The Theology of Creationism

What is the importance of a literal Gen. 1 to the Gospel?

  • 1) Genesis 1 is foundational to the Gospel.

  • 2) Gen. 1 is related to the Gospel but less important.

  • 3) Gen. 1 is praise to the Creator, a true myth.

  • Other- Elaborate as you see fit


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I orginally posted this in the creationism forum but thought I would give our TE brethren a chance to respond to it.

In the beginning God created (Bara, out of nothing, creation attributed to God alone in Scripture).

God alone created, all things seen and unseen, in heaven and earth, out of nothing (Ex nihilo) but the Word of God. The Word of God is revealed as the Logos (John 1:1), the light that shown in the primordial darkness of creation and gives light to all men, became human flesh and dwelt among us. He died for our sins, was raised for our justification, taken into glory, seated at the right hand of the Father and is returning in power and glory, Selah.

By the Word of God the doors of the seas were shut, when it burst forth from the womb, made the clouds its garmet and thick clouds its swaddling band. (Job 38:8,9) By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made by things which are visible (Heb 11:3).

He made the earth, and created (bara) man upon it. (Is. 45:12). From the dust of the earth, not the apes, not the gibbons, not chordates, not symbionic primordial protoorganism that descended by means of natural selection by numerous slight successive modifications of preexisting forms. Adam is our single common ancestor, called the son of God in Lukes geneology indicating he had no human biological father. Through Adam sin entered the world and death through sin...For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:12,17)

He gave to Abraham when he was 100 years old a son, by Sarah who was 99 (Gen 17:18). He made Joseph father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler throughout all the land of Egypt (Gen 45:8). Delivered Israel from the hand of Egypt to a good land flowing with milk and honey. (Ex 3:8) Sent fire from before the Lord and consumed the Levitical sacrifices. (Lev 9:24). Made Danial ruler over the whole providence of Babylon, and chief administrator over all the wise men of babylon (Dan 2:48).

In Him was light and that like was the light of men, and the light shown in the darkness and the darkness did not understand, the darkness did not over come him, the darkness did not comprehend. (see John 1) For Judgment He came into this world that those who are born blind see and those whe see may be made blind. (Jn 9:39). What may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ but were eyewittnesses of His magesty. And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, whcih you do well to head as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; Knowing this first, the no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prohecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:20,21)​

I am an evangelical, fundamentalist, Bible believing, born again young earth creationist. Christ alone, faith alone and Scripture alone are not creeds, mantras or private interprutations, they are gospel. They are foundational axioms of a self existing, primary first quality premise of God's revelation of the person and work of Christ. His work from the creation of the world, throughout history, in our midsts, untill the redemption of the purchase price and the revelation of the Lamb of God who loved us and washed us from our sins.

When told that my theology influences by understanding of natural science I simply respond, of course it does, why would'nt it? The Scriptures are clear and natural science has not built the microscope that can see our origins. It concens me that theistic evolution neglects such important doctrinal and theological issues. I think their abherance to modern science conflicts with the clear teaching of Scripture but nontheless is not, in and of itself a bar to fellowship. What is seen was made from that which is invisible, but He (The Word of God incarnate) was revealed in the person and work of Christ. The one they call Jesus.

You say, but Mark, that is just your interprutation and it's not even based on an actual systematic theology. Rest assured I do know the theological underpinnings of creationism. I don't know how interested the regulars on here are in systematic theology but it's like philosophy, it begins with definitions. With any theology the first order of buisness is to define God is it not? In my particular branch of the Christian faith the standard by which all doctrine is determined in Scripture, 'Sola Scripture', Scripture alone.

Before I get into the definition of God I will wait and see what kind of a response the OP attacts.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟22,892.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Gen 1 is an allegory, inspired by God, written from the vantage point of human observation. It's teaches us the power of God, His omnipresence, the need for a Sabbath, and the sinful nature of humanity, among other things. It was not written as a means of scientifically explaining how we and the Earth came into being.
The Creation account is foundational to the Gospel only in the sense that it teaches that humans are by nature sinful and in need of a saviour.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
I don't believe that the word literal is the right word to describe the fundamental hermeneutic you propose to use to understand Gen 1.

For instance, in past threads, i have pointed out that the phrase "And God said" is in fact a metaphor, in particular, an anthropomorphic metaphor. It is an accommodation of God to our language and our minds. It is not primarily literal, if by literal you mean: common sense science, historical, actually happened in reality etc. For there were no molecules at all to transmit sound, there is nothing but God. Plus God is spiritual, He does not have lips or lungs, these are human characteristics, that Scriptures is essentially telling us:
it is as if God were a man and by the power of speech alone -- creates. We are painfully aware that we must do something, or cause someone else to do something. Our speech is ineffective and is not powerful. The point is NOT common sense, not scientific, not physical. God is not a man, the proof is that His Words unlike human words is effective, powerful, authoritative. And He does this not literally but metaphorically, not by making a simple statement but making a rather complex statement that is only unpacked with effort and study.

And that is just the few words "And God said".

but you know that, for you used another reformational principle in your OP. the principle of "let Scripture interpret Scripture" for that is why you brought in other verses to explain what Gen 1 means. Gen 1 doesn't stand alone, in stands in context, in stands in a whole cultural ,social, political, religious, pre-modern scientific milieu. Does a literal hermeneutic do justice to this complexity? to this contextualness? not usually. usually literal means read the text as you are, where you are, as a 21thC evangelical American, using your common sense and your traditions ideas, as a man in the pew, everyone can interpret Scripture rightly for themselves etc.....
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
TwinCrier said:
I personally believe it is foundational to the gospel as Christ is the second Adam. If anyone would know, Jesus would. I Corinthians 15:22 is pretty foundational to me.

is the adam in Gen 1:
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

the same adam in Gen 2:
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

how do you know your answer is right?

the issue is the doctrine of federal headship.
what is your relationship to Christ? is it genetic? if not, why does a genetic relationship have to occur between you and a literal historical Adam if the analogy doesn't have one to Christ?
in the doctrine of federal headship, the Christians relationship to Christ is judical, it is a declaration of unity with Christ, it is not physical, it is spiritual. So why declare that Adam must be the progenitor of all mankind if the relationship is not genetic?

We are in Adam by being like him made in God's image and having a reasonable soul which is capable of communion with God yet so tainted by sin that the relationship can not occur without God's intervention. None of this requires genetic relationship with adam, if anything it requires a soul created like his, and this is not a physical process, is it?

look at:
1Cr 15:19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
1Cr 15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
1Cr 15:21 For since by a man {came} death, by a man also {came} the resurrection of the dead.
1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
1Cr 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,

the argument is that those who have died are just asleep. Asleep physically? no, their bodies have long ago turned back into dust. It must by something else that sleeps, their souls, their spirits, maybe where the image of God is. What does it mean for all die in Adam? first to sin and die spiritually then to die physically as a result of the spiritual separation from God. How does the analogy fall apart if Adam is not your physical ancestor? it doesn't. the analogy is primarily spiritual and it is that spirituality that is primary.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
oldwiseguy said:
Whether you believe that Adam and Eve existed literally or figuratively, you still have to figure out why God created them in the way that he did.

why?
that is not part of the OP nor of the poll.
aren't the issues hard enough to discuss without adding complications?
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
37
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟26,381.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Lurking behind the questions in the survey is the typical "Bible-burner TE" stereotype. I would have no problem ticking off 1 and 3 simultaneously, except the forum software and the creationist idee fixe wouldn't let me.

When told that my theology influences by understanding of natural science I simply respond, of course it does, why wouldn't it? The Scriptures are clear and natural science has not built the microscope that can see our origins. It concens me that theistic evolution neglects such important doctrinal and theological issues. I think their abherance to modern science conflicts with the clear teaching of Scripture but nontheless is not, in and of itself a bar to fellowship.

But my theology influences, informs, and overarches my understanding of natural science too - just in a way you happen to disagree with.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
shernren said:
Lurking behind the questions in the survey is the typical "Bible-burner TE" stereotype. I would have no problem ticking off 1 and 3 simultaneously, except the forum software and the creationist idee fixe wouldn't let me.



But my theology influences, informs, and overarches my understanding of natural science too - just in a way you happen to disagree with.

I have no idea what we agree on or not, we have allways gotten along just fine. The next step in this thread is for me to lay out my definition of God. Would you like to lay out a definition?

I mean seriously, that is where I am going with this. I am going the more traditional route of aseity (utter independance), immutablity (righteousness unchanging). I was just wondering if you would hazard a general definition of God? A specific one would be nice but whatever you think is fine with me.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I, also, would have ticked off 1 and 3, if permitted. But I just picked 1 since I couldn't.

Mark, before you lay out your definition of God, let me say that I don't think God can be defined. Just as God defies proof, I think He defies definition. Once God is defined, we are no longer talking about the Lord. We are talking about a proposition.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
37
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟26,381.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
I have no idea what we agree on or not, we have allways gotten along just fine.

Well we have gotten along just fine no matter what we disagree on, it's called Christian charity. :)

Would you like to lay out a definition?

This is where my sig steps in. :p

All I will commit myself to is that God's given definition of Himself, His authoritative self-revelation, is found in the person of Jesus Christ and His teaching, death, and resurrection. Whoever knows Jesus knows God. And the Bible reveals Jesus through the historical witness of the Gospels within the Scriptural background provided by the rest of the Bible, confirmed by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. That is what I know of how God is revealed. Who God is, as revealed, is supra-rational and so I will not attempt a rationalized description of God.
 
Upvote 0

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
63
Asheville NC
✟19,363.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Willtor said:
before you lay out your definition of God, let me say that I don't think God can be defined. Just as God defies proof, I think He defies definition. Once God is defined, we are no longer talking about the Lord. We are talking about a proposition.
I agree completely! :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I was of the understanding the 'sola scriptura' was a theological argument against deriving authority from church tradition and church authority, a sort of protestant refutation against Catholic dotrine if you will.

But recently, such as in this OP, I've seen sola scriptura re-interpreted as a justification for an 'indicative-only' approach to hermeneutics.

So, am I confusing 'sola scriptura' with Luther's "let the cross alone be my theology" (sorry, can't recall the Latin for this off-hand.)?

Regardless, since the 'sola scriptura' approach as it is used here ignores or rejects an examination of the texts cultural, historical and literary contexts, then there is not much for me to agree with in the assertions of this 'theology.'

Scripture alone, whether it means that only scripture is a proper revelation of God, and/or that only scripture can interpret scripture is, I hold, a mistaken approach.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
chaoschristian said:
I was of the understanding the 'sola scriptura' was a theological argument against deriving authority from church tradition and church authority, a sort of protestant refutation against Catholic dotrine if you will.

But recently, such as in this OP, I've seen sola scriptura re-interpreted as a justification for an 'indicative-only' approach to hermeneutics.

So, am I confusing 'sola scriptura' with Luther's "let the cross alone be my theology" (sorry, can't recall the Latin for this off-hand.)?

Regardless, since the 'sola scriptura' approach as it is used here ignores or rejects an examination of the texts cultural, historical and literary contexts, then there is not much for me to agree with in the assertions of this 'theology.'

Scripture alone, whether it means that only scripture is a proper revelation of God, and/or that only scripture can interpret scripture is, I hold, a mistaken approach.

Yeah, you know, I've read a number of different understandings of "Sola Scriptura" on these forums, and I can't find how almost any of them relate to Luther. Luther wasn't opposed to the work of the theologians who came before. And he wasn't unconcerned with Church history. I think what has happened is much the same with Calvinism. I think most 5-point Calvinists, today, are more "Calvinist" than Calvin was (not all, to be fair). It's a sort of "fundamentalist" Calvinism. As this applies to "Sola Scriptura," it looks like the typical problem of someone liking the sound of a term and adopting it. The problem is that, although the terms are the same, the semantics change.
 
Upvote 0

humbledbyhim

Senior Member
Oct 27, 2005
594
36
Baltimore, Maryland
✟932.00
Faith
Christian
rmwilliamsll said:
is the adam in Gen 1:
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

the same adam in Gen 2:
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

how do you know your answer is right?

because, adam was alone when he was created, and woman didn't exist until after him. Therefore they are the same.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
is the adam in Gen 1:
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

the same adam in Gen 2:
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

how do you know your answer is right?

humbledbyhim said:
because, adam was alone when he was created, and woman didn't exist until after him. Therefore they are the same.


excuse me. do you even read the text?

the adam in Gen 1:27 is clearly created AT THE SAME TIME as woman
it is obvious that this adam is not created alone, but as a matching pair, male and female. even to the point that the imago dei is somehow related to this maleness/femaleness relationship.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


in Gen 2 the whole point is:
man was created. man discovered he was lonely. God created a helper out of him. the WHOLE point is a sequence of discovery.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.