
According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as “singularity” around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a “singularity” and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don’t know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of “black holes.” Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called “singularities.” Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don’t know. Why did it appear? We don’t know.
However, as Mr. Frost points out, the Christian view is creation ex nihilo, something out of nothing, a concept that runs contrary to the laws of logic. Cornelius Van Til, explaining the basis of the Apostle Paul’s argument in Acts 17 in the book “Creation According to the Scriptures: A Presuppositional Defense of Literal, Six-Day Creation” points out:
….Paul said, that God is the self-sufficient Triune God Being and that man’s existence is derivative because this God had created him “out of nothing,” that is, by mere expression of His will, was nonsense to the Greeks. Parmenides expressed that attitude of all the Greeks in his classic phrase to the effect that “Being and Thought are Identical” because they must be identical. Only that which I can think without contradiction, said Parmenides, can exist; creation out-of-nothing is against the law of contradiction and therefore impossible. Man’s autonomous mind is therefore the ultimate standard of reality. (Creation According to the Scriptures: A Presuppositional Defense of Literal, Six-Day Creation, edited by P. Andrew Sandlin, Chalcedon Foundation, pg 31)
What Jeff Vaughn isn’t telling you is that the Covenant Creationist view for the origin of humanity is based on a “different theory” of origin other than the Creator God of the Bible. Van Til writes:
…in 1859 Charles Darwin published his Origin of the Species, he thought he was “proving” that man has come from an animal ancestry by self-existent cosmic forces. (Ibid, pg 36)
John Scargy pointed out that this view is to be understood as coming from:
Theistic Evolutionists, [who] on the other hand, accept evolution as a valid scientific process and one of God’s instruments and tools for change on the earth. They believe there is no conflict between the Bible and science. Some believe the book of Genesis is metaphorical and not to be accepted literally. This would seem to say that man ‘evolved’ by natural means from lower members of the animal kingdom. Another name sometimes used for this group is Christian Darwinism.
While this seems to be the same as the pure evolutionist’s argument, they contend that God began the process by ’seeding’ the earth with the first life, and by the statement “Let the earth bring forth…” allowed evolutionary forces to dictate the direction of animal change up to and including man. Some in this group believe that the process is intermittently interrupted from time to time by God’s intervention.
Theistic evolutionist state that:
…I don’t want Christianity’s credibility to be tied to the mast of any sinking ship. Trust me when I say that creationism is a sinking ship, and everyone outside the evangelical/fundamentalist bubble knows it. Don’t worry: you’ve still got time to board a lifeboat! But first, do help me untie our faith’s credibility from the mast.
Such evolutionists have in reality given way to what “rationally” makes sense to them succumbing to the following proposition:
The God that used evolution to birth, nurture, and shape His creation is a patient, masterly, and above all, sovereign God. Natural processes are not naturalistic, not godless, and not ultimately susceptible to the winds of change: the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof. When our ancestors were microscopic organisms, He knew each of our names, and knew how He was going to get us here. I find this scheme even grander and more miraculous than Creationism……Over long eons, God brought His children up biologically so that mankind became sentient and came to know that it had a Maker…. In short, I believe that the prevailing scientific consensus on the origin of species is on its way to accurately describing how we got here.
This is the underlying premise of “Covenant” creationism as endorsed by Jeff Vaughn:
It ignores God’s own standard for Truth, the wise use of the testimony of multiple witnesses.
The “multiple” witnesses Vaughn refers to are external evidences developed by fallen man and are subject to the evaluation of man (who is the measure of all things), the creature. The “wise” use of those multiple witnesses is to overturn the claims of God as revealed in His Word. While claiming the contrary, the theistic evolutionists dismisses out of hand creation out of nothing, denying the Biblical record and placing man as an “autonomous” being who must weigh the interpretation of God’s special revelation alongside what he deems “consistently” interpreted physical evidence by science reveals:
Now granted, by no means should we deny something we know is true just because of the tyranny of majority; my blog is all about reminding people that just because a belief is popular does not mean (or even suggest) that it is true. When determining the validity of an argument, who believes it and how many believe it take a back seat to how defensible it is, how much evidence it has, and how internally consistent it is.
The simple fact while granting majority opinion “may” not be true. The entire premise of the theistic evolutionist is to replace God’s inspired Word with the fallible views of fallen man. The creature determines the authenticity of the Creators claims (special revelation). Falling for the same trick Eve did, the theistic evolutionist desires to place himself on the pedestal next to God determining what is true or false upon a corrupted nature that is against God.
Tami of “Death is Defeated” writes concerning the basis for “Covenant” creation,
Our foundation for “covenant creation” is the analogy of Scripture.
While the theistic evolutionists of “Covenant creationism” may claim their views are based on the “analogy of scripture” derived from the Bible the simple fact is the underlying premise is that for them, truth is based on Aristotle’s “analogy of being”, whereby they are not subjected to a higher authority, placing God’s special revelation in the dock to be evaluated based on how they view external evidences. The Biblical claim of Hebrews 11: 3, By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”, stands in stark contrast and confrontation with against the claims of “Covenant creationist.”
Larry Siegle of Preteristdebate correctly notes,
Attacking YEC appears to be an attack on creationism itself. That is my objection.
But more than that, “Covenant” creationism is a subversive attack on the who and what of God. The underlying premise of “Covenant” creationism is what Dr. Gary North identifies in his book arguing for the case of 6 Day creation as, “…the major religion of the modern age: Darwinism.” Larry, there is a reason JL Vaughn won’t answer your questions,
Where did the other humans that existed alongside Adam and Eve come from? Who created them? When were they created? How were they created?
He knows that if he does honestly answer your question he will be exposing himself as a Darwinist who denies creation ex nihilo, thereby denying the God of Scripture.