The irrational nominalism of Cheungians

In their defence of their idol, Vincent Cheung, Cheungians behave like mindless drones repeating what their guru has taught them so well. It is really really sad that those who claim to be rational are the most impervious to logical reasoning. Not only are they impervious to reason, they propagate Cheungism and share their guru's writings as if they live by every word from his mouth

In the matter of ascribing the title "Author of sin" to God, Cheung came up with a seemingly easy answer to the question of theodicy. By definition, God is good, and therefore God cannot be called evil even though God is the author of sin. But this does not and will not work. Cheung's logical syllogism is as follows:

p = God is the Author of sin
r = God acts according to His nature
q = God is evil

P1: p
P2: not q
Conclusion: Not q

The problem is that statement p, when coupled with r, necessitates conclusion q. If that is indeed the case, then Cheung's argument become as follows:

P1': If p [and r; therefore q]
P2: not q
P3, p, r
C': not q

As it can be clearly seen, the new syllogism is clearly invalid and logically contradictory. Does it matter how true P2 is? If I shout over and over again statement q, that God is not evil by definition, does it solve the logical problem inherent to Cheung's position? NO, it doesn't! Logic is a tool. They are rules governing thought, and validity and invalidity of arguments does not lie in what the subject matter being discussed is. Insert anything, any proposition, you might wish into 'p,' 'q,' 'r' and the validity or invalidity of the argument does not change. The argument form: If p and r, then q; p, r, not q, therefore not q, is an invalid form of argument, regardless of the cognitive content of the argument.

Cheung's drones repeat over and over again "God by definition is not evil." That is "Not Q" and as it can be clearly seen from the form of the argument, asserting not-q over and over again does not make an invalid argument valid. As long as I can show the truth of premise 1', Cheung's argument is toast, period. Cheung's nominalism expressed in repeating "God is by definition not evil" like a mantra over and over again is useless. It is illogical to think that the problem is solved just by the mere assertion of a single premise. This is basic logic 101, on the definitions of soundness and validity of arguments. Cheung failed logic 101, and his followers fall headlong together with him into collective intellectual suicide.

If you are a Cheungian, please repent of following that false teacher. He has led you astray, clouded your mind towards irrational argumentation, in the false flag operation of being rational. May the Holy Spirit have mercy to break the bondage Cheung has on your mind and on your soul

I challenge all unrepentant Cheungians to a contest in logic. Elucidate the logical forms of all your premises and conclusions in nice, neat propositional logic forms, and then we can discuss who exactly is being logical

Repost: Eternal Justification and Hyper-Calvinism

Back in 2010 (how time flies), I had posted on the topic of Eternal Justification here. I have matured in my thinking since then and would like to modify some things in that piece.

The main thing I would modify is with regards to the distinction I made between "timeless" and "everlasting." I would now say that God in Himself is timeless (imminent Trinity) while God in His works is everlasting (economic Trinity). The problem with both Eternal Justification and Hyper-Calvinism is the flattening of the distinction between the imminent and economic Trinity, such that everything is about the imminent Trinity, the "naked God" as it were. I would also like to modify the issue regarding the rationalism of the 18th century Hypers with the discussion I had in my previous post on the issue.

Overall, I stand by what I have written 4 years back. The blog post I had referenced on the heinous errors of Hyper-Calvinism seemed to have disappeared, but, as with almost anything on the Internet, what is posted will never truly disappear, and it can be found here. It is interesting to note the first point stated about Hyper-Calvinism is the statement that God is the author of sin and evil, precisely the point at which Vincent Cheung has gone astray.

Vincent Cheung and 18th century English Hyper-Calvinism: The temptation to over-react

Fourthly, the Hyper-Calvinists were sincere men of average intelligence, but they lacked a prophetical and discerning spirit. They keenly desire to glorify God and mistakenly believed that God was more glorified in the exaltation of free grace in the pulpit and on the printed page, than in the evangelism and conversion of men. They became so obsessed with the defence of what they regarded as sound doctrine that the evangelistic note of Scripture as basically an overture by God towards sinners was muted. This lack of interest in evangelism (and a reference to evangelism in their books is virtually impossible to find) came, as we have seen, with the deduction of the duty of ministers in preaching from the secret will of the Lord, the will of His decrees. They did not realise what a baneful influence their doctrines would have upon those who followed in their footsteps. [Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689-1765 (London, UK: The Olive Tree, 1967), 148]

As we have seen, it was a reaction within Nonconformity to Neonomism and Arminianism that resulted in the rise of Antinomianism and Hyper-Calvinism in the early 18th century. The Noncomformist pastors and theologians had good intentions, but good intentions alone is insufficient in the Christian life. Sadly, their efforts resulted in an arid church climate, such that God used the Evangelical Arminian John Wesley in the later half of the 18th century to chastise them for their lack of concern over evangelism, which was caused by their flawed theologies. Likewise, I am deeply concerned over the extreme views emanating from the online pen of Vincent Cheung, and the almost fanatical devotion his followers have for his views to the point of comparative neglect of many others.

My question to Cheung and his followers are thus: Are you open to the possibility that you just might be wrong? Does it not bother you at all that no one else in the entire 20 centuries of church history held to your position? Can you see that you just might have overreacted to the errors of the modern contemporary American (and American-influenced) churches, in the same way as the 18th century Noncomfromists overreacted to the errors of their time?

When you read those whom you disagree with, do you try to read them to understand where they are coming from, instead of circling the wagons and pigeon-holing them into a particular category? I am no Vantillian, but I appreciate Van Til's writings even where I disagree with some of what he says. Can you say that about those whom you disagree with, and actually try to understand where they are coming from? Would you even consider the objections people have made, instead of imputing whatever meaning you please to the words they use, and see any critique of e.g. rationalism, as an attack on rationality?

I admire your zeal, but it is greatly misplaced. Your philosophy has clouded your thinking, instead of clarifying it. There is a reason why tradition (small "t") exists, not that we are held captive to it, but that it guides us in the path we should go in our theologizing. Christianity was not born yesterday, and true theology has not been lost until the dawning of Vincent Cheung, or anyone else for that matter. Shouldn't you be guided by the Reformed and Christian tradition, instead of thinking that everyone, every single one of you is doing theology de novo? To raise some precedents, almost all biblicists have deviated in some way from the faith, from the Seventh-Day Adventists to the Jehovah's Witnesses to even Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell (founders of the Stone-Campbell movement). The fruit of biblicalism has been anything but biblical, so why do you insist on going down that path?

The temptation to over-react is always there. But overreactions almost invariably have potentially deadly consequences. For the sakes of your souls, please abandon Cheungism. Being "logical" (as opposed to being truly biblical and logical) is not a sufficient price for jeopardizing your salvation. Stop being so proud and certain of yourselves, and come and learn from the Reformed tradition. Not everything found in the Reformed tradition may be right, but at least you will be on the right track.

If you persist in Cheung's errors, be warned that it would lead you onto a path of death. For the sake of your souls, awake from your slumber and abandon it now. Do not be deceived, there is no life in that way, and only fools tread in that path.

There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death. (Prov. 14:12)

Vincent Cheung and 18th century English Hyper-Calvinism: The rise of heresies

Secondly, between 1689 and 1765, High Calvinism was placed in an environment which emphasised the role of reason in religious faith. This meant that the High Calvinists were in danger either of absorbing the rationalism, or of rejecting it completely, or of doing both. It would seem Joseph Hussey fell prey to both temptations. He absorbed the rationalistic tendencies of his day and applied strict logic to Biblical doctrines so that from the doctrines of eternal election and irresistible grace he deduced that Christ should not be offered to all men. And also he deduced from the part which he believed that Christ played in the covenant of grace the doctrine that Christ's humanity was "standing in God" before the creation of the world. One of Hussey's followers, Samuel Stockell, abandoned the doctrine of eternal generation because he could not conceive how "the Begetter and the Begotten" could be of equal date. [Lewis] Wayman, [John] Gill and [John] Brine applied logic to the (hypothetical) covenant of works and deduced the doctrine that it is not the duty of hearers of the Gospel to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet all these men believed that they were not being rationalistic in a human sense but were simply applying "evangelical reason", or reason inspired by the Holy Spirit, to the Bible's teaching. [Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689-1765 (London, UK: The Olive Tree, 1967), 147]

In the 18th century, the orthodox (what Toon called the "High Calvinists") were shocked at the growing apostasy within both Anglican but especially Nonconformist circles. They were appalled and "a group of influential laymen decided to sponsor a series of lectures in defence of what they considered to be the main doctrines of the Protestant faith." (ibid., 42). The upshot was a strong reaffirmation of sound doctrine, yet at the same time danger lurks even within the camp.

The orthodox were not immune to the rationalist zeitgeist. They decided to use what they think is "evangelical reason." Here, we already seen a problem with their hermeneutics. Reason according to sound orthodoxy is a reason that reasons after faith. Fides quaerens intellectum — Faith seeking understanding. Faith provides the premises and manner for the exercise of reason. In this so-called "evangelical reason" however, reason chose the manner of reasoning and faith provides the "premises" through proof-texting. The traditional view is that reason works only after faith has provided the framework for it to function. The new "evangelical" view is that reason provides the framework while faith provides only the premises. That is why we can have biblicists like Samuel Stockell abandoning the doctrine of eternal generation of the Son. His reasoning process is as follows: The premises derived from Scripture are: "The Begetter is from eternity" and "The Begotten is from eternity." "By definition" the Begetter is temporally prior to the Begotten, so in conclusion, the eternal generation of the Son must be denied. Notice that Stockell's reasoning uses biblical truths as mere premises. Instead of understanding the form of reasoning behind the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son and evaluating it rationally, he uses a rationalistic form of argument with the input of biblical premises in his form of "evangelical reason."

This 18th century evangelical rationalism resulted in the emergence of two main errors within Noncomformity: Antinomianism and Hyper-Calvinism. Antinomianism is the denial of the third use of the Law, and had its main proponent in Tobias Crisp (d. 1642). It is noted that we are speaking of "Doctrinal Antinomianism" here, as there is no indication that those promoting these teachings were in any way deficient in Christian conduct. As a reaction to Richard Baxter's neonomism, Crisp denied that God's law performed any function at all for a Christian. As Toon wrote:

The basic underlying difference of opinion in the Antinomian controversy concerned the nature of the law of God. Since his purpose was to extol Christ and free grace, Crisp had little to say about the moral law. ... he believed that God's justice is affronted by human transgression of His law, although he never seems to have explicitly stated that God's law is an eternal expression of His righteousness and justice.

...

He believed that the law served a useful purpose in convincing men of their need of a Saviour; nevertheless, he gave it little or no place in the life of a Christian since he held that "free grace is the teacher of good works." (ibid., 54)

As it can be seen, Crisp's stance is reactionary and directly opposite Baxter's neonomian idea of a salvation that takes account of works in some sense.

Following upon the heels of the antinomian controversy was the hard-shelling of Calvinism into Hyper-Calvinism. First, the doctrine of eternal justification was promoted by Isaac Chauncy (ibid., 61). The embrace of Eternal Justification betrays the flatenning of the imminent and economical Trinity in the theologies of the Hyper-Calvinists as time and eternity begin to be blurred. God's work in time was rationalistically seen to be a mirror portrayal of the imminent workings of the Trinity, and therefore justification must be eternal if it is to be actual for believers. The distinctions between God's being, God's decrees and God's work are burred in this rationalistic theory of eternal justification. Such blurring codified itself in Hyper-Calvinism, its logical conclusion. In 1706 and 1707, Joseph Hussy took this philosophical blurring of the imminent and economical Trinity to its logical conclusion in the denial of the offer of the Gospel (ibid., 74-5). Since God issues forth his irresistible grace only to the elect, this grace (of the economical Trinity) is a reflection of His call only to the elect (imminent Trinity). An offer to the non-elect (economical Trinity) has no reflection at all in God's eternal decree (imminent Trinity) and therefore such is to be rejected. As one of Hussey's 20 propositions states, "We must preach the Gospel as it is most fitted to the display of effectual grace. To offer God's grace is to steal: God saith, Thou shalt not steal." (ibid., 81) From Joseph Hussey to Lewis Wayman, John Gill and John Brine, this rationalistic tendency follows through in their denials of the offer of the Gospel. To be sure, Hussey, Gill and other do not deny that the Gospel ought to be preached to all. Rather, they deny that the Gospel is to be offered to all.

We see thus that rationalism had caused the creation of two heresies within the supposed defenders of the faith. Reacting against Neonomism and Arminianism, they swung to the opposite errors of Antinomanism and Hyper-Calvinism. The rise of heresies oftentimes come out of good intentions, as the case of the devolution of 18th century Noncomformity shows.

The parallels with Vincent Cheung in the early 21st century is not hard to discern. Cheung reasons rationalistically as well, using biblical truths as mere proof-text premises to insert into a priori rationalistically formed syllogisms. The Hyper-Calvinists of the 18th century flattened the distinction between the imminent and the economic Trinity, which resulted in their promotion of Hyper-Calvinism. Cheung likewise flattens the distinction between primary and secondary causation, which results in his monstrous doctrine of God being the author of sin. The 18th century Hyper-Calvinists were reacting to Arminianism and Socinianism, so likewise Cheung reacts against the soft-peddling of Calvinism in the Neo-Amyraldian views of contemporary New [Evangelical] Calvinism. The parallels are striking. And just as the 18th century English Hyper-Calvinists are in error, so likewise Cheung is in error.

[to be concluded]

Vincent Cheung and 18th century English Hyper-Calvinism: Social religious contexts

First, we may note that after the Restoration in 1660 orthodox Calvinism became, as it were, a cause under siege. The majority of Puritans who were orthodox Calvinists left the Church of England in 1662 to become Noncomformists. Thus the religious leadership of the nation was lodged firmly in the hands of men who were either Arminian or moderately Calvinistic in theology. The ejected ministers, being Noncomformists, were placed under harsh and cruel restrictions until 1688 and this severely curtailed their influence upon the religious thought of the nation. As the older men died their places were taken by younger men who had been educated under liberalizing influences in Holland and so a Moderated Calvinism gradually became popular, especially amongst the Presbyterian Dissenters. As the years passed by High Calvinism became more and more the sole preserve of the Independents and the Particular Baptists. The Antinomian controversy of the 1690s served to widen the gap between High Calvinism and Moderated Calvinism, and as the eighteenth century passed by, High Calvinism became in the main, the faith of the poorly-educated Independents and Baptists. These men who clung to the doctrines of High Calvinism saw themselves as a group preserved by God in an apostate age to defend “the faith once delivered to the saints”. Their time was taken up by the defence of their faith and it was in this atmosphere of a cause under siege that Hyper-Calvinism was born and nurtured. [Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689-1765 (London, UK: The Olive Tree, 1967), 146]

England in the late 17th and early 18th century was a time of moderation of religion. It was the Augustan era, which was followed by the Victorian era. The Glorious Revolution in 1688 had deposed the last Roman Catholic Stuart Monarch James II. James II had presided over the continued persecution of Nonconformity and the killing fields of Scotland, where he tried to impose Prelacy upon the Scots. After all the inter-confessional strife, the terrible 30-years war (1619-1648) on the continent and both the English Civil war (1642-1651) and the ruthless persecution and bloodletting following the Restoration of 1660, European Christianity entered into the deconfessional and nascent Enlightenment era. People desired peace and toleration, even within the churches. What was the point of continued strife, as if killing everyone who disagreed with you was an answer to anything? In 1689, the Act of Toleration was signed into law allowing for the meeting of Protestant Dissenters, but not Roman Catholics, as long as they register with the government.

The times were changing. This was the period preceding the Industrial Revolution. Descartes had kick-started modern thought as he tried to come up with a third way (tertia via), as a reaction to the terrible massacres of the wars of religion. The turn to reason or empirical inquiry sought to ground knowledge on something more objective that can be argued for, instead of the confessional impasse between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Contrary to modern rationalism, non-French Enlightenment was not trying to supplant religion altogether, but rather Anglo-American Enlightenment thought desired to use reason to explicate the truths of religion. The Enlightenment in its three main forms (French, Anglo-American, German) can be seen as the bitter reaction against the Constantinian captivity of the Church in both its Roman and Protestant forms.

It is not surprising, though sad, that people were abandoning the Christian faith for the new teachings. Socinianism came into England where it was embraced by members within the Church of England, and it provoked controversy within the Anglican Communion (Toon, 36-7). Samuel Clarke, a rationalist and biblicist, published his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity in 1712 which examined the doctrine of the Trinity and denied it as being taught in Scripture (ibid., 37). We must remember that Clarke was not denying the Trinity because of any denial of the authority of Scripture. Rather, he was claiming that precisely because He follows Scripture only (biblicistically), the doctrine of the Trinity should be denied. Within the establishment, the eruption of Socinianism and Arianism caused much controversy

Among the Calvinistic Dissenters, many were influenced by the "moderate Calvinism" of the school of Saumur (most famous for its "4-point Calvinism or Amyraldism). Others followed Richard Baxter's Neonomian thought. The "moderate Calvinism" proved to be a Trojan Horse for many errors. In the continent, "moderate Calvinism" resulted in deconfessionalism and the toleration of errors in the days of Jean-Alphonse Turretin in the early 18th century. In England, "moderate Calvinism" became the vehicle for rationalism in religion resulting in many dissenters, particularly Presbyterians, denying the doctrine of the Trinity and becoming Arians (ibid., 39). In both establishment and dissenting circles, apostasy from the faith was rife. It was truly a sad time for orthodoxy.

The orthodox party among the dissenters consists mostly of less learned laymen, and increasingly, many of them were Baptists. (ibid., 146). Faced with the assault upon orthodoxy, they felt obliged to defend the faith. Many of them were self-taught and sought to defend the Calvinistic faith as best as they could. Being less learned, there was a tendency to veer towards the opposite error of what they were opposing, and this led to the various controversies that will plague Noncomformity in the early 18th century.

The relevance this has for today can be seen in the similar environment we find ourselves in. Mainstream Christianity, both mainline and evangelical, are riddled with all manner of errors, many of them serious. There is a need to defend the faith and affirm the truths taught in Scripture. More particularly, there is much soft-pedaling of Calvinism even within the so-called "New Calvinist" circles, in which their "Calvinism" has more in common with Amyraldism than true orthodox Calvinism. The social religious contexts of both early 18th century England and our times are very similar. In both situations, there is a dire need for sound teaching, and in both situations, catastrophe strikes even within orthodoxy.

Vincent Cheung and 18th century English Hyper-Calvinism: Introduction

I have been shifting in my attitude towards Vincent Cheung, as it can be seen from my posts. I initially stumbled unto his stuff quite some time back and found them provocative. Note, I found them provocative, not that I found them necessarily orthodox. So I had thought of what he wrote as something that could be read to stimulate thought on various topics, and that was then. Fast forward to now when one of my friends have sadly fallen under Cheung's spell, and things have become different. Now, it is personal. What grieves me is that I was the one who mentioned Cheung to him as someone who is an interesting thinker, but I never in a million years would have realized just how deep he has fallen into Cheung's heresies. This is a regret that I will hold for as long as he continues under Cheung's errors.

My one main article dealing with Cheung's thoughts deals with perhaps the most egregious and outrageous position he holds to, that God is the author of sin. This of course is just the surface of Cheung's many heresies. Cheung is a Rationalist (capital "R") sometimes, and a "biblicist" otherwise when it suits him. He utilizes philosophy as his first principles, despite any protestations to the contrary. After all, nowhere in Scripture is Occasionalism taught; you wouldn't find it. One could argue for Occasionalism, like Jonathan Edwards, but I doubt Edwards' Occasionalism is as bad as Cheung's. Starting from a priori "logical principles," Cheung utilizes Scripture propositions as proof-texts for his philosophy, instead of using Scripture as the beginning of knowledge (principium cognoscendi).

An example of Cheung's Rationalism is not hard to find. In his heretical book speaking about God being "the author of sin," Cheung writes about "metaphysical distanciation." Now, I seriously doubt THAT concept was being discussed in the Westminster Assembly at all. Is it something that Christians should think about? Yes, I think we should, which is why I had initial positive views of Cheung as an interlocutor. But note that this issue, while important, is an apologetic issue. It is something that we must think about in order to formulate a rational apologetic response. The concept of "metaphysical distanciation" itself should have no bearing at ALL on the biblical doctrine of God and theodicy. It should be discussed after the doctrine is established, not as something to establish doctrine. Scripture before reason, reason in service to the faith — that is how Christianity is to operate between the twin poles of Rationalism and Irrationalism. We reason AFTER faith, not before faith, which is one main reason why I am against natural theology.

Cheung establishes himself online as some sort of expert, formulating a path that is claimed to be the best of Van Tillian and Clarkian presuppositionalism, while rejecting anything in either that he thinks is false. Of course, who exactly is Vincent Cheung? Who knows? In which church is he a pastor, and who is he accountable to? I doubt many people know that. Unfortunately, the nature of the Internet is such that those who can make the most noise and appear knowledgeable have an influence that they probably will not have in real life. Unfortunately also, it is those who hunger for more of God's truth that will be attracted to his form of godliness. It is past time that Cheung is exposed, and I as someone who identifies with Clarkian apologetic want nothing to do whatsoever with this heretic. He does not speak for [G.H. Clark] and there is no "progression" from [G.H. Clark] to him. I have read Clark, and I have read Van Til, and I read Cheung. To put it in perspective, if I were given the choice between Van Til and Cheung, I will choose Van Til. Even the "one-person" teaching of Van Til is more orthodox in comparison to Cheung's blasphemies.

After saying all that, why do I juxtapose Cheung with 18th century English Hyper-Calvinism? I put them together because Cheung's emergence is very similar to the emergence of English Hyper-Calvinism. The spiritual climate of the times were similar, the pressures on the faith were similar, and the "solutions" of Cheung and the Hyper-Calvinists were similar. Through looking at the history of the 18th century English Hyper-Calvinism, it is hoped that we can see the similarity in our times, and beware of people like Cheung, and not just Cheung, but also anyone like him.

[to be continued]

The Evangelical Left, Socialism and liberal policies

The question of immigration [in America] presents an interesting dilemma for majority-culture Christians. Immigrants and ethnic minorities are saving American Christianity. Immigrants and ethnic minorities tend to be socially and morally conservative. (If the religious right were committed to overturning Roe v. Wade, there is an easy solution. Give citizenship to the twelve million undocumented aliens, who are largely politically conservative and would turn the tide and momentum of the abortion debate.) Immigrant and ethnic minority churches are restoring spiritual vitality and fervor oftentimes missing in many white evangelical churches. Too often, the future of American evangelicalism is viewed as a battle over the heart and soul of middle America (i.e., white America), when the restoration of faith in American culture may actually depend on the ongoing growth of immigrant and ethnic minority Christian communities.

... Many Christian leaders have been hesitant to support genuine immigration reform—possibly reflecting the fear of a nonwhite America and a nonwhite American Christianity [Soong-Chan Rah, The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009), 74-5]

“You shall not steal (Ex. 20:15)

The Evangelical Left, as with many mainline liberals, support politically liberal policies. Now, Scripture is primarily about God's redemptive action in history of Man from the bondage and power of sin, yet that does not mean that it has nothing to say about social issues. The Scripture instead give us principles to evaluate social policies, not the policies themselves. Thus, while I wouldn't say that there are biblical social policies, I will say that there are policies that are closer and policies that are further away from the principles of Scripture. In general, therefore, it is wiser for Christian ministers to avoid getting involved in specific debates since the intricacies of social policies are convoluted and outside their training and their responsibilities of a minister, limiting themselves to the broad general principles taught in Scripture.

The problem with many of the views of those in the Evangelical Left is that they ignore what their liberal, socialist policies actually entail. For example, socialism speaks about wealth distribution. Yet wealth distribution implies taking money away from some to give to others, and that is basically theft. Just because God calls the rich to use their wealth in good works in aiding the poor does not give the right of the State to steal from the rich to give to the poor. The State is not God. The rich is called by God to good works, and he is answerable to God for how he uses his wealth. His wealth is his own. Yes, he is ultimately a steward of this wealth, but he is steward of it under God, not under the State. The rich ought to be helping the poor out of his love for God and obedience to His commands, not because the State force him to give it up to help the poor!

Similar violations of biblical principles occur in the issue of immigration. The Bible does indeed speak of the obligation to take care of the alien, the immigrant. But nowhere in Scripture does it say that those who violate the law of the land have a right to remain in it. Illegal immigration is a violation of the law of any country that has actual procedures for handling requests for immigration. Especially in the case of America, amnesty would be a reward for those who basically committed a crime. It would also be unfair against legal immigrants who have obeyed the law in immigrating to the country. Scripture everywhere speaks about obedience to the laws of the land. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that disobedience should be rewarded.

As I have said, I do not believe in any divinely-sanctioned social, economic or political theories. But I do believe in biblical principles that should undergird any social, economic or political policies. While one can criticize any policy all he wants, the advocacy of policies by the Evangelical Left that violate biblical principles should show that their policies are wrong.

The "white captivity" of the Church

In the formation of Christian theology, we also see white privilege at work. Theology that prioritizes the individual and arises out of the Western, white context becomes the standard expression of orthodox theology. In our understanding of what is considered orthodoxy, we see the emphasis on the individual aspects of faith. What is considered good, sound, orthodox theology is a Western theology that emphasizes a personal relationship with Jesus with its natural and expected antecedent of an individual sanctification and even an individualized ecclesiology. The critical issues and discussion in theology lean towards understanding issues relevant to individuals and Western sensibilities. The seemingly never-ending debate between the proponents of Calvinism and Arminianism, between predestination and free will, revolves around individual salvation.

Theologies that speak of a corporate responsibility or call for a social responsibility are given special names like: liberation theology, black theology, minjung theology, feminist theology, etc. In other words, Western theology with its individual focus is considered normative theology, while non-Western theology is theology on the fringes and must be explained as being a theology applicable only in a particular context and to a particular people group. Orthodoxy is determined by the Western value of individualism and an individualized soteriology rather than a broader understanding of the corporate themes that emerge out of Scripture.

Because theology emerging from a Western, white context is considered normative, it places non-Western theology in an inferior position and elevates Western theology as the standard by which all other theological frameworks and points of view are measured. This bias stifles the theological dialogue between the various cultures. ... We end up with a Western, white captivity of theology. Western theology becomes the form that is closest to God. [Soong-Chan Rah, The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009), 77-8]

I believe in ... the holy catholic Church, the Communion of Saints .... (Apostles' Creed)

Soong-Chan Rah is a second-generation Korean-Amercan and founding senior pastor of Cambridge Community Fellowship Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In his book The New Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity, Rah excoriates the predominantly white American Evangelical churches for a variety of things, grouped under the umbrella theme of the "Western white captivity of the Church." Now, not all of Rah's criticism is necessarily off. Some of them with regards to the materialistic, individualistic captivity of the modern American church is right on, and I wouldn't be too surprised if there is some discrimination involved against non-whites. It is also something I ponder whether there exists some form of implicit superiority complex such that Caucasians would not submit themselves to a non-Caucasian pastor.

That being said, most of what Rah writes is extremely provocative, unnecessarily so. Rah writes with an almost triumphalist perspective that since non-White Christians would soon be in the majority even in America, "white" Christians ought to sit up and listen to their non-White brethren and stop claiming a monopoly on theology. The whole way the discussion is framed is already problematic. Does numerical superiority necessarily implies the obligation to be heard? Does that mean that the "white" Churches can ignore any group just because it is "in the minority" and only interact with them when they threaten to be in the majority? This sort of race and power play is quite deplorable in my opinion. When I think of theology, I do not look and see what the skin color of the person theologizing is, so why do so just because the one theologizing is white-skinned?

First of all, Rah only attacks the modern Evangelical churches, which in general have lost their way. Reformed theology admits of no individualism, and we believe, modifying Cyprian's words, that outside the church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation (WCF 25.2). We also believe in a "corporate" Covenant Theology, a "corporate" imputation of Adam's sin to all, and so on. Reformed theology at its finest is alien to the modern American Evangelical church, which has lost its way.

Secondly, Rah is misguided when he claims that the other "theologies" (Liberation, black, feminist, minjung, etc) are theologies that are "applicable only in a particular context and to a particular people group." The fact of the matter is that those are called "theologies," but are in fact heresies against the one true catholic Church. Thus, they should not be even considered applicable to their particular contexts and particular people groups! This brings us to the third point, in that Rah does not have a sense of the one catholic and apostolic faith. The true faith is not some "Westernized, white faith," but rather it is the faith given once for all to the saints. Unbiblical accretions added on throughout the centuries ought to be excised, which is why the modern Evangelical church is desperately in need of reform. It is not some "white captivity" of the Church that needs to be remedied, but the removal of all flavors of race and ethnicity from the One True Catholic and Apostolic Faith that needs to be removed. The objective truth however is that "Western" theology has been more faithful to the catholic and apostolic faith than all the other so-called "theologies" that many non-Westerns have embraced. Much of non-Western Christianity is half-baked syncretism. For example, in Africa, Pastor Conrad Mbewe has written about the syncretic aspect of African Charismatism.

Should there be more non-Whites in the Church, doing theology and being respected by their Caucasian counterparts? I most definitely think so. But they should do so because they are actually biblical Christians who believe in the one catholic and apostolic faith, not because they are "non-Whites." Skin color should be absolutely irrelevant in the Church. The issue is not one's skin color, but one's beliefs. As it stands, many of these supposed "non-White" Christians are ineligible even for membership in Reformed churches, if they are similar to Rah with his liberal views. If there are non-White Christian ministers who are biblical in their theology, they should be treated with as much respect and honor as their Caucasian counterparts. However, Christians holding to the one catholic, apostolic faith should beware of non-White Christian ministers like Rah with questionable theology at best. Let's be clear: it is not their skin color or immigrant background that should disqualify them, but their theology. There is no "white captivity" of the Church with regards to her theology. There might be some discrimination against non-Whites, but such is a personal not a doctrinal matter.

Disclosure: I am writing this as a non-White, not that that should matter at all in the Church!

Osborn's "literalist dilemmas": Stasis, Deceiver and Divine Curse

But it is left to creationists who attribute all of the dysteleological and troubling realities of animal existence to God's "curse" upon the animal kingdom to explain why a fully just, fully loving and omnipotent Creator would not simply permit but positively demand such suffering among uncomprehending and morally innocent creatures who were previously unexposed to pain or death or any kind. [Ronald E. Osborn, Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2014), 127]

The Creator God of Genesis clearly takes joy in untamed creaturely flourishing and procreation. All living creatures are commanded to be fruitful and multiply, and to spread out and fill the earth. In a spatially finite and deathless world, however there could not be endless procreation. At a certain point in time, all births would cease and there would be no new species or changes in the precise number of creatures in existence. Sexual differentiation would then become superfluous and all reproductive organs in the animal kingdom would become vestigial oddities like tonsils or appendices. A "perfect" world in the sense some believers demand would, it seems, be a world without any young or old (or perhaps with young creatures that never grew to adulthood). ... A flawless engineered world without growth, without new birth, without change and without death might be "perfect"—like a finely calibrated watch. But "perfect" in this sense might not be good at all for God's creative purposes. (Ibid., 128-9)

What should we make of a God who creates a universe, an earth, planets, animals and humans with the appearance but not the actuality of age? ... Existence at a very foundational level, in this way of thinking, cannot be believed or trusted. It is at bottom an artificial stage production. Reality has the ontological properties of unreality or surrealism and did so from the very start. (Ibid., 133)

Entirely apart from the scientific evidences for predation before the emergence of human beings, we are confronted all around us by the plain fact of animals killing in order to survive. The natural world is filled with creatures that are anatomically "designed"—in their internal organs, their instincts and practical every fiber of their physical structures—to exist by consuming other creatures. (Ibid., 134)

Osborn poses three major dilemmas for the creationist position: the problems of stasis, deceiver, and divine curse. In the stasis dilemma, Osborn states that a "perfect" creation according to the YEC scenario would result in an endgame situation of stasis throughout the world, which is contrary to the design of creation. The deceiver dilemma uses things like the appearance of age to claim that YEC makes God out to be a deceiver through creating things with a false appearance of age. The divine curse dilemma claims that it is strange to say that animals which are naturally suited for their habitats are a result of the curse, following which Osborn explores some supposed creationist explanations, none of which are mine.

The first objection by Osborn is a mere variation of the question "how can a good God decree evil." I have no idea how far towards Pelagianism Osborn is, but he certainly rejects the notion of predestination and embraces a concept of libertarian free will in some sense. For those who believe in the absolute sovereignty of God however, there is nothing untoward in claiming that God cursed the creation even though creation is not at fault. God does whatever He pleases, and being cursed is not the same as being guilty and punished. Furthermore, animals are not "morally innocent." They are amoral in the sense that morality does not apply to them at all. If Osborn claims that morality applies to animals, then I guess he should be standing up for prosecuting animals for moral crimes

The stasis dilemma is based upon a faulty view of creation. According to Osborn, creationists hold that God created the world and that it is. God however created Adam and Eve under the Covenant of Works, therefore obedience to God's commandments would have ushered in the Eschaton. There would have been no possibility of stasis occurring therefore in the Reformed creationist scenario.

The deceiver dilemma might apply to some versions of Creationism, but by and large it is inapplicable. First of all, things do not come with an age tag. There are plausible creationist explanations for tree rings involving the creation of multiple tree rings per year based upon drastically different climates that were the fallout from the Flood and the subsequent Ice Age. Radiometric dating, a tool normally used to measure age, has lots of problems. When diamonds can have C-14 readings, you know that their traditional datings must be false. C-14 has a half-life of about 5,730 years, so about 573,000 years (or 100 half-lives), there should be no discernable C-14 left in a sample. The most recent cosmology involving cosmological general relativity has a plausible solution for starlight without the need for millions and billions of years. In other words, the deceiver dilemma is based upon outdated creationist science at best. Yes, there is a sense in which the deceiver dilemma might apply, but not in the way Osborn conceives it. If God encodes false information in phenomena, then that would make God a deceiver. Light from a non-existing "supernova," that was created in transit for example, would be a legitimate candidate for such an accusation against God. It is not so much the appearance of age that matters, but the creation of false information that would result in the accusation of deception.

As it is said, created things do not come with an age tag. When God created Adam fully mature, there is no intention to decceive. Rather, it is those who accuse God of deception who have bought into a naturalistic paradigm. Was Jesus trying to deceive when he created wine de novo from water at the wedding of Cana? I would hope not. Osborn's usage of the appearance of age fails because the "age" is preconceived from naturalistic premises which do not always apply. As such, Osborn's deceiver dilemma fails.

The last divine curse dilemma fails because it fails to distinguish between curse, and punishment. I have written before on the design features of animals, but here I would expound on the issue further. There is a sense in which Osborn thinks that the development of carnivory etc must be a bad thing for the YEC. However, that is far from the case. The issue is not carnivory as much as death. The curse of God is not meat-eating, but human and animal (the nephesh chayyah) death. It is God's good pleasure that animals would adapt to their habitats throughout the world. God is God, and although suffering and death is evil and a result of the Fall, God does decree them for His purposes. Thus even in parasites, God uses them to fill up the ecological niches in the earth's ecosystems, the ecosystems of a fallen earth.

Osborn explores some possibilities that the creationist might take. Possibility one states that God gave the animal world over to such cruelty. This however is false. Creation is cursed, but cursed does not imply abandonment. Possibility two is God's curse transforms peaceful animals into ferocious predators, but again this is false. The ecosystems of a fallen earth is different from the ecosystem of Eden and the pre-Fall world, and the development of carnivory is natural and good in this post-Fall world. Possibility three claimed that the cause was demonic, a possibility that does not even warrant a discussion.

In conclusion, Osborn's three "literalist dilemmas" are anything but problems for the YEC. The second and third dilemmas especially show an ignorance of contemporary YEC literature, an ignorance that could be remedied if Osborn had actually talked with intellectual YECs instead of anti-creationist scholars and the rank-and-file creationists.

[Thus ends my interaction with Ron Osborn's book]

Creationism and alternate foundationalisms

Critical realism seeks to chart a third way between the epistemologies of both modernism and postmodernism. It is critical because it accepts the postmodern emphasis on the provisional and always contingent or mediated aspect of knowledge, yet realist because it insists upon the objectivity of the world we encounter and so the possibility of more or less truthful ways of talking about the properties of this world ...

... Postfoundationalists agree with foundationalists that our worldviews can have greater or lesser correspondence with reality, including both scientific and theological truth. They agree with antifoundationalists (and nonfoundationalists), though, that the attempt to build a system of knowledge from a base of indubitable, infallible certitude that somehow stands on its own (whether this base is said to be the "plain" words of Scripture or human sensory experiences or something else) is an utterly failed epistemological project well past its sell-by date.

The postfoundationalist picture of knowledge has often been described as a "net" or "web" of truth, The strength and stability of a net does not depend upon any one of its nodes but upon the entire field as a unified whole. [Ronald E. Osborn, Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2014), 118-20]

A key point in debates concerning epistmology has been the sticking of foundationalism with modernist versions of foundationalisms, whether of the Cartesian project, the empirical project, or some fusion of the two. In these modernist epistemologies, the ground is to be some indubitable, transcendent timeless truths that form the foundation for building up the edifice of human knowledge. Needless to say, such foundationalisms even at the time of Descartes were not acceptable to the Christian faith. In this sense, Osborn is right to reject "foundationalism." The problem is whether such modernist foundationalism should be affixed to creationism at all. I would say not.

There are two main streams of creationism: the Fundamentalist and Evangelical stream, and the Reformed stream, and two interact with each other. Among Fundamentalists, the focus is on the reading of Scripture in a biblicistic manner, thus "God says it, it is true." There is always a tendency to read one's culture and assumptions into the text, yet to claim it as "foundationalist" in the modern sense is absurd, because the Fundamentalis are mostly not philosophers thinking about "indutible transcendent timeless truth." Their biblicism is a distortion of Sola Scriptura, yet because they are just treating the text naively, they function basically like premoderns in their epistemology rather than modernist foundationalists. Premoderns do not think about "indubitable transcendent truths," so while Fundamentalists are influenced by culture, it is one thing to claim influence by modernity, and another to claim a modernist epistemology. Osborn's accusation of Fundamentalists as "foundationalist" (in the modernist sense) is therefore in error.

Among the Reformed camp, many YECs embrace creation like premoderns too, as a look at the case for YEC in the 2004 OPC Creation Report, and also in the book The Genesis Debate, shows. These essays were primarily appeals to the traditional teaching of the church that believes in 6-24 creation, and thus Osborn's accusation of "foundationalist" also is in error. There is after all a difference between premodern naive realism and the much-maligned "common sense realism," because the latter consciously sticks to common sense readings and reasonings while the former does not.

I doubt there is therefore one epistemology for creationism. There are obviously many of the most vocal creationists who are empirical foundationalists. They are however others who are presuppositionalists, which is another version of Foundationalism. Presuppositionalism, both Vantilian and Clarkian, are different from the mainstream "modernist" foundationalisms. Vantilian foundationalism puts God as the foundation, while Clarkian foundationalism puts Scripture as the foundation. Both of them are "foundationalist" to the extent that the foundation are the basis for all of truth, and both of them are "critical" in the sense that they recognize the situatedness of all truth claims.

The problem with Osborn is that he does not recognize the difference between Reformed versions of foundationalism and the mainstream modern foundationalisms. Thus, he wrongly tars all creationists with the charge of modern Foundationalisms, while failing to recognize the alternate foundationalisms that some creationists hold to.

If Genesis were false

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis speaks about the central claim of Christianity as being the person and work of Christ, especially his death and resurrection. Lewis came up with his famous trilemma of liar, madman or God, which as an apologetic tool works great in the remnants of Western Christendom in proving the divinity of Christ and calling the individual to a response to the claims of the Christian faith. Its simple presentation is powerful in its simplicity, which is one reason why Lewis, although not an Evangelical (he has some really questionable doctrines) is so popular among Evangelicals.

As the plates buckle and shift under the ground of Western civilization, the common Christian assumptions behind Western Civilization will increasingly whither and become obsolete. In an increasingly neo-pagan culture, common arguments for the Christian faith lose their power. This is especially seen in non-Western settings, whereby even traditional arguments for the Christian faith were not very persuasive in the first place. These arguments however could work as countries embraced Western learning which still has an echo of Christian thought. It is not surprising that those most susceptible to the Gospel tend to be upwardly mobile people educated with a modern Western education, while those stuck in traditional thinking prove more resistant to the Gospel.

Wherein lies the difference except in the Christian foundations of Western civilizations with its Christian cosmology? Even with the rise of Darwin, Christian cosmology was the target for people from Lyell to Darwin to Huxley. They rejected it consciously for an alternative, but even then their thought patterns were shaped in reaction to it. But what happens when those stories leave the mindset of the culture, such that people do not react against it as much as discount it totally or are ignorant of it?

If Genesis were false, if the Genesis cosmology is not the default, then traditional apologetics and even the Gospel presentation suffers. To illustrate this, I use Lewis' trilemma. Subtract the Genesis cosmology, and Lewis' trilemma becomes irrelevant. So Jesus is God? OK, so? The "westerners" can have their "Jesus" God, and we have our own deities and gods. You claim that Jesus died for sins. That's nice, but there are more ways to take care of sins. Yours is just one way, more for "westerners." But you say, Jesus proved his claim to be God and thus his exclusivity also, in his resurrection. I'll respond, all this happened in the context for Jews and the Westerners who follow them. It doesn't apply to me, since I see no [insert any non-Western ethnic group] mentioned in the Bible.

If Genesis were false, if it was not literal, I see no reason why Christianity is true for me. All apologetics will fail, because the Christian faith can never take root where its claims are relativized and rendered irrelevant by foreign cosmologies. And this is why the creation-evolution controversy is so vital to the church today.

Creationism and the "art" of "living schizoprenically"

We should be radically skeptical postmodern relativists and social constructivists when it comes to inconvenient scientific and historical truths, it seems ... but thorough-going modernists committed to a strictly foundationalist epistemology, a literalistic hermeneutic, a fundamentalist ecclesiology and a "scientific" apologetic the moment we open our Bibles. Is it any wonder that so many young adults who are told that dancing this awkward two-step is the only way to remain believers in the modern world decide to sit the dance out— or to abandon religious life entirely—when the cognitive dissonance becomes too great? [Ronald E. Osborn, Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2014), 117]

One recurrent charge against creationism is that it results in young people leaving the faith. It results in people being functionally schizophrenic, believing one thing on Sunday and another thing the other 6 days of the week. Osborn certainly brings forward this argument as part of his overall polemic against Young Earth Creationism.

Firstly in response, the historic Reformed faith recognized its foundation without embracing Cartesianism, it has a hermeneutic that interprets Scripture according to itself (Scriptura scripturae interpres). It has a historic Reformed connectional ecclesiology, and an apologetic that grounds itself on God as the principium essendi and Scripture as the principium cognoscendi. In other words, Osborn's summary might just be true of certain versions of Fundamentalism, but not of Creationism in general.

More importantly, such a view, while commonly asserted, only makes sense only for a fragmented education coupled with a false view of science. Basically, it can only arise if we allow the secularists to inform our view of the nature of science. In other words, the problem comes about because Christians are not prepared to think critically about the nature of science. If one were to accept uncritically the presuppositions of naturalism, then of course one has to be "schizophrenic" in daily life. Why shouldn't one be? Christianity would be relegated to one's subjective experience, as the Newsboys' song "God's not Dead" proclaims (it has absolute terrible theology and not even a good tune). Even the learning of Christian truth in more conservative circles would be a mere religious intellectual exercise disconnected from the real world. The real world then would be related to science and whatever else the person fancies (careers, entertainment, fame etc).

Here I speak from experience. I know what it is like to have that sort of experience somewhat analogous to Osborn's idea of "schizophrenia." Before I was regenerated and turned in faith to Christ, the learning of Bible truth seemed disconnected with ordinary life. I doubt it would have make any difference even if I were to heard solid Reformed teaching and preaching instead of the somewhat conservative broad Evangelicalism I was brought up in. Apart from the working of God's Spirit, nobody will find interest in the things of God. Living one way on Sunday with the learning of spiritual truth was disconnected from my life in the other 6 days of the week. My conversion led me towards the extremes of Charismatism, yet I was too intellectual to go all the way, thus I have not had the mystical experiences of speaking in tongues etc (since I could not just "let go"). It was the Reformed faith that brought me back from the brink. But more importantly, it was Creationism that helped me reconcile what I was learning in my science courses with what the Scriptures say. If evolution were true, I see no reason why I should believe in a faith that has no relation to me. Plus, a religion that sprouts lies is not a religion worth believing.

It took me quite some time for me to think through the issues of science and the nature of science, and it is my opinion that getting this issue right allows one to integrate science with faith. Hopefully, one day that wheel wouldn't be reinvented for every Christian wrestling with the issues. The crux of my response is this: It is not Creationism that causes people to leave the faith. Unbelief causes people to leave the faith. And unbelief is strengthened when Christians and churches fail to give a reason for the faith. I can't speak for everyone, but how many people will accept a faith that has no relevance to real life? Trying to do all manner of literary gymnastics around Genesis wouldn't work, because all it does is to perpetuate the view that Christianity has little relations to the real world, being only for piety and the afterlife. Aside from literal creation, why should I consider Christianity since it is seen as a "western religion"?

Living "schizoprenically" is probably the lot of many children of professing believers. But it need not be this way. Osborn attributes that to creationism, I attribute it to a false view of the nature of science. Regardless of whether creationism is taught in the churches, having empirical evidences for creation is insufficient to address the real problem. So there might be children leaving the church because of "creationism" (or at least they claim that), but the problem is not creationism but that it is taught in a wrong manner, without dealing at the foundational level of the nature of the subjects studied.

Do the Jews believe a literal 6-24 creation?

Although some ultra-orthodox Jewish sects have denied the reality of dinosaurs and torn the pages dealing with evolution out of their textbooks, Ira Robinson notes, in general "fundamentalism and creationism have been decried by Orthodox Jews as 'nonsense' and 'a grave error'"; even if Genesis is read in a highly literal manner, the biblical texts in broad Jewish perspective literally do not mean what Christian creationists say they mean. [Ronald E. Osborn, Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2014), 107]

Osborn so claims that this belief in a literal creation is particularly and peculiarly a "Fundamentalist" belief, and not a historic belief held to by Jews and Christians. We have seen how Osborn misrepresents John Calvin's position, and now he claims that the Jews also do not hold to this "fundamentalist" 6-24 position. If one thinks that this new claim is also a misrepresentation of the Jews, one is not too far off the mark.

Who speaks for the Jews? If we are to evaluate what the Jews believe, do we inquire into what ancient Jews believed, or what modern Jews believe? Most certainly, what modern Jews believe concerning the creation account is not unimportant, but is it that important for discovering the "Jewish" view, as if there was only one Jewish view concerning creation? If we are to look into what the Jews believe, certainly we should look at what the ancient Jews believed also, for one should not assume some form of historical continuity between ancient Judaism and modern Judaism.

For historical reasons, written works from the ancient world are generally few and not well preserved and transmitted. That said, we have a rather decent look into how the ancient Jews view the history of the world through the pen of the 1st century writer Flavius Josephus. As an educated Pharisee, surely Josephus would be knowledgeable about what the Jews of his time actually believed and well qualified to write on that topic.

In his book The Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus began with the creation of the world, and he treated the Genesis account as actual history (not "Upper Register" history or anything of that nature). Here is an excerpt of what Josephus wrote:

1. (27)In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; but when the earth did not come into sight, but was covered with thick darkness, and a wind moved upon its surface, God commanded that there should be light; (28) and when that was made, he considered the whole mass, and separated the light and the darkness; and the name he gave to one was Night, and the other he called Day; and he named the beginning of light and the time of rest, the Evening and the Morning; (29) and this was indeed the first day: but Moses said it was one day,—the cause of which I am able to give even now; but because I have promised to give such reasons for all things in a treatise by itself, I shall put off its exposition till that time. (30) After this, on the second day, he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from the other parts; and he determined it should stand by itself. He also placed a crystalline [firmament] round it, and put it together in a manner agreeable to the earth, and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording the advantage of dews. (31) On the third day he appointed the dry land to appear, with the sea itself round about it; and on the very same day he made the plants and the seeds to spring out of the earth. On the fourth day he adorned the heaven with the sun, the moon, and the other stars; and appointed them their motions and courses, that the vicissitudes of the seasons might be clearly signified. (32) And on the fifth day he produced the living creatures, both those that swim and those that fly; the former in the sea, the latter in the air: he also sorted them as to society and mixture, for procreation, and that their kinds might increase and multiply. On the sixth day he created the four-footed beasts, and made them male and female: on the same day he also formed man. (33) Accordingly Moses says, That in just six days the world and all that is therein was made; and that the seventh day was a rest, and a release from the labor of such operations;—whence it is that we celebrate a rest from our labors on that day, and call it the Sabbath; which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue.

2. (34) Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over, begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul.b This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth. (35) God also presented the living creatures, when he had made them, according to their kinds, both male and female, to Adam, who gave them those names by which they are still called. But when he saw that Adam had no female companion, no society, for there was no such created, and that he wondered at the other animals which were male and female, he laid him asleep, and took away one of his ribs, and out of it formed the woman; (36) whereupon Adam knew her when she was brought to him, and acknowledged that she was made out of himself. Now a woman is called in the Hebrew tongue Issa; but the name of this woman was Eve, which signifies the mother of all living. [Flavius Josephus & W. Whiston, The works of Josephus: Complete and unabridged. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 1.1.1, 1.1.2. Accessed on Logos.]

I think it should be plain without a shadow of a doubt that Josephus believed in a literal 6-24 creation. As a educated Jew of the elite class writing to the Greeks and Romans a history of his people, his views can be taken to be largely representative of what the Jews in the 1st century actually believed.

The Jews in the first century AD therefore believed the same view of creation as the Young-Earth Creationists. According to Osborn, who cites Ira Robinson, the modern Jews disavow Josephus' view of creation. This indicates a shift of views on creation during the last two millennia. Ancient Jews believed a 6-24 creation, while modern Jew mostly rejected it as "nonsense" and "a grave error." The question is which group of Jews Christians should perceive as being of greater consequence for their faith, and the answer should be rather obvious. Ad fontes! Modern Jews have largely fallen away from even the faith of the first century, and thus their rejection of 6-24 creation is irrelevant for Christians today.

Osborn's misrepresentation of Calvin's views on Genesis

Calvin believed that all matter was created by God on the first day of creation, but that the plants and animals were not created ex nihilo. They were formed by God from a welter of preexisting materials and so were organically and materially related both to each other and to the created universe as a whole. Readers who insisted in completely distinct creations out of nothing on each of the days within the creation week were engaged in intellectual sophistry, in Calvin's view. The word created, ought not to be read in an overly literal way as far as questions of chronology are concerned; creatures were, in effect, "created" before they were formed:

Those who assert that the fishes were created from nothing because the waters were in no way sufficient or suitable for their production are nevertheless resorting to rationalization, for the fact would remain that the material of which they were made existed before which, strictly speaking the word "created" does not admit. I therefore do not restrict the creation here spoken of to the work of the fifth day but rather suppose it to refer to that shapeless and confused mass that was in effect the fountain of the whole world.

Calvin's language is difficult, but he clearly rejected the idea that the creation in Genesis only describes events and not processes. He seems to have held a kind of hyperaccelerated emergent or even evolutionary view of what happened during the creation week:

[God] created the great creatures of the sea and other fishes—not that the beginning of their creation is to be reckoned from the moment in which they received their form but because of the universal matter that was made out of nothing. So with respects to species, form only was added to them; but creation is nevertheless a term truly used respecting both the whole and the parts.

...

What might Calvin say, then, about highly literalistic interpretations of Genesis today in the light of scientific evidences for a very old earth and common ancestry across diverse species? The clearest evidence is given by Calvin in his interpretation of Genesis 1:16. Calvin's concern was to make clear that the language of "greater" and "lesser" lights in Genesis in no way conflicted with contemporary astronomy calculations that showed that seemingly small stars and planets such as Saturn were actually much greater in size than the "great" light of the moon ordained by God to "govern the night." While this might seem like a trivial matter to us today, it was an unsettling challenge to the biblically inspired and geocentric cosmological theories of medieval and early Reformation Europe. Calvin's approach to the problem is simple: the words of Genesis are not to be taken literally. [Ronald E. Osborn, Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2014), 100-2]

According to Osborn, while John Calvin held to a 6-day creation, he nevertheless did not believe that one should interpret Genesis literally in all aspects. However, is that really what Calvin believe? I would contend not.

For his sources, Osborn cites a republished edition of Calvin's commentary on Genesis edited by Alister McGrath and J.I. Packer. I have no idea whether that is supposed to be the best edition of Calvin's commentary on Genesis, or whether it looks nicer and have good notes by McGrath which should supposedly help the reader. Nevertheless, I will use the old commentary and there should be little difference in content.

The key indicator that something is off is when we look at the context and the verse of which Calvin was commenting. The verse was Genesis 1:21, and before that was Genesis 1:20, where God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens." The form in Hebrew is the 3rd person jussive form "Let X be/do." In other words, it is not a direct command but rather a command or permission using the agency of a 3rd party. This is the context for understanding why Calvin wrote what he did. In his commentary on verse 20, Calvin wrote, "should it not be lawful for him, who created the world out of nothing, to bring forth the birds out of water?" Calvin rightly saw the jussive form of the verb and therefore interpreted the text accordingly.

In verse 21, it is stated that God created the sea and flying animals, and it is in this context that Calvin "denigrated" the idea that this was a creation apart from means. Calvin rejected those who assert without proof that the waters were insufficient to produce life, because he had already seen in verse 20 the jussive form of the verb. In other words, Calvin rejected an im-mediate (i.e. without means) creation of the sea and flying animals purely because of the text, by sticking with the literal meaning of the text. Calvin clearly believed in creation ex nihilo, not for everything but for those in the text that are explicitly said to be created ex nihilo.

The divine mode of accommodation that Calvin advocated was that God intended to show it as from our point of view. In other words, the description of events was what an observer would see if he was on planet earth from its creation. It is not scientific language, and YEC has never claimed that Genesis 1 is a scientific text. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with God's description of the moon as the lesser light and the sun as the greater light, because that is how a person standing on the surface of the earth would have perceived it. Calvin was not engaging therefore in some kind of allegorical interpretation when he claimed that the language of "greater" and "lesser" had nothing to do with astronomy. He was clearly saying Genesis was descriptive language, not scientific language. As an aside, Osborn clearly should read more history and not parrot the false statement that geocentrism is a "biblically inspired claim."

Calvin interpreted the creation account literally, even in his rejection of the immediate creation of the sea and flying creatures. Earlier in his commentary, Calvin affirmed the teaching that God created the light and darkness before the sun and moon were created, and it is clear that the "before" is one of temporal chronology. As Calvin wrote,

It [was] proper that the light, by means of which the world was to be adorned with such excellent beauty, should be first created; and this also was the commencement of the distinction, (among the creatures.) It did not, however, happen from inconsideration or by accident, that the light preceded the sun and the moon. To nothing are we more prone than to tie down the power of God to those instruments the agency of which he employs. The sun and moon supply us with light: And, according to our notions we so include this power to give light in them, that if they were taken away from the world, it would seem impossible for any light to remain. Therefore the Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon. Further, it is certain from the context, that the light was so created as to be interchanged with darkness. But it may be asked, whether light and darkness succeeded each other in turn through the whole circuit of the world; or whether the darkness occupied one half of the circle, while light shone in the other. There is, however, no doubt that the order of their succession was alternate, but whether it was everywhere day at the same time, and everywhere night also, I would rather leave undecided; nor is it very necessary to be known. [source]

We see therefore that Calvin interpreted Genesis 1 plainly, paying attention even to the forms of the verbs. Osborn thus misrepresents Calvin's exegesis of Genesis 1, and fails in his attempt to make Calvin amenable to the compromising positions held to by modern Man.

Creationism and .... Gnosticism (!?)

The gnostic solution to human unhappiness is gnosis: complete knowledge—descriptive and normative—of the origins of the fall, the scandal of evil and the pathway to redemption. ... Knowledge of the course that history must run from beginning to end if what transforms the gnostic from a person of "mere" faith into a revolutionary filled with the missionary zeal of fanatical certainty. Whether formally acknowledge of not, one is saved in gnostic soteriology not by pistis (faith) but by gnosis (knowledge) that serve as a "liberating science" or "diagnosis-therapy" of the human condition and counter-explanation of material realities.

... It [Gnosticism] is indeed a revolutionary "science" that frees the true believer from the "false consciousness" associated with ordinary science, fallen human senses and rationality. ...

[Ronald E. Osborn, Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2014), 91-2]

A rather bizarre attack against creationism by Osborn comes in chapter 7 when he attempts to stick the odious charge of Gnosticism onto creationists. Osborn does acknowledge the fundamental difference between the two as systems of thought, viz, that creationists affirm the goodness of matter while Gnostics denigrate it (p. 88). Osborn attempts to make the charge stick by broadening it from particular doctrines of Gnosticism to a "gnostic" spirit of a "general orientation towards the problems of suffering and alienation" (p. 89). Now, since Gnosticism borrows from Christianity (and the mystery religions), some level of similarity of Gnosticism with orthodox Christianity is unavoidable. The question however to be asked is whether any of these supposed qualities of the "gnostic spirit" are unbiblical, not whether they are found in varieties of Gnosticism.

A key attack upon creationism with regards to the "gnostic spirit" is the idea that creationists deny science for some "deeper" science of esoteric knowledge. Creationists also tend towards salvation by gnosis. Both of these betray a very real ignorance of creationism on the part of the author, which, among other reasons, makes me wonder how much research into creationism he has actually done before writing this book.

First of all, creationists do not deny science for some "deeper" or esoteric science. We have always held that the science is there for anyone to see. The problem is that evolutionists obscure the evidences and postulate multiple ad hoc hypotheses to protect their main theory. Since Osborn does not deal at all with the sciences, his claim is just that, a mere claim without proof. Attacking evolution is not the same as attacking science, in the same way that questioning global warming (or any other controversial topic) is not a denial of climate science. Osborn has not shown any familiarity with the scientific arguments against evolution, so he has no evidence to back up his supposed claims about esoteric, "gnostic" science.

Secondly, Osborn has not shown any understanding of the relation between knowledge and faith. Faith in contemporary Reformed parlance is stated to be made up of the three elements notita (knowledge), assensus (assent), and fiducia (trust). Notice that faith includes at least some knowledge; one cannot have faith in someone or something without some knowledge of what the object of the faith is. So to state that one is saved by knowledge just because creationism emphasizes the importance of getting the truth of creation right is an error. Moreover, creationists in general do not believe that one has to hold to YEC in order to be saved. It is a matter of consistency, not a matter of salvation. So the second charge by Osborn does not stick at all.

Lastly, it amuses me to see Osborn trying to lump in the quality of "permanent revivalism" as being part of the "gnostic spirit": that the small group of elitists are out to "change the world" (p. 90-1). If there is anything about Gnosticism, it is that the spiritual, the pneumatichoi, are not interested in helping the psychikoi (soulish) or the sarkikoi (fleshly). Rather they are occupied with personal ascension towards paradise. Here also, Osborn's ignorance of history shows. Revivalism is a post-millennial concept especially from the Second Great Awakening in America, and something supported by the "progressives" of the times (i.e. New Have theology, Charles Finney and Oberlin theology), not by so-called "Fundamentalists." The difference between the "Fundamentalists" and the "Liberals" is that the Fundamentalists kept the evangelistic part of revivalism, while the Liberals kept the social activist aspect of revivalism.