The Theology of Creationism

[mark kennedy]

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.

Let me just say this, if we can't define such a central term then how is such a thing a theology even possible? Let me show you what I am getting at.

Just as God has communicable and incommunicable attributes, there are things we can understand about Him and things we can't. What I am talking about is defining the them 'God' so that there is no ambiquity about was is meant by it.

We call this Origins Theology but we actually don't get into a lot of theology in here. Precise definitions of God are not needed, but there are things that can be understood about God:

"What do we mean when we use the word God? Systematics answers this question in its discussion of the attributes or properties of God. These attributes are divided into incommunicable and communicable. Under the incommunicable attributes we have:

First, independence or aseity of God. By this is meant that God is in no sense correlative to or dependent upon anything beside his own being. God is the source of his own being or rather the term source cannot be applied to God. God is absolute. He is sufficient unto himself."​

(Van Till, The Defense of the Faith)

In describing this aseity/independence, God is sometimes refered to as the 'Unmoved Mover'. This is a part of the defintition of God as I understand it and Christian theology defines it. Are there any problems with this part of the defintion (or doctrine if you prefer) of God so far?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Just as God has communicable and incommunicable attributes, there are things we can understand about Him and things we can't.


this has the form of:
as A is to not A so B is to not B.

in such a comparison the key element is shared between A and B so that by understanding A you gain knowledge by analogy of B.

however communicable attributes have nothing to do with understanding God.
the communicable attribute are those that God can share with either man or with the universe.

you appear to misunderstand the communicable as communication or understanding. it is not, it is communicable as in a communicable disease, something you can catch from someone else.

the attribute you describe as understanding is usually referred to as the knowability of God. it's opposite is termed the Incomprehensibility of God

see:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/Godattributes.html
http://www.girs.com/library/theology/syllabus/theo2.html

The Attributes of God
Westminster Shorter Catechism defines God as to his nature and attributes in question number four. It asks, "What is God?" The answer is:

God is a spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.

God is the origin of, not a part of, the material universe. Therefore his essence must be that which is non-physical, or what we understand as "spirit."

The attributes summarized in SC-4 fall into two categories. They show some attributes which are "incommunicable." These are not shared with any creature. They are unique to the Creator. These are his infinitude, eternality and immutability. He is "infinite, eternal and unchangeable."

The remaining attributes are "communicable." The creator has built them into humans making them in his image. Though we share them with God they are in him infinite, eternal and unchangeable. In us they are finite, temporal and changeable. While they are perfections in God, they are, in us, imperfections. The communicable attributes are: "being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth."

To each of the communicable attributes we attach the three incommunicable qualities. God's being is infinite, eternal and unchangeable. This means that he has the quality of "immensity" meaning that he, in his entirety, fills all space all the time. His being has had no beginning and will have no end. His being is never modified in any way. Similarly the three incommunicable qualities extend to the other communicable attributes.

Since we possess these qualities imperfectly, and as projections into the created realm, we should not imagine them to be the same qualitatively as those which they represent in the Creator. They are in us like the reflections in a mirror of some real-world object. While they are not the same as the original, they bear a correspondence with it. In this case the correspondence fulfills the purpose of the Creator in making us in his image. They make his revelation understandable to the degree God desired it.

but in either case the statement:
Just as God has communicable and incommunicable attributes, there are things we can understand about Him and things we can't.


doesn't really make sense.

 

[Willtor]

Let me just say this, if we can't define such a central term then how is such a thing a theology even possible? Let me show you what I am getting at.

Just as God has communicable and incommunicable attributes, there are things we can understand about Him and things we can't. What I am talking about is defining the them 'God' so that there is no ambiquity about was is meant by it.

We call this Origins Theology but we actually don't get into a lot of theology in here. Precise definitions of God are not needed, but there are things that can be understood about God:

"What do we mean when we use the word God? Systematics answers this question in its discussion of the attributes or properties of God. These attributes are divided into incommunicable and communicable. Under the incommunicable attributes we have:

First, independence or aseity of God. By this is meant that God is in no sense correlative to or dependent upon anything beside his own being. God is the source of his own being or rather the term source cannot be applied to God. God is absolute. He is sufficient unto himself."​

(Van Till, The Defense of the Faith)

In describing this aseity/independence, God is sometimes refered to as the 'Unmoved Mover'. This is a part of the defintition of God as I understand it and Christian theology defines it. Are there any problems with this part of the defintion (or doctrine if you prefer) of God so far?

Grace and peace,
Mark

I'm becoming something of a Realist, so I look at things the other way around. Rather than saying, "God is x," as though I already knew something about, "x," I discover something about God and call that, "x." It is only in this sense that I say things like, "God is love." I don't know what love is. But I apprehend something of God, and say, "ah, yes. That is what God is. Now, I will call that 'love.' Let me explore that further in order to gain a deeper apprehension."

This is why the Creed says, "I believe in God. . .," rather than, "God is. . ." It is in this sense that Scripture says that, "the Lord is God." The author knew the Lord and called Him, "God." We would be well-advised to do the same.

I suppose that I could provide a definition of "God" in some sense. But the definition would certainly have to come after the understanding, itself. I would not gain insight through the definition. Calling God the, "unmoved mover," becomes an abstract proposition without an apprehension of its object.

 

[mark kennedy]

Apparently there is a problem with this statement.

Just as God has communicable and incommunicable attributes, there are things we can understand about Him and things we can't.

The Scriptures are clear that there are things about God that are clearly understood. What is it that can be understood about God and what is there that cant be understood? Nevermind the awkwardly worded phrase, lets look at what God has revealed to us about His divine attributes and Godhead:

"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 that they are without excuse."

(Romans 1:20)​

Now this is the challenge, we have on the one hand the aseity of God and on the other hand the revelation of God. How much do we know about God's divine attributes and Godhead? The term 'God' must be defined in a systematic way or something like theology isn't even possible.

Expressions like: God is love, God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all, God is a consuming fire...etc appear through out Scripture. What do we mean by the term God and what has He revealed to us about His divine attributes?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[rmwilliamsll]

God is love, God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all, God is a consuming fire

and they are metaphors, not descriptions, nor definitions.

 

[mark kennedy]

God is love, God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all, God is a consuming fire

and they are metaphors, not descriptions, nor definitions.

What do we know about God's divine attributes? Does the aseity/independence of God accurately reflect our understanding of God as revealed in nature and in Scripture? If God's divine attributes and Godhead are revealed so that we are without excuse then what are they?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If God's divine attributes and Godhead are revealed so that we are without excuse then what are they?


Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
Rom 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.


For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature,

the topic is natural theology.
the question is exactly what about God is known from the Creation.

the answer appears to be:
His Power
His transcendence.

essentially what Islam teaches about the nature of Allah.

what can not be known from Creation:
His Love.
His relationship as Father to the elect.
His immanence in the Son.
the Church.

 

[humbledbyhim]

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.

Don't be ridiculous. They were both created on the same day within a short time of each other, Adam first, then Eve.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Creation in Gen 1 is just as literal as the crucifixion and resurrection of Messiah.

Just as crucial...as Y'shua is prophesied in the curse of Man and Earth after the Fall.

Genesis 3:14-15

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

What's the best way to kill a snake? crush it's head!

What's left on Y'shua's heels after He was crucified? a bruise...

Woman's seed --- G-d used Mary's seed (egg) to form Messiah...


If that's not cruicial to the Gospel of Y'shua Messiah...I dunno what is...
To see it prophesied even from Genesis...and yet...TE's want us all to believe that the Bible's account of creation is allegorical or mythical because prophecy is also contained in the book...

What if we treated the Gospels that way? The sermon on the mount was prophecy...as were several of Y'shua's parables...and yet they take his Sacrifice as literal.

The Bible is a complete book, Y'shua the complete Truth...how arrogant is man to pick and choose which parts he will believe and which parts he can say are "mythical" and/or "allegorical"

 

[shernren]

But no TE here has ever said they do not believe the parts which are "mythical" or "allegorical". We are not Bible-burners, creationist stereotype notwithstanding.

 

[Gwenyfur]

But no TE here has ever said they do not believe the parts which are "mythical" or "allegorical". We are not Bible-burners, creationist stereotype notwithstanding.

If you are saying the opposite of G-d's word....hrmmm??

If you state that Creation was "millions/billions of years ago" and that Genesis (or any other part of the Bible, for that matter) is "allegorical" or "mythical" and that it's not the truth because science says _____________________

then yeah...you are saying you don't believe what it says is true...

it's a fine line adn it kinda sucks...but there's no 1/2 truths with G-d...never has been....never will be...

 

[chaoschristian]

The general TE position:

God is Father Creator, responsible for the all of everything, yet seperate and unique from everything.

Scripture is a revelation of God's truth (His character, will and intent).

Creation is a revelation of God's truth (His character, will and intent.)

God has bestowed upon Adam, in his role as steward of creation, the gifts of science and reason, both of which are to used in seeking the truth of the revelations of God.

When the revelation of scripture is in apparent conflict with the revelation of Creation, both of which must be true, it is through science and reasoning, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that the path towards truth will be found.

TEs do not accept evolution becuase 'science says so.' TEs accept evolution because the revelation of Creation directs us in that direction.

That Creation points towards evolution does not, cannot, diminish the truth of the scripture.

If you are saying the opposite of G-d's word....hrmmm??

If you state that Creation was "millions/billions of years ago" and that Genesis (or any other part of the Bible, for that matter) is "allegorical" or "mythical" and that it's not the truth because science says _____________________

then yeah...you are saying you don't believe what it says is true...

it's a fine line adn it kinda sucks...but there's no 1/2 truths with G-d...never has been....never will be...

 

[shernren]

If you state that Creation was "millions/billions of years ago" and that Genesis (or any other part of the Bible, for that matter) is "allegorical" or "mythical" and that it's not the truth because science says _____________________

1. Many Christians have said that Genesis 1 is allegorical even without the evidence or motivation of evolution.

2. Not all allegories are lies. Some are, but some aren't. I know it may be hard for you to believe that we can believe it, but I'm sure the evolutionists here knew what they were doing when they agreed to the Nicene Creed.

3. Many of the evolutionists here don't know their Bibles any less for being an evolutionist, exactly contrary to what your belief would predict. If evolutionists really believe that the Bible is false, and since they believe in evolution because it is true (to them), then logically the more they study evolution the less they will study and know and appeal to God's word in the Bible. Whereas the opposite is true: TEs here are actively interested in matters of interpretation and understanding of God's word. The GT thread in particular was a good demonstration of Scriptural ability, by God's grace.

Are you really suggesting TEs spend all their time here looking into the intricacies of a document that we believe is a lie? Please. We don't have that much free time.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

1. Many Christians have said that Genesis 1 is allegorical even without the evidence or motivation of evolution.

until Luther EVERYONE did, the common hermeneutical technique was the 4 fold way:

In medieval Christian interpretations of text, exegesis was incorporated in a fourfold mode that emphasized the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the text. This schema was based on the various ways of interpreting the text utilitized by the Patristic writers. The literal sense (sensus historicus) of Scripture denotes what the text states or reports directly. The allegorical sense (sensus allegoricus) explains the text with regard to the doctrinal content of church dogma, so that each literal element has a symbolic meaning. The moral application of the text to the individual reader or hearer is the third sense, the sensus tropologicus or sensus moralis, while a fourth level of meaning, the sensus anagogicus, draws out of the text the implicit allusions it contains to secret metaphysical and eschatological knowledge, or gnosis.

even the wiki gets it substantially right at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics#Scriptural_hermeneutics

although i understand that the technique is from Origen and the medieval scholastic writings is what Luther rebelled against to yield what we think today the hermeneutic of "preference for the literal".

 

[gluadys]

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.

I felt the same. It should have been a poll where you could tick off "all that apply". I agree firmly with both 1 and 3.

 

[gluadys]

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.

A good point. And one that should also guard against the bibliolatry that is sometimes coupled with a literal/fundamentalist approach to scripture.

We need to remember that when the Reformers set a high value on the authority of scripture, they wanted to set it in the place of the pope, not in the place of Christ.

 

[gluadys]

I'm becoming something of a Realist, so I look at things the other way around. Rather than saying, "God is x," as though I already knew something about, "x," I discover something about God and call that, "x." It is only in this sense that I say things like, "God is love." I don't know what love is. But I apprehend something of God, and say, "ah, yes. That is what God is. Now, I will call that 'love.' Let me explore that further in order to gain a deeper apprehension."

Mystics of all faiths have said that the only true statement we can make about God is "not that" "not that".

I have always appreciated the wisdom of John in saying "God is love". We don't really know what love is until we know God.

It is easy to turn it around as if John were saying "Love is God." But that would require us to know what love is first.