>be me, a 7th grader who's obsessed with Ken Ham & is an avid YEC
>read John Walton in high school & default to accepting all mainstream science as not conflicting with my faith
>further study the ideological nature of most modern "science"
>read some more
back to YEC I guess
once you suspend a lot of your post-enlightenment rationalism and realize that the laws of nature are simply the normative way in which God supernaturally upholds the universe and he can suspend this literally whenever he wants, YECism doesn't sound that crazy.
and in regard to ppl like John Walton, what they do is simply take a small fragment of truth and expand it to make it seem like it is the bigger picture than everything else and all else is therefore wrong.

I'll give an example in regard to the flood account.
Yesterday I was watching a video where Michael Heiser said you can argue for a local flood straight from scripture and all he did was take universal words like "all" and stuff, point out that these universal words aren't always used to denote ABSOLUTE universality everywhere it's
used, and therefore the flood could have been local. He uses the place in Genesis where it says all the world came to Jacob for food and was like "clearly they didnt mean the australians went there for food har har har."

This reasoning isn't very good. It forgets that the
creation account and the flood account set up UNIQUE literary contexts wherein the traditional understanding makes absolute sense and these new explanations just come off as one massive cope. Like sure, the Hebrew word for create (bara) isn't always used in scripture to denote
ex nihilo creation out of nothing, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE THE WHOLE BIBLE DOESNT TALK ABOUT THE CREATION ACCOUNT EVERYTIME THE WORD "BARA" IS USED!!!! Given that the context of Genesis 1 is CREATION it is very clear that this is used in a sense that would denote ex nihilo creation
I just feel so stupid that I never even recognized these things before. I legit thought this way for the longest time and didn't stop until around the end of last year. It's all so tiresome.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Matthew Pearson☩🕊

Matthew Pearson☩🕊 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @_matthewpearson

19 May
when evaluating a tradition's claim to being the 'One True Church,' Augustine set up some good guidelines in his dispute with the Donatists:

"All such things then removed, let them [the Donatists] demonstrate their Church, if they can, not in the speeches and murmurs of African
, not in the councils of their bishops, not in the epistles of whatever debates, not in false signs and prodigies, since we are prepared and cautioned against them by the word of the Lord, but in the precept of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the songs of the
psalms, in the utterances of the one shepherd himself, in the preaching of the evangelists, that is in all the canonical authority of the holy books, and not such that they might gather and cite things that are spoken obscurely or ambiguously or metaphorically which anyone might
Read 13 tweets
18 May
Dudes be like: Calvinism not teaching real presence in the exact same way I do means they're gnostics because they deny you physically chew on Jesus' earlobe in the eucharist and that's denying the actual body of Christ!

Cernovich: Actually, calvinism cringe, gnosticism based!
it's also funny how Cernovich later was like "bro, read the church fathers."
DUDE, YOU CLEARLY HAVENT READ THEM IF YOU'RE A GNOSTIC, IGNATIUS AND IRENAEUS WOULD SLAP YOU IF THEY HEARD WHAT YOU SAID
oh and just to add, yes the Reformed tradition does teach real presence in the Lord's Supper. Many call this "spiritual" real presence not because only our spirits participate or because we divide Jesus and receive his soul and not his physical body, but rather because the
Read 4 tweets
18 May
someone get Irenaeus
if Mike goes to church I hope when he hears the apostle's creed being recited that "the resurrection of the body" part rings super loud in his ear
Read 4 tweets
27 Apr
“We know that wherever there is a divine promise, there faith is required, and that these two are so necessary to each other that neither can be effective apart from the other. For it is not possible to believe unless there is a promise, and the promise is not established
unless it is believed. But where these two meet, they give a real and most certain efficacy to the sacraments. Hence, to seek the efficacy of the sacrament apart from the promise and apart from the faith is to labor in vain and to find condemnation. Thus Christ says: ‘He who
believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned’ (Mark 16:16). He shows us in this word that faith is such a necessary part of the sacrament that it can save even without the sacrament, and for this reason he did not add: ‘He who does not
Read 4 tweets
27 Apr
really insightful quote from Martin Luther on faith & baptism:
“The difference, then, between the legal symbols [Old Covenant vestments, vessels, foods, houses, etc.] and the new and old signs [sacraments] is that the legal symbols do not have attached to them any word of promise
requiring faith. Hence they are not signs of justification, for they are not sacraments of the faith that alone justifies, but only sacraments of works. Their whole power and nature consisted in works, not in faith. Whoever performed then fulfilled them, even if he did it
without faith. But our signs or sacraments, as well as those of the fathers, have attached to them a word of promise which requires faith, and they cannot be fulfilled by any other work. Hence they are signs or sacraments of justification, for they are sacraments of
Read 11 tweets
26 Apr
gonna make an anti-burger account called “Cursed Burger Nonsense” where all I post are soggy microwave burgers that aren’t made out of real beef to show how bad burgers are. I will intentionally leave out thick juicy real-beef burgers made on the grill on a beautiful sunny day.
if anyone says to me “you’re not showing real burgers! Those are microwaved frozen food burgers that aren’t even made from real meat!” I’ll simply respond by saying that the existence of burgers in the first place gave way to this type of thing, so you can’t make excuses tbh.
I’ll find a disgusting microwavable veggie burger & attribute it to Gordon Ramsay. It will be fantastic. I’ll ignore any historical development that led to the creation of soggy microwavable “burgers” & simply point to this as stemming from the existence of burgers themselves.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(