Are young earth creationists actually leading people away from the Gospel? This is not necessarily the argument that made by Vance McAllister at the Euangelion blog, but he does bring up some very good points. In a blog well entitled “Creation v. Evolution: the danger of misplaced dogmatism,” Vance challenges readers to consider the debate from a more philosophical perspective. He writes:Â Â
I want to remove the stumbling block to the Gospel message that is being created by a dogmatic presentation of Creationism. Not the belief in a young earth and creation without evolution per se, but the “either/or†teaching that comes with it. I am not here to argue for an old earth or evolution, necessarily, but against the false dichotomy that so often comes along with Creationism. More and more people are being taught that an old earth/evolution and Christianity are wholly inconsistent and that if you believe one, you can not really believe the other. Such a blanket statement puts two very distinct groups in crisis and I am convinced that souls are being lost to the Kingdom as a result. This may sound a bit over-dramatic, but I have seen too many people distracted from the Gospel message by this issue.
I really don’t think it sounds over dramatic at all. In fact, for a long time I was one of these people. I can still remember the names and faces of those whom I have encountered in the past with whom this became the dividing issue. I would present the “Gospel of the Young Earth.” Sometimes I would not even get to Christ. Yes, I was a dogmatic young earther. Why? Because that is what all Christians are. You believe that Christ rose from the grave and your believe in a young earth. Well, if only I could redeem the time with those people.
Don’t get me wrong . . . I don’t have this issue figured out. In fact, I don’t talk about this issue much unless it is trying to help people (both young earthers and old earthers) see that it is not quite as cut-and-dry as people like to make it.
I agree with Vance. He tells of a (the?) major danger of “the Gospel of the Young Earth” with regards to young people:
First, there are Christians, especially young people, who have been raised in a dogmatic Creationist households or attend such a church, and have been taught that evolution, or even an old earth, are evil and absolutely contrary to Scripture. That if you believe Scripture, you can not also believe in these “liesâ€. They are taught that those who do believe both are deluded or compromising Christians, probably not even worthy of the name of Christian. They are taught these as absolute truths, rather than one interpretation among the many that sincere Christians hold. These young people are ingrained with this teaching and accept it fully. Then they come into contact with the scientific evidence and begin to suspect that evolution or an old earth scientific might actually be supported by the evidence. This creates a severe crisis of faith. They have been taught that if evolution or an old earth were true, then the atheists are right and the Bible can not be trusted and God did not create everything after all. I have seen this crisis in action. I have discussed this matter with those who either had abandoned Christianity or were about to because of this dogmatic teaching, and did my best to explain to them that the conflict was not inherent and that they could, indeed, believe in both. Most did not even know that there were Christians who accepted evolution, which shows how sheltered their lives had been.
 Thoughts?
181 replies to "The Gospel of the Young Earth"
This is going no where fast. Forget hermeneutics, phenomenological language, this amounts to a bunch of hand waving. All I want an answer to is this….the Bible makes it clear that the creation is cursed because of Adam’s sin, whether Adam is literal or figurative matters not one bit, this is what the Bible teaches. The Bible also teaches that one day that curse will be lifted when Jesus returns, Rev 22 “1Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3No longer will there be any curse.”
According to the old earth view, this curse was caused not by our sin, but by God’s design. If you can explain how the Bible gets it wrong on the Curse (which is the consequence of the old earth view, whether you admit it or not), I would love to hear it.
eating popcorn and lovin Marvin!
Go Marvin! Go Marvin!
tnahas
You’re mocking me aren’t you? (buzzlightyear voice).
🙂
Marvin:
Yes, but what does that have to do with the natural processes of death, etc? I don’t see any direct and conclusive Scriptural statement that there was no physical death on the planet before the Fall, or that the curse is directly associated with causing such natural occurrences. I think the entire approach is a series of presumptions built upon one another. Just like the insistence upon geocentrism by the Church was built upon a series of Scriptural and theological presumptions. They sounded great at the time and, more importantly, absent the scientific evidence that the earth is just one planet among many circling a sun which is one star among many, those Scriptural and theological presumptions would still be in place, and we would all still believe that Scripture describes a geocentric universe.
I provided a reasoned argument as to why the “death” and “curse” spoken of in Genesis was referring to a spiritual death, not a physical one, and I think that is definitely one possible way of reading that text (whether it must be the right one I don’t know), but rather than respond to that, you simply ask the question again. I think it deserves more serious thought.
If the question of how to read those texts is an open one, and I think it is, then I will definitely take into consideration the overwhelming evidence that the world, including a great deal of death, has been going along for billions of years.
Marvin, its Taffy and no way bro!! You rock!
Scripture records “So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned.” Rom 5:12 (NET)
BTW this site rocks back and forth with “my presups are better than yours”.
Marvin, not only do you rock but your posts actually articulate the gospel too!
I wanted to respond quickly to something that was said earlier:
“…it is to deny a particular INTERPRETATION of a set of data that neither you nor I was there to witness. You seem to believe that scientists exist in a mental vacuum with “just the facts†forming their interpretation of said facts.”
There is common misconception, propogated by YEC literature, that in the back of every laboratory there is this group of scientists huddling together trying to figure out how to supress all of the evidence that points to a young earth. Or at least that the evidence could go either way, and people just interpret it to fit their preconceptions.
I can promise you that this isn’t the case. In fact, the only reason we are still discussing these issues is due to bad hermeneutics, not physical evidence. I’ll share with you just one case.
On the standard period table, there are 117 confirmed elements. Many of these elements have unstable isotopes, that is, similar versions of themselves that have an unstable nucleous. There are hundreds of such isotopes and they all eventually decay into some other element by radiating away some of their nuclear constituents.
Here is what’s so neat about radioisotopes: any given sample will decay at a very steady rate, called a half-life. This rate results form the interaction of the strong and weak nuclear forces, and is not dependant on the environment.
When you list all of the known radioisotopes with a half-life longer than a million years that are not a product of some other radioisotope’s decay, you can make some very testable predictions. For instance, if the universe were eternal, then everything on the list should have decayed long ago, leaving nothing to detect in nature. On the contrary, if the universe were only a 6000 years old then everything on the list would still be present, assuming that they all existed in the beginning of creation in some measurable quantities.
As it turns out, 11 of the 29 them have compeletely dissappeared, and the other 18 can still be found. So already, we can rule out the eternal universe. There is no other explanation for the abundance of 18 radioisotopes with half-lives greater than 1 million years. But what about the 6000 year old earth? The 11 missing isotopes present a problem, but there is still hope for the young earth hypothesis.
Here we can make another very testable prediction: if the earth is only 6000 years old, then there should be no ryme or reason to these 11 missing radioisotopes. In the absence of any clear trend, it could then be assumed that they were not part of creation, and therefore never existed in the first place. However, if the earth were in fact very old, then all of the 11 missing radioisotopes should have something in common, something that indicates why they are gone when the other 18 are still present.
At this point in history, God could have settled the age debate once and for all. But what do we find? In fact what we find is that the 11 missing missing isotopes all have half-lives less than 80 million years. In other words, there is a very rational explanation why 11 are missing and 18 remain. Now this data can’t place earth over 1.6 billion years old becasue we don’t know what the original quanties were. But it does rule out a 6000 year old earth by several orders of magnitude.
Now this is just one example, there are many independent lines of evidence that all give consistent results. But this is typical of the kind of data that scientists base their conclusions on.
Now you might still object, that nothing in this data rules out a young-earth created with the “appearance of age” ex nihilo – and you are correct. Such a thing is impossible to disprove because any evidence to the contrary can be explained away as “appearance”. But the power of science is its ability to make testable predictions. The appearance of “fill-in-the-blank” can’t actually help you do anying scientific. It can only explain away rational data, not make teatable predictions. Good scientific theories, however, can make such predictions, just as we did with the radioisotopy data. And when the observations confirm the predictions, the theory survives another day.
So even if you can never bring yourself to believe in an old earth (and that’s perfectly ok brother), you should at least have some appreciation that as long as old earth assumptions continue to bear out in laboratories accross the world, we will continue to utilize them to achieve results.
Sorry for the long post, but someone had to stick up for the scientists!
-GJG
You know, one thing that must be kept in mind in such discussions is that these issues that are easily presented as “obvious”and clear teaching from Scripture are read very differently by Christians. Too often, those of a young earth creation persuasion try to frame the issue as if any other viewpoint than theirs is novel, outlandish, surprising and just obviously contrary to sound teaching.
This has always struck me as odd since until just recently the large majority of Christians had no problem with an old earth and even evolution, which obviously includes death before the Fall. It is not as if all of these Christians simply forgot about those issues and accepted it anyway. Here are some of the Christian groups (and a couple of Jewish, since they wrote the book) who have no problem with the idea of death before the Fall, since they are willing to accept evolution itself. This doesn’t prove anything, but it does show that thinking, believing Christians do differ on this issue, so it is NOT a cut-and-dry answer such as “well the Bible is clear that there is no death before the Fall”:
The Evangelical Lutheran Church:
“The ELCA doesn’t have an official position on creation vs. evolution, but we subscribe to the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, so we believe God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that he may actually have used evolution in the process of creation.
“Historical criticism” is an understanding that the Bible must be understood in the cultural context of the times in which it was written.â€
The Presbyterian Church:
In response to recent discussions regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has placed on their web page a 1969 Theological Statement on the issue, indicating that, “Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory…Some form of evolutionary theory is accepted by the majority of modern scientists…We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction”
The 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), meeting in June 2002 approved a statement that “Reaffirms that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture,” and that “a natural explanation of the history of nature is fully compatible with the affirmation of God as Creator.”
The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. [now part of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)] issued statements in 1982 and 1983 opposing the teaching of creationism in public schools.
Therefore, the Program Agency recommends to the 194th General Assembly (1982) the adoption of the following affirmation:
Affirms that, despite efforts to establish “creationism” or “creation-science” as a valid science, it is teaching based upon a particular religious dogma as agreed by the court (McLean vs Arkansas Board of Education); Affirms that, the imposition of a fundamentalist viewpoint about the interpretation of Biblical literature — where every word is taken with uniform literalness and becomes an absolute authority on all matters, whether moral, religious, political, historical or scientific — is in conflict with the perspective on Biblical interpretation characteristically maintained by Biblical scholars and theological schools in the mainstream of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Judaism. Such scholars find that the scientific theory of evolution does not conflict with their interpretation of the origins of life found in Biblical literature.
The Episcopal Church:
A statement by Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold is open to the idea of evolution. The statement concludes, “The divine creativity can be equally proclaimed in both the creation stories and the theory of evolution.”
Billy Graham:
“I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book
of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ….. whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.” (Quoted in
David Frost, 1997, Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, p.
72-74.)
The Catholic Church:
In a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II stated the following:
“Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence…In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points…
“Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.”
And here is the Pope again:
“Cosmogony itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The sacred book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.â€
United Methodist Church
In 1984, the Iowa Annual Conference passed a resolution opposing “efforts to introduce ‘Scientific’ creationism into the science curriculum of the public schools.” [not explicitly accepting evolution, of course, but many of their leaders are open to the idea]
Greek Orthodox:
The Church web page includes an article by Rev. George Mastrantonis. Rev. Mastrantonis states, “The theory of evolution does not contradict the existence of a Supreme Intelligent Being. It does not dismiss the existence of God with a Design and Purpose for the Creation. The Judaic-Christian concept of God accepts any truth from any aspect of life without fear of losing its faith in God as a Supreme Intelligent Being” Rev. Mastrantonis does express some concern regarding any concept of evolution which excludes a creator.
Orthodox Church in America:
In answer to a question, Fr. John Matusiak states, “Orthodoxy is not literalist in its understanding of the accounts of creation in Genesis, and I have encountered writings by Orthodox Christians which attempt to balance the creation accounts with a certain ongoing — evolutionary, if you will — process which, on the one hand, affirms that while humans may have evolved physically under the direction and guidance and plan of the Creator, their souls could not have evolved any more than the powers of reasoning, speaking, or the ability to act creatively could have simply evolved. In such a scenario the Creator intervened by breathing His Spirit into man and giving him life, as stated in Genesis…Orthodoxy has no problem with evolution as a scientific theory, only with evolution — as some people may view it — eliminating the need for God as Creator of All.”
Jewish Theological Seminary:
“The Torah’s story of creation is not intended as a scientific treatise, worthy of equal time with Darwin’s theory of evolution in the curriculum of our public schools. The notes it strikes in its sparse and majestic narrative offer us an orientation to the Torah’s entire religious worldview and value system. Creation is taken up first not because the subject has chronological priority but rather to ground basic religious beliefs in the very nature of things. And I would argue that their power is quite independent of the scientific context in which they were first enunciated.â€
Orthodox Judaism:
The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations references an article which states, “Belief in science and belief in the Creator are absolutely consistent…In Genesis, the Torah describes a gradual process of creation from simple to more complex organisms: first a mass of swirling gasses, then water, then the emergence of dry land, followed by plants, fish, birds, animals, and finally, human beings. This, of course, is the same evolutionary process proposed by science.” The article states that the “days” of Genesis represent six epochs or stages of creation, and is very clear that the process of creation was guided by God.
The groups which I have seen come out and take a position directly contrary to evolution are:
The Assemblies of God (the denomination in which my father was a pastor, and which I still attend).
The Jehovah’s Witnesses
The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod
Seventh Day Adventist
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Vance,
I ask the question again because I don’t agree with your interpretation that the curse is merely a spiritual death, and I believe the text backs me up on this. Genesis 1 says “And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for foodâ€; and it was so.” No mention of man being able to eat flesh, no mention of animals eating other animals, all were supposed to be vegetarian. In fact, animals are not allowed to be used for food until after the flood. This is strong evidence from the text that there was no animal death prior to the curse, but immediately after the curse, physical death did enter, at least for the animals. The skins God gave Adam and Eve for clothing must have come from the hide of some dead animal. This is all evidence from the text itself that there was no death in God’s initial “very good” creation.
Your reasoned argument for the curse being a spiritual curse is borne not from the plain reading of the text, but from your acceptance of science and the billions of years of death and suffering that is current evolutionary dogma, you have to read the spiritual curse into it. Paul says in Romans 8 “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.” It makes sense to interpret this in the light of the curse of death, disease, and fallen world coming as a result of the curse of Adams Sin. It makes no sense if your view is correct and God made the “corrupt” to begin with.
I don’t find those proof-texts in any way conclusive, since they are not explicit and pretty thin on the ground. And, the list of church denominations I listed above would seem to agree with me on this.
The point of this entire discussion is that there ARE different viewpoints held by sincere, Bible-believing Christians, and that we should all remain humble about our fallible ability to interpret Scripture, which is by no means always correctly found in the “plain meaning”. Traditional readings have been seriously wrong before now, even assuming that your approach was the traditional reading. Most of the senior Christians who put together the “Fundamentals”, the document upon which the Fundamentalist movement was based, accepted evolution. In fact, the first draft of that document contained a cautious acceptance of evolution, so they obviously had no problem with death before the Fall.
I see where you are coming up with that position, but you seem to hold onto it as if it was an absolute, rather than something that greater theologians than either of us have differed upon. I don’t think most of us keep this wider scope of theological thought in mind.
[…] was having this great conversation over on the Parchment and Pen blog when I accidental spend like an hour working an post that must have exceeded the limits set by […]
I just spent like an hour working on a post that address one of Marvin’s comments about scientists. But I think that it must have too long because it keeps getting rejected. Since that’s an hour of my life that I’ll never get back, I reposted it on my site here:
http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/2007/09/06/home-for-a-lost-post/
Sorry about this.
-GJG
Now I see my post before Vance’s, that’s wierd. My apologies to the administrator for the redundancy.
-GJG
Vance,
Nice sources but most of those you quoted worship another god IMNSHO in any event.
What ever happened to “to God be the glory alone”?
I don’t find those proof-texts in any way conclusive, since they are not explicit and pretty thin on the ground. And, the list of church denominations I listed above would seem to agree with me on this.
This isn’t an answer to my bottom line question. Especially given that the “plain meaning” is usually, not always, but usually the best way to interpret Scripture. Your view requires one to adopt all sorts of “not plain meanings”. And since you seem to frequently draw upon argument from authority, C Michael Patton believes that physical death is a result of sin. 🙂
and that we should all remain humble about our fallible ability to interpret Scripture
I agree. But is it not true that science has been demonstrated to be fallible also, interpreted by fallible men? Where is the call for humility on the side of science? Crickets chirping…
even assuming that your approach was the traditional reading.
With all due respect, I don’t have to assume. It was in fact the traditional reading up until the late 1700’s early 1800’s, even by Augustine, Calvin, and Luther. It was when fallible science was then used to reinterpret things that all these nuanced interpretations sprang up.
Ok, I am done with this discussion, it is clear that we won’t be changing each others minds. You deny that Sin is the first cause of physical death. That’s fine. That means death, disease, bloodshed, tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes are all “very good”, and what God intended for His Creation. How you get this from reading the Bible is beyond my understanding.
tnahas, I am not sure which ones you would say worship another God. As far as I know, they all worship the Judeo-Christian God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
You know…I have read SOME of these posts (been very busy) and I think that, as I have said before, both sides have arguments.
I do think from a purely exegetical perspective it is difficult to separate the genre of Genesis 1-6 from the rest. I think that McGrath’s accommodating language is best way to see these early chapters of Genesis as non-historical as the rest of the book. In the end, while there are some really good commentators on both sides, it would seem that the Bible does teach a young earth.
Yet we must see science as the word of God as well and we dare not ignore it as it speaks forth His voice (Ps. 19). While this voice is unarticulated in a manner that speaks to particulars, it can speak very clearly. In many cases, natural revelations can illuminate special revelation. In the end here, it would seem that science is speaking clearly that the earth is old.
Science can be misunderstood and Scripture can be misunderstood. We just don’t know with regards to this issue. However, the ultimate agnosticism that we have with regards to this issue does not preclude scientists from moving forward under the assumptions that the evidence demand at this point.
Again, what I would continue to plead for is that young earthers would not demonize in any way those who are believe that God’s voice is speaking one way through nature and then seeing their interpretation through this voice. I would also plead with old earthers not to look down upon young earthers for starting with their view of Genesis and seeking to find God’s fingerprints in a different way. If both sides continue with the attitude of humility understanding that the other side could be right, then both side can progress in peace.
Thanks for this post Michael. I have grown up in an evangelical atmosphere
where I felt like if you even entertained the idea of evolution then you
couldn’t possibly be saved. My son (a sophmore in college) has basically
left the faith because of this issue. I think he felt like he had to choose
between science or faith. I just finished reading “The Language of God” by
Francis S. Collins – a fasicinating book. I have let my son know that he
doesn’t have to choose between God or science – there are those who
strongly believe in evolution and also fully believe in Christ. But frankly,
when you have seemingly been misled by the church it is easy to
dismiss everything the church proclaims.
I pray my son will come back to Christ and I believe he will.
But the church really shouln’t place unneccessary obstacles in front of the
gospel message.
Alan, I have seen many such scenarios and I feel for you. With children of my own, I want to make sure they are not faced with this same false dilemma.
Michael, obviously I agree with your sentiment, since it was the purpose of the article. I would have two quibbles though.
First, and less important, is the idea that all of Genesis seems to be the same genre. Regardless of whether they have the same author, the literary style of the two creation accounts alone are very different, much less comparing Genesis 1 to, say, the Joseph accounts. If I took those two texts out and, absent any prior exposure, showed them to you separately, you would never think they were of the same literary genre.
Second, you seem to presume that those who read Genesis in a way that allows for an old earth do so for that very reason. In other words, you assume that the science drives the interpretation. While I would have no problem allowing for some of that (the evidence from the natural world should definitely be a factor to some degree, where appropriate), the conclusion for a figurative reading of Genesis 1 and 2 stands entirely on its own, purely on the historical-grammatical approach, in my opinion. Not all who use that approach come to that conclusion, of course, but I think you can easily get there. In fact, I DID get there purely on these grounds before I had ever even considered the scientific issues, when I was still an YEC. In fact, it was my exegesis which came first, then when I realized that Genesis 1 and 2 really did not say anything definite on the WHEN and HOW of the creative process, I was willing to consider the scientific evidence objectively without my YEC pressupositions acting as a filter.
What I find most telling is that the secular ANE scholar, who would be the most likely to insist on a literal reading in order to damage the validity of the Bible, is the most likely to show how it should be read in the manner I am suggesting.
No one ever answered my questions so I will ask a couple more.
1. Did sin come to us through a real man Adam or was Paul just misguided when he made the point in Rom. 5?
2. What do ‘evening and morning’ making a day in Gen. 1 mean? By that, I do not mean, How do you feel about the statement? I mean, what does it say?
3. I would hope scientists are fair and balanced. I have a friend who is a mineral expert and former archeological student. He was on a dig with Arizona State University in the Payson Az. area when he made a startling discovery. He found carbonized dinosaur skin. The Professor was excited and called a paleoentologist from Utah who flew in to share in the discovery. He agreed the find was geniune. My friend has two of the three pieces in his home even as I write this. My friend, being a Christian and young earther(by that I mean thousands, not millions or billions, or in the future, cazillions of years) jokingly asked, Where does this fit in on the time charts? (You see, for it to be real, according to the usually accepted time lines, it would be so old it would no longer be carbonized but petrified). The teachter replied that it didn’t, and that technically, it didn’t exist.
My question, why is evidence skewered to fit someones ideas, instead of forming the ideas?
I am not a scholar of any sort. My father was a truck driver and I drove one too for a while. Everything I ever learned I had to read about six times just to get it. But I did go to three different debates on the Aruz State Univ campus between creation scientist and evolutionist teachers. Either the evolutionists were paid off or they could not answer simple scientific questions about their positions. One of them had a main atgument that religion has killed more people in the world than science ever has.
We have now reduced our nation to a people that cannot find the United States on a wolrd map. The students think this is because of the education in South Africa, Iraq, or helping Asia. The President can ask the question “what do you mean by ‘Is’?” And then the classic “I did not have sex with the woman.” He could say that because words no longer are accepted as having real meaning.
I will stop now. Can we just read the Bible for what it says? By the way, By the way, I love B.B. Warfield (evolutionist leanings) and A.W.Pink (Gap man). I wish I had 10 % of their brains. But I don’t automatically hang my thinking process on a hook when these men speak.
David
David, I will try to answer your questions, because they are all good questions. But my answer might not satisfy you. At any rate, here it goes:
1.) No conservative Bible believing Christian would ever say that Paul, or any other NT author, was misguided. But consider this, if the OT writers wrote in ignorance of 21st century cosmology, geology, and anthropology, then it should be no surprise that the NT writers who quote them do so in ignorance of these same observations.
Take the ANE idea of a flat earth for instance, this was not just a Hebrew tradition, but was common to all ANE cultures from Egypt to Mesopotamia. So when Paul makes reference to this comology (Romoans 10:18), he is simply interpreting those OT passage just like everybody else during that time would have. Matthew (12:42) and Luke (11:31) do the same thing, and even the story about Satan taking Christ upon a tall mountain to see “all the kindgdoms of the earth” (Matthew 4) uses the ANE cosmology.
Even Jesus speaks in ignorance of 21st century botany when He claims that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds (Mark 4:31). Obviously, His audience was not yet aware of orchid seeds, which are much smaller. Had Jesus spoken accurately on this, His audience might have thought him to be ignorant of “contemporary” ANE science, which regarded the mustard seed as the smallest.
Now extend this same logic to matters of biology or anthropology. If Genesis 2 is the story of humanities fall from grace, and God had very specific reasons for telling it the way He did (which had little to do with physical science), then we should expect the NT authors to interpret it just as it was written – without regard to subsequent findings.
The theology doesn’t change one iota. C.S Lewis said the following: “For long centuries, God perfected the animal for which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself…We do not know how many of these creatrues God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell…For all I can see, it might have concerned the literal eating of a fruit, but the question is of no consequence.”
I could say much about this, and how Second Temple Jewish hermaneutics are evident in the NT interpretations of the OT, but that should be enough for now.
2.) I agree with you, “Day” means 24 hours, plain and simple. I agree with the YECs that you can’t read anything into the creation week other than six literal days. Moreover, I’ll go a step further and say that the “firmament” of Genesis 1:6) always means solid sky. You can reinterpret this in any other way either. The firmament had to be solid in order to support the weight of waters above it and keep the heavens from falling down to the earth. It was every bit as literal as day is, and all of the OT writer understood this. The only reason it is no longer interpreted literally is because of new data to the contrary. But prior to the rise of science, all theologians understood the firmament to be solid.
Origen said is was “without a doubt, firm and solid.” St. Ambrose said that “the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant.” and St. Augustine said that it “constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below.” Even Martin Luther, less than 500 years ago said, “Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and stars were placed in the firmament of heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters…It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night…” Do you believe in this as well? Probably not – no many Christians still do.
And there are many other facinating elements of the ANE cosmos that God made during those six days. So the issue is not just what the author intended and what do the words themselves literally mean. If it were as simple as that, then not only should we all believe in literal 6-day creation, but we should also believe in a literal firmament, the literal waters above the heavens, an immovable earth and a host of other Genesis details. But we don’t.
However, if those of us who are comfortable allowing the Biblical writers to write in ignorance of scientific realities, even under divine inspiration, are correct, then we don’t have try and rework any of these verses to fit modern scenarios, which are always in flux. We simply have to recognize the widosm of God in accomodating Himself to the original audience who recieved His Word.
If you want to find out more, please purchase my book, “Beyond the Firmament” on Amazon.com or B&N.com.
Gotta run.
-GJG
I watched John Ankerberg’s program discussing the verses about the 7 days (literal vs. figurative). It was a debate between Dr. Hugh Ross and Ken Ham. They spent much time in Genesis, and I think that ultimately both agree that God created the heavens and earth. I have my own personal view of the account in Genesis, but it is merely my opinion.
For those leaving the faith because of a projection of how old the earth is…? The age of the earth has been calculated by humans, but it seems that not all scientists agreed historically. Dependant on the methodology of the calculations (steady state theories) one could calculate or project the age. To my knowledge, science does not have any way to actually measure any dating beyond (carbon-14) a reasonable doubt with reproducibility or repeatability that could reach unanimous conclusions.
If one is to assume that carbon-14 increases (not to mention its rate of decrease) with time, then it would also be safe to assume the carbon-14 was next to zero at creation. Bottom line is that RCD is not always consistently calculated. For stringent testing facilities, (such as I work with) the maximum measurement uncertainty is crucial for gage R&R. I seriously doubt that the RCD is accurate within a tolerance of say 0.2% for any dating over 10,000 years old. Mathematically it could be calculated, but then again one has to assume many characteristics of gases and states that are not always predictable. I leave it up to the scientists to debate, simply because the stage is too crowded and the accountability is not held with astuteness.
Good day Reginald….
Dennis
For Marvin’s comments I would say the “Creation as Science” by Hugh Ross was effective in showing that the Earth was carefully created to have the minimum necessary earthquakes, tornadoes etc. Without them the Earth would be unliveable. Plate tectonics are necessary for life on Earth. The biosphere is carefully balanced and designed and death is a part of that. Very good does not mean perfect or deathless. Are you saying God created the Life Cycles, the food chains after the Fall. Did tigers not have incisors and digestions designed for eating meat before the fall. The predator/prey symbiosis is too tight to be an afterthought.
I am with Gordon, the actual words used in Genesis 1 refer to a 24 hour day, and six of them. I don’t think we have to go to a “day-age” view. I think they used the term “day” in the 24 hour sense of the term, but that the whole structure is meant to be read figuratively for the entire process of creation. Much the way a poet might use the word “tree” to refer to a family in a poem about that family. He wants us to think of the “leaf and branch” version of “tree”, rather than some other meaning (like a “tree” file system on a computer), and he might even go into detail regarding the length of the branches, the quality of the fruit, the depth of the roots, the life in the sap, etc. He may never once explicitly say that this was really describing a family, but he would expect you to get that. It was using “tree” in the most common sense, but it was not ultimately about a tree after all.
As for Paul, I don’t find any problem at all with comparing a real human Jesus to a typological figure of “Adam” who represents Mankind if, indeed, there was no literal Adam (some who accept evolution and an old earth still think there might have been a literal Adam). It would be as if Paul, having known about Jesus’ parables said something like “that man is like the Samaritan spoken of by Jesus, who cares for those in need” such that a hearer could think it was referring to a real person. This would not be exactly the same, since the good Samaritan did not symbolize anything historically, as Adam would have, but you can see how easily and naturally it would to refer back to a known figurative character in the same way we would refer to a literal individual.
Murmex, you raise a point that I hear all the time “can’t we just read the text for what it says?” But don’t you see how culturally-bound that is? What you are really saying is “why can’t we just read it the way that is the most natural, plain meaning for us today?” First, if we did that, we would run into a lot of problems if we stuck to that strictly. Remember geocentrism, for example. Second, should we not be reading it in the way that would be most natural for those who originally wrote it and read it?
Practically, this process of adjusting our thinking about Scripture to fit our understanding of the world around us happens all the time, even without us really knowing it. We grew up knowing that earth revolves around the sun, that the moon does not actually have light, that there really is not a solid firmament, etc. So, we read Scripture with that type of scientific information firmly in mind, and simply adjust our reading AWAY from the most natural “plain” reading to a way that fits that scientific knowledge. And, we have not undermined the true meaning of Scripture at all by doing that, but those 500 years ago would have screamed heresy.
The point there is that, whether you like it or not, you definitely DO allow your scientific knowledge to impact your reading of Scripture.
Nowadays, we know exactly how rainbows are formed by light refraction, and no longer just see it as a supernatural act of God, a “special creation”, in each instance. Yet, that does not undermine the Scripture, and we still feel the power of the promise every time we see one. And, ultimately, we realize that it ALL really IS a supernatural act of God.
The Creation is still a supernatural miracle of God whether it took six days or six billion years.
Very good Michael!! You always amuse me. As usual you’re changing what I said to meet your answer, that’s cool, I’m quite used to it. It’s not whether or not to share the gospel, but only if you can mess it by getting into a young earth/old earth debate, if irresistable grace is correct than you can’t mess it up. It’s just odd that if someone believes in irristable grace, they would feel they ‘messed up’ when sharing with someone when it’s entirely on the Spirit’s calling whether they accept the Lord or not.
BTW, I did pay attention in class, maybe you forgot or weren’t paying attention yourself, I disagreed with your views then as well.
On that evangelization issue, I am not sure how the Calvinists view evangelism, but I assume they still see a role for the Christian to play in providing the “call”, and it is a matter of obedience as much as anything else. God does the calling but, for a wide variety of reasons, not least of which is our own growth and development that happens in the process of evangelizing, God has chosen us as His vessels. And, part of that obedience to fulfill our role would seem to be making sure we preach the correct message, not some “other Gospel” as Paul would say, which would cause us to be “cursed” (not to mention what Paul would like to happen to the knife of those false presenters!).
And, if presenting a true and valid message is part of our obedient obligation, then part of that would logically be to not do anything to detract from the message, which gets us right back to the point at hand.
I am not a Calvinist, so I am not sure if that is how it looks at all, but that is how I view it.
Hawke, C-14 is only reliable out to a few 100k years. There is no way it can be used to even estimate the age of the earth/solar system. I’ve never heard of anybody trying to use C-14 to date anything other than very recently (relatively speaking) desceased life forms.
To really measure the age of the cosmos, you need to use isocron dating (Rb/Sr) of rocks that have been undisturbed since the formation of the solar system. Unfortunately, that rules out any terrestrial samples, except for those that arrive to earth as meteorites.
There have been hundreds of meteorites samples and they all give ages of 4.55 billion years with a very low deviation of only +- tens of millions. For another application of non-C14 radiometric dating, see my earlier post above.
-GJG
Oops, I said “cosmos” when I should have said “solar system”. The CMBR and Galactic redshift are used to measure the age of the cosmos (current estimates are 14.7 billion years).
-GJG
To stir the pot a bit more I have a question for both sides of the spectrum and I would be curious to understand Michael (or anyone else’s) theological and philosophical implications in there answering the question.
I am a Religious Studies major at a secular school. In the class we are doing about a month of learning about the theory of evolution before we get into anything about religion so that we can understand “where it came fromâ€.
The professor went on to explain that our brain has three basic parts, I don’t remember the scientific names but they were described as these:
1. The part that controls things we don’t “think†about, i.e. heart beat, breathing etc.
2. The part that controls and regulates our emotions.
3. The part that controls our rational reason.
And he concludes that research has shown us that “religion†originates from the emotional part of the brain. But what part of religion makes it beneficial to the survival of the human species, he asks? (following the evolutionary theory line of reasoning)
From here the professor posed this illustration (paraphrasing):
Say you got dropped in an island and there was no possible way off the island. Let’s call this island Predator Island. The only way to get off Predator Island is to be consumed by something else on the island. This is fact of the matter, there are no other options. Now would you really be able to live there? (Speaking in the mental sense, i.e. the idea is so overwhelming). No, of course not, we simply couldn’t it would be unbearable. But if you called it another name and thought of it in a different way (at least mentally), then it would be bearable for you and you would be able to live, however long that may be.
Then he says surprise! You are in Predator Island, one day you will die, some cancer, virus, etc will eat you and kill you. Then he says you see religion gives us purpose, and what person is more likely to survive (i.e. pass on their genes) the one with purpose or the one without it? So he concludes with, religion is a development within the human brain to cope with the overwhelming fatalistic reality we live in.
In essence he is saying we can’t handle the truth so we create illusions of reality that allow us to cope; we have evolved this way so that the species can continue to survive.
My question is: How would you go about confronting this type of ideology, that we don’t just use religion as an “emotional crutch� And is there evidence within the evolutionary model that would be contrary to this line of reasoning?
Just curious your thoughts.
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
My initial response would be that we do not, after all, have that scenario in historical reality. I don’t think that humans perceive the world around them as a prison that is unbearable without religious belief, such that we need to create it to meet that need. I would see that as an unsupported hypothesis.
I think a much more supportable hypothesis (from an entirely secular point of view) for the same phenomenon is that Mankind, at a point along the way, reached a critical mass of intellectual development that resulted in our becoming aware of our world in abstract terms, rather than merely the immediate and practical. When this happened, there was a flood-gate of art, religion, cultural development of all types. This in turn stimulated further brain growth, and exponential growth happened.
From a religious point of view, looking at that same phenomenon, we see a major upsurge in such things in the Upper Paleolithic, so much so that it is called the Paleolithic revolution. This is mere speculation, but what immediately comes to mind is “hey, was that THE moment where God Breathed into humanity?” Again, just a little pet theory, with nothing but curiosity at stake, really.
Josh,
This is a very good question. Here is how I would respond: your professor may be right in one sense, people do invent religion to make them feel better. In fact, because of the image of God in man, even primitive man made sacrifices to dieties because deep down inside, he knew that he was sinful and that this sin separated him from his creator.
However, when God put on flesh and became Jesus Christ (God with us), he took all of mankind’s misguided attempts at satisfying the righteous demands of the “gods” upon Himself and provide a way for all who trust in Him to have eternal life. Did man invent religion? Sure, but this religion accomplished nothing. Man can not restore Himself to God. Only God, by His own mercy, and satisy the demands of His own righteous anger, and He did this in the person and work of His son, Jesus Christ.
The botton line: even if what your professor says is true, it changes nothing. “Religion” may be man’s vain pursuit of God, but Christianity is God’s relentless pursuit of man!
Hope that helps
-GJG
On a side note to my post above, even God’s sacrifice of His own son was ultimately His accommodation of Himself to contemporary forms of justice. Long before any Hebrew erected an alter to Yahwah, man was making sacrifices to the gods to attone for the guilt of sin. God, in the ultimate act of accomodating wisdom, subjected His own Son to the bloody system that, while God regulated in His law, originated with primitive pagan peoples.
How wonderful is God that he condescends to his own imperfect creatures so that, despite our sinful way, we might know Him!
-GJG
I think it was Gordon who wrote, but the thread is way to long for me to remember.
“Now you might still object, that nothing in this data rules out a young-earth created with the “appearance of age†ex nihilo – and you are correct.”
Here you are committing the fallacy of the false alternatives and showing a completely lack of familiarity with creationist literature. Hence proving that you are to be taken as completely
untrust worthy on this issue.
Vance, there is one issue that you have not really dealt with yet that is NT parallels between the creation before the fall and the new heavens and new earth. Just like the former was without death and suffering so the latter will be without death and suffering, only permanently.
But as you have admitted your view entails that the former was not without death and suffering, then that takes away the hope for the latter.
So my question to you Vance, do you believe that the New Heaven and New Earth will be full of death and suffering ?
As far as the whole physical vs spiritual death issue, your view on that would entail that the New Heavens and New Earth wold have none of the latter but WOULD have the latter.
What an awesome gospel message !!! Praise the Lord for letting us be with him for a few measly years and then killing us of for all eternity after that.
(if anyone should have missed it the above was sarcasm).
As far as the issue of the testimonies you have collected of people that have deconverted(or not converted in the first place) because of the teaching of YECism. Well there are many many, testimonies of people that have rejected the Christian faith on account of an argument LIKE(I STRONGLY emphasize this word) this:
1. The old earth evolutionary world view is incompatible with a Christian world view.
2. The old earth evolutionary world view is correct.
Therefore:
3. The Christian world view is incorrect.
That then have come to faith in Christ by abandoning Premise 2). This includes people who have been witnessed to by OEC’s/TE’s who have given arguments similar to yours for rejecting Premise 1) but have found them utterly unconvincing.
How would you witness to such a person ? Your arguments against Premise 1) wouldn’t do a thing to that person since like I stated he would find those arguments totally unconvincing and your own view forces you to accept his Premise 2) ther by proving(to him atleast and that is the person that matters the most in this circumstance) the conclusion.
Vance, what would you tell that person ?
As far as your links/quotes to the statements on evolution by a number of denominations that doesn’t prove anything. They certainly don’t prove that an old earth evolutionary world view is compatible with the Christian world view.
In other words they don’t disprove Premise 1) above. At most they prove that the denominations you quote/link to believe incoherent things about evolution.
The very fact that many people are Christian and hold to the proposition “Evolutionism and old earthism is true” doesn’t prove that those two views are compatible at all.
Kristen,
“Here you are committing the fallacy of the false alternatives and showing a completely lack of familiarity with creationist literature. Hence proving that you are to be taken as completely untrust worthy on this issue.”
Let’s be careful with statements like these. We need to be respectful or, trustworthy or not, people are not going to listen to you.
Kristian,
I will take the witnessing issue first. From my experience, the only ones who are SO adamant that and old earth and evolution are irreversibly incompatible with Scripture are those militant atheists who are simply out to destroy Scripture and the entire Christian worldview. I have spoken with many, many people on this issue and have never yet a single person who argues 1 that vehemently who would ever give up number 2.
So, it would be a non-starter to begin with, and all you could do is lay out the Gospel message, explain why the issues of origins do not matter in the larger scheme and let God do the rest. It would be entirely intellectually dishonest of me to attempt to argue that number 2 is not correct and agree with them on number 1. And, dishonesty is the first thing that a seeker will spot.
As for the New Heaven and New Earth, no I don’t think that there will be suffering and death there. We don’t have very many details on what it will be like, exactly, and I definitely don’t think of these places as being some disembodied place, but in a newer and perfected version of this earth we know and the heaven we don’t yet. I have no idea how it will all play out, but as NT Wright says, to assume that it will involve just ditching this existing concept would be entirely the wrong way to look at it.
Where I think the disconnect lies is in the absolute correlation people have developed between the way the world was before the Fall and the way it will be when God puts the world to rights. I think people read too much into what the world before the Fall looked like, then lined that up with what we are told about the future. I think too much went on their than was Scripturally justified.
One little point that may, or may not, mean anything, but is worth considering. Scripture says that God made Adam outside of the Garden, then placed Adam IN the Garden. Where was Adam when he was created, but before he was moved into the Garden?
Lastly, my point in showing all of the denominations which accept evolution, at least conceptually, is to show that it was not some newfangled fringe idea. What I believe is held by a majority of Christians worldwide. That means nothing in and of itself, but it should give anyone pause before just writing it off as “obviously contrary to Christianity”.
On a side note to my post above, even God’s sacrifice of His own son was ultimately His accommodation of Himself to contemporary forms of justice. Long before any Hebrew erected an alter to Yahwah, man was making sacrifices to the gods to attone for the guilt of sin. God, in the ultimate act of accomodating wisdom, subjected His own Son to the bloody system that, while God regulated in His law, originated with primitive pagan peoples.
How wonderful is God that he condescends to his own imperfect creatures so that, despite our sinful way, we might know Him!
Gordon,
I know your views of Scripture are hardly literal, and it is clear that you are very knowledgeable of science, perhaps you are a scientist. But your statement is so far off base biblically it is shocking.
God ordained Christs sacrifice before He made the world (whether it is old or young). 1st Peter Chapter 1 states
“And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear; 18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you 21 who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians Chapter 2
“And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony[a] of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human[b] wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
For you to say that the Sacrifice of Christ was an accomodation to human “pagan” justice systems is beyond the pale of Christian orthodoxy, and certainly has no foundation in Scripture.
I wonder, just what is your final authority on matters of faith? I can understand why you adhere to an old earth view, though I disagree with it. But your accomodation view strips all sovereignty from God regarding the mission of Christ.
Marvin, I can not speak for Gordon, but I think you are reading too much into his statement. Historically we know that people from nearly every culture have sacrificed to their gods for tens of thousands of years, and in cultures entirely removed from the Jewish sacrificial system instituted by God. There are only so many ways to look at this.
First, you could say that God instilled this method of atonement in humankind from the very first moment, and then followed up with Jesus as the last form of that type.
Second, you could say that this was the form of “dealing with their god” before God instituted such a system, and so when the time came for this interaction, God chose to use the system Mankind was using, but purified it, and made it holy.
I have no problem with either one, but I don’t think we can say either is able to be conclusively established. And, ultimately, I don’t think it matters, really.
Considering my post on natural revelation, 🙂 I think that we should not be quit so Gnostic as to say that God did not institute the sacraficial system Himself and other cultures followed. In other words, I don’t think we have to say that God accomidated to the stories and acts of the nations in either creations stories or the sacrifial systems, but it could be that the nations had other means of finding God’s will, even if they did misrepresent it.
There are many instances of this to which we could refer, but this is already going too long and it would be way off topic.
BTW: Thanks for keeping things civil. While there has been some heat, I know that you are all trying. I doubt that you could ever find a more irenic discussion on this issue than what you guys are providing. Those from the outside looking in will not look past this without having to challenge their assumptions about the way Christians treat each other.
Marvin, old friend, thanks for your contributions. (Marvin and I go WAY back to some KJV Only days)
Marvin, amen bro! The gospel has to work in a framework that framework needs to start with sin as recorded in the Genesis account and therefore a need for a Saviour. If death existed before sin then the gospel is of no effect and there then can be many ways to God since the Saviour can’t eradicate all death just death that occurred after sin entered the world. To think that God lowered himself to man to determine how to redeem man when He was slain before the foundation of the world. (I guess maybe billions of years ago. Wow that’s a long time to wait around to redeem man!)
As for the majority of Christians, I don’t count RCC and EO or Jews among them as a former rcc/eo and Jews are still lost in their sins. BTW Christians have always been a remnant. I’m never convinced by the majority rules syndrome.
Kristian, you will find out fast that if you disagree with this blog you get warned pretty fast while the others freely get to belittle and demean you with their carefully worded responses that make YEC look foolish.
Michael, please treat us all equally not just your favs! Stop pickin on Ed too.
Hey, I am on your side on this one Taffy. It is not so hard to conceive of death before sin, but MAN’S death before sin. I could conceive of a universe billions of years old, but one that included evolution is much harder theologically. I think you all have hit the key question, what do we do with death before sin? I would not have an answer.
Yet the key question on the other side is real and must not be ignored. What do we do with a creation that seems to have its own voice saying I am very old.
As for evolution, maybe I am missing something major, I don’t know, but I have never even seen a reason to even consider it as a possibility. Therefore, I have never had a theological dilemma with the need to consider its possibility.
Having said that, there are those IDer out there who love and are committed to the Lord who are convinced of its truthfulness.
In the end, I am willing to go wherever God’s revelation, general, special, or both, takes me.
Having said this, my original intention stands. A young earth is not part of the Gospel.
Marvin,
Everything the infinite, eternal, and omnipotent God does to connect with us is an accommodation to our finite, temporal, and limited human frailties. Otherwise, we would be completely blown away by his “God-ness”. This is merely an incarnational view of revelation. How else would God do it? What does “God with us” really mean? What did it mean for God to “put on flesh” in the form of Jesus Christ? Fully God and yet fully Human? God uses our language, our traditions, or customs, our myths and legends, and even our very own bodies (in the person of Christ) as vehicles to transmit His truth to us.
Since I am a Calvinist, I have no problem believing that while God ordained the sacrafice of His own son from the foundations of the world, He did this with the knowledge that man, created in His own image, would develop sacrificial systems in ignorance of the one true God that tried in vain to attone for their inherent guilt. But the death of Christ was the perfect fulfillment of this faulty system – a system of man striving after God by his own pitiful efforts.
Of course you can disagree, but there is nothing unorthodox about taking an incarnational view of revelation. Nothing that you should be shocked about.
After you read my book (wishful thinking), I recommend a book called, “Inspiration and Incarnation” by Peter Enns (Westminster Theological Seminary). A truely awsome book about what “God with us” actually entails!
-GJG
I do recomment Peter Enns book as well. I will be blogging on it soon. While I do not take things as far as he does, I think his thinking is on track.
Sorry folks, I was under the impression that Marvin was an old friend. It turns out that he is a different person. Marvin is not associated with KJV. Neither is my friend anymore.
This will be my parting shot on this, I promise. 🙂 I echo Michaels thoughts on the issue, and it is not an essential to salvation by any means, if it was, then I was lost up until a few years ago as I once held to OE and evolution.
For all the science folks out there, here is some food for thought: Science has proven that dead men don’t rise from the grave days later, virgins don’t have babies, the Red Sea doesn’t part, leprosy doesn’t just heal itself, men don’t walk into a fiery furnace and come out unscarred, people don’t walk on water, and on and on and on.
Our understanding of what “science” believes true about the natural world has also been proven wrong many times over the years. Yet we can’t believe that God, the inventor of science, created a mature creation in six days? Science changes, God’s word hasn’t.
Marvin, science can’t disprove miracles. Even the most hard-hearted atheists would have to admit this. But a miracle that really happened should still leave detectable results – unless of course the evidence was erased by a subsequent miracle. Like if there actually was a world-wide flood some 4 or 5 thousand years ago, then there should still be evidence of it – unless of course the evidence itself were erased by God.
When Christ was raised from the dead by a miracle, as was witnessed by many and recorded for all, then this fact should have verifyalbe by scientific inquiry. Why do you think the apostles ran to the tomb upon hearing that Christ had risen? (Hint: to see evidence of the miracle). Why do you think Thomas wanted to touch for himself? (Hint: to see evidence of the miracle). So science can confirm whether a miracle took place, but science can’t disprove one.
About the age of the earth, you can believe whatever you want to brother. If 6-day creation helps stregnthen you’re faith, or if you feel like embracing alternate ideas about comology or biology might draw you away from Christ – far be it from me to make a good man stumble. I would rather you be a young-earth Christian than an old-earth atheist!
But recognize that not every Christian has the luxury of such a black/white approach to God’s Word (or God’s world). Christian geneticists, like Francis Collins, or Christian Biologists, like Kenneth Miller, or Christian Cosmologists, like Hugh Ross – or any other regular Christian who must face the FACTS of God’s creation everyday and interpret them in a coherent way that makes testable predictions – your approach to Scripture is simply not an option for us.
YEC science simply doesn’t work in the real world (even the museums are lame), and it is absolutely powerless to make any testable predictions that couldn’t simply be explained by “illusions” and “appearances”. In science, a theory can explain everything without consequence really explains nothing.
So be patient with your Christian brothers and sisters in the natural sciences. Many of us are having an impact for Christ’s Kingdom right where are, even if our handling of Scripture might seems risky for you.
Peace – GJG
This was said earlier:
“If death existed before sin then the gospel is of no effect . . .”
This is exactly the dangerous type of statement my original Euagelion post was all about. There is no qualification there, not possibility for human fallibility or simple “through a glass darkly” acknowledgment. The bald statement is made, and if it convinces someone that it is absolute, and that someone is convinced (or becomes convinced) that there definitely WAS physical death before the Fall, and you have just put someone in a severe, possibly fatal crisis of faith. I definitely would not want to take on that type of responsibility.
Especially when the actual evidence from God’s Creation itself is, to my mind absolutely convincing that there was TONS of physical death for hundreds of millions of years, and long before anyone could place the fall. I mean, really, it is like 99.9999% assured, and I am not even sure I should include that little bit of wiggle room.
So, it behooves us to step back and look at this afresh and see whether we are imposing things on the text that are not there. There is the concept of spiritual, rather than physical death that I have not seen anyone really provide a solid refutation for. Here it is again:
As for the death, et al, I think we have to consider the natural order of Creation as “goodâ€, and this includes every natural process we have today. What is evil, and bad, and the result of the Fall is Sin. It is disobedience. This is what corrupts our lives, not death or disease. And what did Jesus come to give us? What “death†did Jesus come to “undoâ€? I believe it was spiritual death, separation from full communion with God. That is the only death that Adam and Eve suffered “on that dayâ€. They were kicked out of the Garden, they were separated from God. And what do we gain from accepting the redemptive gift of salvation? Eternal life, surely, but what does that mean? It can’t mean just physical eternal life since that everyone gets that, both the redeemed and unredeemed, who will spend eternity alive, but not so well. What will distinguish the redeemed from the unredeemed is not physical life, but spiritual life, an eternity in full communion with God?
While this may not satisfy everyone, and I am sure there are other questions that can be raised, I have not seen anyone show how it HAD to be physical death that Adam and Eve suffered at the Fall. I do not see any explicit statement that there was eternal life for every living creature before the fall, or even that there was eternal life for Adam and Eve before the Fall (even if one wants to assume a literal Adam and Eve).
Or, there is an alternate view, one that Michael touched on that a lot of OEC’s like, which is that there was animal and plant life and death, but Mankind was given special grace, and then lost it. That could even work with some viewpoints of evolution actually.
And, really, I don’t see how the the whole “no death before the Fall” could work anyway, since plants are as alive as anything else, and even in a vegetarian world, you would have living things dying. You can’t get around that.
And, lastly, don’t forget the Garden. Whether literal or figurative, we have a Garden, and we have OUTSIDE the Garden. Now, what was going on out there? Was it the same as in the Garden? Couldn’t be, or there would be no need to specify it. Man was created outside the Garden, then put into it. What is going on there? We know that when they were kicked BACK out into the world OUTSIDE the Garden, life was very different. There is a lot going on with this whole story that we simply aren’t being told, and that is because we simply don’t need to know. All we need to know is that there WAS a Fall of some type, and as a result Mankind is in a sinful condition of spiritual death separated from God and in need of redemption. Millions of people accept this fully without the necessity of insisting on “no physical death before the Fall”.
So, I really think this whole “no death before the Fall” is far from conclusive, very problematic to tell the truth, even without the evidence from Nature. Add that in, and I think there is NO room for a dogmatic, much less dangerous, statement that “if there is not death before the fall, then there is no Gospel.”
Vance, I agree that “if there i not death before the fall, then there is no Gospel” is a great overstatement that people need to be very careful about making. In their zealousness for their systematic theology, they may be taking the Lord’s name in vain by attributing dogmatic assertions to Him that we are unclear on.
Yet, at the same time, you must understand how this one issue does effect people’s systematic theology in more ways than just a passive easy rearrangement.
For example, if you hold to a recapitulation understanding of Christ’s atonement (which I do), we have to have the second Adam (Christ) truly represent an original. If there was no literal first Adam, then we are going to have theological problems understanding exactly what it is that Christ recapitulated.
Also, if one were to hold to an eschatology with a strong emphasis on the apokatastasis (restoration of all things – not the Origen flavor), then they would take it quite literally that on the New Earth, we can see the original intent of all of creation, including a tree which imparts physical life for “the healing of the nations.” This assumes a restoration of the first. This is fine for those who spiritualize the second tree, buts its representation cannot be spiritualized in either case. It has to mean something.
As well, if one were to adopt an evolutionary viewpoint of man, then we do seem to have issues with God’s longevity concerning the introduction of His plan of redemption.
Finally, we have the issue of death before the fall and the need to define death according to the prevailing scientific theories.
All of this because science has made its case. Yet science is as dynamic and mysterious as anything else. We have mass rebellion against modernism because of many changes with regards to science. Remember, people did not believe in a geocentric world simply because the Bible said such, but because observation at the time suggested such. Science suggested it! But science changed and advanced. Whose to say it does not change and advance again? Whose to say that the mirror of science is not dim? While I think scientists must assume a uniformitarian world to advance, philosophers and theologians dare not take this assumption too far.
All of this to say that I think we need to be careful about statements either way. I don’t think any of the evidence calls for 99.9% certainty – especially about this issue.
As well, I think you should understand how this does effect other theological assumptions, many of which are very valid assumptions.
Each side has some VERY problematic issues. Each side tries to reinterpret the evidence according to the source (Bible or nature) that they see speaking more clearly.
I really don’t know the answers, but I do know, again, humility is the key with regards to this.
Michael, notice at the beginning of your post how many times you had to say “if we believe X, then we must believe Y”? I don’t want to pick those apart, but the question would be two-fold.
First, is that X really correct in the first place?
Second, is the causal link really absolute?
For example, is there really NO way to associate the real person of Jesus to the figurative type of “Adam” as a typology for Mankind? Is that “line in the sand” assurance there?
And on the restoration, you are working with concepts derived from interpretations, and by a person inclined to allegory to boot. Is such a one-for-one restoration an absolute? I agree that the New Heaven and New Earth is meant as the culmination of what God intended, but is it absolutely necessary that this involves a looking back to a previous state in an absolute sense, rather than the completion of the plan that got derailed at the Fall?
I just think that a LOT of doctrine gets developed in ways that seem logical and sensible based on existing presumptions, but those build upon each other like blocks, where any single wrong block creates errors all the way through. Not major doctrinal errors, but more often just errors in how we “visualize” or discuss things. The way we like to systematically categorize our theological constructs so neatly leave very little wiggle room for when we just happen to get a part of it wrong.
Remember, ALL of our theological constructs are, at best, mere resemblances to God’s ways. We are using fallible human minds and limited human language to attempt to describe the ways of God. That is a good thing to attempt, but we must always keep foremost in our minds that we can only get close, “through a glass dimly”, and should not put too much stock in our exact and minute constructs.
As NT Wright said, we can be sure that at least 1/4 of our theology is not quite right, but we have no idea which 1/4 it is!
With science, much more so than theology, our knowledge definitely expands, with each generation building upon and adding to the knowledge of the prior generation. The case with things like geocentrism is actually an example of this, rather than of how science can get it wrong. Science definitely may have things wrong, but once they figure out something major, it is almost never the case that they then later find out that the earlier position was correct. They just continue to find out more areas where they still have it wrong, and then correct that. Just look at the history of science overall, and you see that this is true.
The age of the earth (setting evolution aside for a minute) is one of those areas like heliocentrism where we just know that much more now, and know it as well as, or better than, dozens of things that those holding to a young earth accept as “fact”. When a dozen different scientific disciplines using separate and distinct methods of inquiry all come to the same conclusions, you have to sit up and take notice. When almost everything we have can only be here if the earth is old, and nothing is the way it would look if it was young, at some point it becomes intellectually perverse to continue in doubt.
Here is something to consider: of the scientists working in the relevant fields, less than 1/10th of 1% think the earth is young. That obviously includes the very large majority of the scientists who are Christian. And, last I heard, there was not a single one of those handful who cling to a young earth who do not also have a religious conviction that it must be young.
This is not a “majority wins” game, it is just to point out that at some point, the evidence piled up high enough for heliocentrism that the Church had to finally accept that their interpretation of Scripture was wrong, and revisit many verses and concepts. I think we are long past that point with the age of the earth, and so we need to start looking at some of these issues afresh, even if we do not make any final conclusions on anything.
Consider the text of Genesis to a theologian in the 1500’s. Here is a text that “clearly” describes the earth being created first, and every else created around it, and for that earth specifically. There was a solid firmament, and the earth was fixed and unmoving. This not only was clear from the literal reading of the text, it also had major theological implications. What would it mean if the earth was NOT the center around which it all was built? What if the sun was merely one star among the vast array? To their mind, this not only seriously challenged the validity of Scripture, it would undermine some significant theological foundations, such as Man being the purpose of God’s creation, etc.
And, there are still geocentrists out there today!
Ok Ok,
I guess I am just an intellectually dishonest person who ignores the overwhelmingly irrefutable evidence for billions of years and evolution, or willfully ignorant, the weaker brother, or whatever. Even though I used to believe in both, in spite of what the clear reading of Scripture said. It wasn’t until I was actually presented with some scientific evidence that suggested that molecules to man evolution wasn’t the set in stone settled science that it was purported to be by the public school system that I returned to believing what the plain reading of God’s Word said.
But I guess the evidence I was introduced to doesn’t count either, as I am now sure that the many brilliant scientists, who are also devout Christians, who comprise the staffs of such YEC enterprises like Answers In Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research, are also intellectually dishonest folks who ignore such irrefutable evidence, and lie to me and many others who they wish to deceive regarding the irrefutable proof of evolution and billions of years. They must be lying to me then when they present all sorts of evidence that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolutionary “theory” is more dogmatic religion than true science.
There is a fairy tale in which a frog turns into a prince by the kiss of a princess. Evolution tells the exact same story, just replace the kiss of a princess with “billions of years of random mutations”.
There are theological implications if the current secular scientific interpretation of the fossil record is accurate. At least this person admits them.
From the Answers in Genesis site:
“In 1994, Tom Ambrose, an Anglican Priest, in an article in The Church of England Newspaper, succinctly portrayed the real god of an old earth when he stated:
‘…Fossils are the remains of creatures that lived and died for over a billion years before Homo Sapiens evolved. Death is as old as life itself by all but a split second. Can it therefore be God’s punishment for Sin? The fossil record demonstrates that some form of evil has existed throughout time. On the large scale it is evident in natural disasters. The destruction of creatures by flood, ice age, desert and earthquakes has happened countless times. On the individual scale there is ample evidence of painful, crippling disease and the activity of parasites. We see that living things have suffered in dying, with arthritis, a tumor, or simply being eaten by other creatures. From the dawn of time, the possibility of life and death, good and evil, have always existed. At no point is there any discontinuity; there was never a time when death appeared, or a moment when the evil changed the nature of the universe. God made the world as it is … evolution as the instrument of change and diversity. People try to tell us that Adam had a perfect relationship with God until he sinned, and all we need to do is repent and accept Jesus in order to restore that original relationship. But perfection like this never existed. There never was such a world. Trying to return to it, either in reality or spiritually, is a delusion. Unfortunately it is still central to much evangelical preaching.’”
Vance, my simple point was for you to understand that these other theological presumptions may be correct and your interpretation wrong. The Scientific theory of evolution is not at a point where its voice is clear enough (I would say at all) to where it necessitates the reworking of all these theological presumptions that, yes, could be wrong.
You seem to keep telling people that they need to humbly consider or allow another view (which I agree with) when I don’t think you are being fair with the other side and the real and serious problems with your view. Could it be that your view is the wrong one and it is part of the 1/4 that you have wrong? While I am sure that you would say yes, your tone continues to say no.
“…molecules to man evolution wasn’t the set in stone settled science…”
This statement is actually 50% true. That “molecules to man” took place is confirmed by many distinct lines of scientific data. However, that anybody actually knows with certainty how it all worked in the fullness of time is still a mystery. None of the proposed material mechanisms of evolutionary change are convincing, and many scientists are spending their entire lives trying to gain more clarity.
Other scientists, like Michael Behe, recognize the overwhelming case for common descent but simply throw up their hands and conclude that the reason we can’t figure this out is because God was working outside of His own system to unfold His evolutionary plan. That is surely one interpretation of the data, but I prefer to think that God fully gifted His creation with all of the necessary potential to realize His creative will in the fullness time without requiring any miraculous adjustments to the machinery of nature.
You can think of evolution like gravity. We know it happens because the evidence of it is everywhere, but nobody can explain it. We can quantify it, measure it, and use it to make preductions that are confirmed by experimentation, but what causes it? This brings up a very interesting social dynamic between Christians and Atheists.
Atheists, who require a godless worldview, and insist that science must be able to explain everything, are somewhat embarrased by this fact and they are emboldened by the culture war to not “ceede any ground” to the creationists. Therefore, they rarely admit their ignorance of evolutionary mechanisms in public. When some of them do, like Stephen Jay Gould for instance, their buddies get nervous and distance themselves from them.
On the other hand you have Christians, who start with the presupposition that God created all things and sustains them moment by moment by His hand of Providence (my Calvinism is showing). Having bought the lie of secular science that all truth must be described in scientific terms, we ignore the positive evidence for common descent, and instead focus on the inability of science to nail down the mechanisms that cause it. And then we propose alternate “scientific creation theories” based on Genesis and scan the universe for any shred of data that might support this pre-conclusion. This is what our friends at ICR and AIG are doing, and most Christians unfortunately don’t have strong enough scientific background to understand what’s going on here.
I would never say that any of those brothers are being dishonest in an evil sense, but they choose to willfully ignore the mountains of evidence for common descent and an old universe and instead focus on those pieces of the cosmological puzzle that science has yet to (and may never) account for. Like a good defense lawyer who to tries to create reasonable doubt in the jury by zeroing in on the most challenging aspects of the prosecution’s case, these creation scientists are just doing their jobs. Unfortunately, it is my opinion, and the opinion of many others, that they are unintentionally placing a huge stumbling block between Christ and the scientific community. They are making my job very difficult!
-GJG