Of redemptive history

[chaoschristian]

I would like to see Mark, or anyone else who closely aligns with his views as I know he's rather busy, to clearly define, in his/her own words, what exactly 'redemptive history' means.

We keep bumping up against this pair of words, and I am really curious as to what folks who emply the term are invoking when they do so.

Mark has said this yet again:



(emphasis added)

Now, precisely how is evolution as natural history mutually exclusive to the Bible as redemptive history?

Name just one event in redemptive history that evolutionists don't believe is real and relevant to our lives.

 

[HypnoToad]

Let's just say less worth.

If you don't believe that allegorical interpration of Genesis, is not of less worth, than a literal view, then what's the problem?

I didn't say there was "a problem".

Goodness gracious, people, I'm answering the question of the OP!

It was asked to name something in redemptive history that evolutionists view as not real and relevant.

I am answering that question - THAT'S ALL - I am making no statement WHATSOEVER about the rightness or wrongness of anybody's position.

Is that finally clear enough?

And Xianjedi -- cut out the "I'm going to be ultra-literal to make you look wrong." You're just picking definitions that make it look like TEs reject Genesis when we do nothing of the sort.

Yet another strawman.

I have made no claim here that TE's "reject" Genesis.

Are the parables real?

No, parables are fictional stories, they are not real.

Would you reject the parables if some or all of the details hadn't happened exactly as Jesus said they did?

Irrelevant, as they are fictional.

I mean, good job pointing out that the boolean operator "and" makes the statement false if "real" is synonamous with "historical" but a person intelligent enough to figure that out should be intelligent enough to figure out what was implied by the quote in the OP and what the OP was trying to discuss.

Sorry, I guess I'm too stupid to be psychic. I have no idea what the OP "implies" should be discussed. I have no idea what he is "trying" to discuss. I only know what he actually did ask - and he asked for what evolutionists say is not "real and relevant".

 

[Deamiter]

XianJedi, why would you claim parables are not real? Is the fall of man (Adam in Hebrew) into sin any less real if it is described in a mythology rather than a bibliography?

The OP is on how evolution conflicts with redemptive history. How does the historicity of the details of Genesis 1-11 affect the reality of our sin and need for salvation?

As Lewis has said (might be worth a comment).

Yes and no...

Human concepts, philosophy, ideals, morals, etc. are all real things, they just are not tangible, solid objects.

The YEC world view seems to put anything intangible on a lower par than physical objects or historical events, they are somehow less important. I feel this is a mistake, that in human history the intangible elements are more important than the physical, that the intangible ideas (all men created equal, the cherry tree, the log cabin) are more moving and important to the people at the time then actual physical elements.

 

[HypnoToad]

XianJedi, why would you claim parables are not real?

Because that's what "fiction" means.

Is the fall of man (Adam in Hebrew) into sin any less real if it is described in a mythology rather than a bibliography?

The spiritual truth does not become less real, but if the account is allegory/myth/parable/fiction, then the account itself is not real.

The OP is on how evolution conflicts with redemptive history. How does the historicity of the details of Genesis 1-11 affect the reality of our sin and need for salvation?

Well, that's not what the OP asked. And until Shernren states otherwise, I'm going to answer the question HE is asking, not what question you've decided he's asking.

Human concepts, philosophy, ideals, morals, etc. are all real things, they just are not tangible, solid objects.

Great.

But I'm not talking about concepts, nor philosophy, nor ideals, nor morals. I am talking about the accounts - do they speak of real events or not? According to evolutionists, theistic or otherwise, no they are not real events, they are just symbolic and allegory and myth.

 

[shernren]

The events of Gen.1-11 are typically not seen as real events by evolutionists or theistic evolutionists. If an event is not "real", it is impossible to be "real and relevant".

But that's just it. God really created the universe. Man really fell. God really does punish people for sin. These are very real and relevant, and they are all parts of redemptive history, according to creationists. So why should you say that evolutionists treat redemptive history as being less real?

 

[Assyrian]

There is the history of redemption, the history of God's dealings with man, creating us to have fellowship with him, our rejection of God, historical and ongoing, God's calling a people who would follow him and sending his son to save us. It is the history of God's interaction with mankind.

Redemptive History on the other hand can refer to a whole theological construct built on a literalist interpretation of Genesis, an interpretation of an interpretation if you like. So 'the bible as redemptive history' is really just confusing the bible itself with a theology built on a particular interpretative framework.

The 'bible as redemptive history' is neither the bible itself nor the history of redemption. They do not clash with 'evolution as natural history'.

 

[gluadys]

The spiritual truth does not become less real, but if the account is allegory/myth/parable/fiction, then the account itself is not real.

And shernen's question was not about accounts, but about events. The account may be a story about an event yet the event itself may still be real.

I am talking about the accounts - do they speak of real events or not? According to evolutionists, theistic or otherwise, no they are not real events, they are just symbolic and allegory and myth.

No, according to TEs the accounts are about real events. The events really did occur. But the accounts are not an objective record of the events. They are stories about the events, not historical descriptions of the events. So although the stories are myth, the events at the root of the stories are not.

 

[HypnoToad]

But that's just it. God really created the universe. Man really fell. God really does punish people for sin. These are very real and relevant, and they are all parts of redemptive history, according to creationists. So why should you say that evolutionists treat redemptive history as being less real?

"Redemptive history", for our purposes, can be seen as two parts - 1) the events, and 2) what they mean.

Evolutionists discount 1 and only say 2 is real. So, as a whole, the redemptive history of Gen.1-11 is not seen as real by evolutionists.

The tortoise and the hare. The meaning is basically warning against complacency and that perseverance pays off. This is understood as a "real" concept. Does that make it a real account? No.

 

[HypnoToad]

And shernen's question was not about accounts, but about events. The account may be a story about an event yet the event itself may still be real.

No, according to TEs the accounts are about real events. The events really did occur. But the accounts are not an objective record of the events. They are stories about the events, not historical descriptions of the events. So although the stories are myth, the events at the root of the stories are not.

You are confusing events with their meanings.

 

[chaoschristian]

Please define for me this 'Redemptive history' of which you speak.

I know Assyrian gave a definition. I myself have concepts of it. But I'm really interesting in hearing you tell it.

"Redemptive history", for our purposes, can be seen as two parts - 1) the events, and 2) what they mean.

Evolutionists discount 1 and only say 2 is real. So, as a whole, the redemptive history of Gen.1-11 is not seen as real by evolutionists.

The tortoise and the hare. The meaning is basically warning against complacency and that perseverance pays off. This is understood as a "real" concept. Does that make it a real account? No.

 

[HypnoToad]

Please define for me this 'Redemptive history' of which you speak.

Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21

 

[chaoschristian]

Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21

That's both informative and not all at the same time.

 

[HypnoToad]

How is that not informative? The entire Bible is our redemptive history. What other kind of answer were you looking for?

 

[Melethiel]

Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21

That's not a definition.

 

[chaoschristian]

How is that not informative? The entire Bible is our redemptive history. What other kind of answer were you looking for?

It's informative in that it tells me certain things about how you view scripture.

It's not informative in that it tells me nothing about how and why you've reached that view.

This won't come as a shock to you, but I do not view 'The Bible' as redemptive history. And the whole concept of 'the entire Bible' is one that I do not subscribe to - in other words, 'The Bible' is not a cohesive whole.

I suspect you hold that 'The Bible' is a cohesive whole. But you didn't tell me that, so I can't really say for certain.

 

[HypnoToad]

It's not informative in that it tells me nothing about how and why you've reached that view.

Because you never asked that. Am I supposed to through out random responses to questions you might ask in the future? You simply asked me what I meant by "redemptive history", and I answered that. You never inquired as to the history of how and why I came to my conclusions.

 

[chaoschristian]

Because you never asked that. Am I supposed to through out random responses to questions you might ask in the future? You simply asked me what I meant by "redemptive history", and I answered that. You never inquired as to the history of how and why I came to my conclusions.

I apologize for not being precise. I assumed that you would expound on your response for the sake of understanding.

Look, I'm not trying to set you up or anything here. I just want to hear from you about your views so that I can better understand.

The concept of 'redemptive history' is one that emerges again and again here in OT, and I want to know if eveyone who is using it is using it in the same way, or if there are differences. I want to examine what leads one to the conclusion of the concept of 'redemptive history' as a means of understanding certain creationist thinking.

Consider this an invitation to talk. I have no intent on bashing you over your head with your own beliefs.

If it makes it more comfortable for you, why not start a thread on this in the Creationist sub-forum and invite your fellows to post their thoughts.

I would but I don't want to run afowl of the Mods.

That way you could articulate without having to worry about expending energy on refutations.

 

[HypnoToad]

I'm not sure what you want. I consider the entirety of Scripture to be our redemptive history. I don't see how the method of how/why I came to such a conclusion has any bearing on answering the OP's question.

 

[gluadys]

You are confusing events with their meanings.

No. But you are confusing the meaning of the events with the account of the events.

Consider this description of yours.

"Redemptive history", for our purposes, can be seen as two parts - 1) the events, and 2) what they mean.

I would say this is incomplete. We have 1) the event, 2) the meaning of the event, and 3) the account of the event.

Evolutionists discount 1 and only say 2 is real. So, as a whole, the redemptive history of Gen.1-11 is not seen as real by evolutionists.

Not quite. Evolutionists say the event as well as the meaning of the event is real, but the scriptural account of the event is not identical to the history of the event. (In fact, if we had only the history of the event, we probably would not have the meaning of the event. Attributing meaning to an event is itself an act of faith.)

The tortoise and the hare. The meaning is basically warning against complacency and that perseverance pays off. This is understood as a "real" concept. Does that make it a real account? No.

Well sure, it is a real account. But it is not an account of an historical event. (Or are you limiting the meaning of "real" to physically/historically real?) Every story is a real account.

The question is not about the reality of the accounts, but the reality of the events of redemption history. We have reasons to doubt that a tortoise and a hare ever had a race. This is a story told only for its meaning. Similarly Jesus' parables (though more "true to life" than one of Aesop's fables) are told for their meaning without any necessity that they be historical events.

But one can also have a story about an actual event. And the story may be simply a report of what happened, or a story that unfolds the meaning of what happened.

What we have in scripture are stories about real events, but which do not depict the events as they happened in history. Rather they focus on the meaning of the events by narrating the event in images and symbols.

The event is factual. The account of the event is figurative. And the meaning of the event, as revealed in the account, is true. And all three are, each in their own way, "real".

 

[HypnoToad]

No. But you are confusing the meaning of the events with the account of the events.

Consider this description of yours.




I would say this is incomplete. We have 1) the event, 2) the meaning of the event, and 3) the account of the event.



Not quite. Evolutionists say the event as well as the meaning of the event is real, but the scriptural account of the event is not identical to the history of the event. (In fact, if we had only the history of the event, we probably would not have the meaning of the event. Attributing meaning to an event is itself an act of faith.)



Well sure, it is a real account. But it is not an account of an historical event. (Or are you limiting the meaning of "real" to physically/historically real?) Every story is a real account.

The question is not about the reality of the accounts, but the reality of the events of redemption history. We have reasons to doubt that a tortoise and a hare ever had a race. This is a story told only for its meaning. Similarly Jesus' parables (though more "true to life" than one of Aesop's fables) are told for their meaning without any necessity that they be historical events.

But one can also have a story about an actual event. And the story may be simply a report of what happened, or a story that unfolds the meaning of what happened.

What we have in scripture are stories about real events, but which do not depict the events as they happened in history. Rather they focus on the meaning of the events by narrating the event in images and symbols.

The event is factual. The account of the event is figurative. And the meaning of the event, as revealed in the account, is true. And all three are, each in their own way, "real".

Now you are just playing a semantics game.

Did God actually form the first human right out of the ground? According to evolutionists, no. Whether you want to call it an event, an account, a widget, or whatever, it did not happen that way, it isn't real.

Did God actually remove Adam's rib and fashion it into Eve? According to evolutionists, no, it did not happen that way, it isn't real.

Did a serpent actually seduce Eve into actually eating an actual fruit from an actual tree as the first actual act of actual human disobedience; leading to the first actual appearance of actual hardship/suffering/death that had not previously actually existed on earth? According to evolutionists, no, it did not happen that way, it isn't real.