Is a Certain Origins Belief Important?

[Vance]

Good too see you back, Vance.

You know me by now, come in and engage for a while, then disappear for a year or so. :0)

Mostly it is the nature of my work. You would think that being an estate planning attorney would not be cyclical, but oddly, it does seem to come in waves. I get swamped, can't post for a while, get out of the loop, then eventually come back around to see what is up.

 

[crawfish]

Crawfish, the only reason to engage in the discussion (other than the fact that it is interesting in its on right), is the damage to the Gospel message that a dogmatic presentation of creationism creates.

Or, in other words, the creationists started it! :0)

Oh, I agree. The shame is not that we argue, but that we HAVE to argue. In the end, the entire debate is more damaging to Christianity than helpful; but the truth has to win out in order for us to move ahead. It's a distraction from the true good work that needs to get done.

 

[vossler]

I guess it makes sense for a mature Christian to be able to systematize and integrate things together that way; is that generally true for new Christians though? In my experience they generally know what it means to sin and that they are sinners, even without Genesis; more often their point of questioning is not "Why do I need to do anything to be reconciled to God?" so much as "How can it possibly be so easy? Don't I need to do more?" which raises suspicion. (Note the assumption that something has to be done to be reconciled - an assumption that only makes sense within the awareness of sin.) Again, these are my own observations; it may just be that my non-Christian friends are weird.

I personally don't come across people as you describe. Most people are unaware that they have a problem and if you asked them if they were a good person the vast majority would tell you that they are and that they believe they are going to heaven based on that goodness.

In my personal experience (again) it has only been as Christians mature that they question their assumptions of sin. Frequently it happens that they have been doing something which is only vaguely unethical but still quite decent; it is then that they re-examine their ideas of sin and move from a simplistic, criminal understanding ("sinners are bad people who kill and steal") to an understanding of what it means to have relationship with God and that sin disrupts that relationship.

I would submit this is quite common in my experience also. This goes back to the fact they were never taught how bad they were and the cost of their depravity or sin nature. They've been given the 'feel good gospel' where all that was required of them was to accept Jesus by saying a prayer. At no point were they told how depraved they were and how Jesus cleansed them of their sin and unrighteousness. It was all presented in a such a sanitized manner and with little to no in-depth instruction in order that no one should ever be offended.

And again looking at Genesis - I don't know how obvious the doctrine of total depravity is from the text of Genesis 1-11. Ok, so Adam and Eve sinned. It is not obvious that all of humanity sinned after them - for example, that certainly wasn't stated in God's curses upon humanity in chapter 3. Nor, for example, would we conclude that Abel suffered total depravity from the text (we would of course fill that in, justifiably, from the rest of Scripture). In other words, while Adam and Eve sinned, and all of humanity after them sinned, it is not clear from Genesis that one causes the other.

I agree but that's where the rest of the book comes in, yet without Genesis you can't get there.

 

[shernren]

I personally don't come across people as you describe. Most people are unaware that they have a problem and if you asked them if they were a good person the vast majority would tell you that they are and that they believe they are going to heaven based on that goodness.

That's interesting. Most people I meet back in Malaysia either know they have a problem and don't know what to do about it (fatalism), or know they have a problem but think they're doing enough to get by (legalism). I don't know if I've ever met anyone who simply thought they were good enough as they were.

Maybe that's why the rest of the world hates you guys! ^^

I would submit this is quite common in my experience also. This goes back to the fact they were never taught how bad they were and the cost of their depravity or sin nature. They've been given the 'feel good gospel' where all that was required of them was to accept Jesus by saying a prayer. At no point were they told how depraved they were and how Jesus cleansed them of their sin and unrighteousness. It was all presented in a such a sanitized manner and with little to no in-depth instruction in order that no one should ever be offended.

I agree but that's where the rest of the book comes in, yet without Genesis you can't get there.

Indeed. Having said that, I would submit that most TEs I know on this board do in fact either believe in an actual, historical Fall, or believe (even without believing in any single Fall event defining all humanity) that all humanity is sinful and needs redemption. Does that have any effect on what you're saying?

 

[vossler]

Does that have any effect on what you're saying?

My purpose here wasn't to comment on what TEs believe or don't believe, I'll leave that to the TE. I'm certainly not here to convince a TE of anything either. My sole purpose is to lift up the Word of God and tell those who wish to know that the truth is there should someone choose to seek it. I felt this thread fell into that realm because someone outside of the usual players asked what seemed like a genuine question. I say seemed like because I'm not convinced that it was. Since asking the question he hasn't been back.

 

[artybloke]

For another, I don't see Genesis making sense to someone with little knowledge of the Gospel.

Jewish people seem to do very well at interpreting Genesis without knowledge of the Gospel.

(Just thought I'd throw a little spasnner in)

 

[Chesterton]

My purpose here wasn't to comment on what TEs believe or don't believe, I'll leave that to the TE. I'm certainly not here to convince a TE of anything either. My sole purpose is to lift up the Word of God and tell those who wish to know that the truth is there should someone choose to seek it. I felt this thread fell into that realm because someone outside of the usual players asked what seemed like a genuine question. I say seemed like because I'm not convinced that it was. Since asking the question he hasn't been back.

I hadn't been on CF for a bit, but I just wanted to say, yes it was a genuine question , and I really don't have anything to add, but thank you to everyone for the thoughtful responses.

 

[juvenissun]

I hadn't been on CF for a bit, but I just wanted to say, yes it was a genuine question , and I really don't have anything to add, but thank you to everyone for the thoughtful responses.

Another point:

To believe in the literal meaning of Genesis is A CHALLENGE. Figurative interpretation frustrated me because everyone could have a considerably different version of understanding. After that, one "satisfied" with the interpretation. And that was it.

To interpret the Genesis literally IS VERY DIFFICULT. But as one tried, one would learn more and more and more. For example, I have been thinking about the Noah's Flood for many many years. Amazingly, I even have an improved understanding now when compared with where I was just a few months ago. Another example is on the details of Adam/Eve creation, which is currently discussion in another thread. If I took a figurative understanding on these simple verses. I don't think I could ever ask the question as I did.

 

[Assyrian]

Another example is on the details of Adam/Eve creation, which is currently discussion in another thread. If I took a figurative understanding on these simple verses. I don't think I could ever ask the question as I did.

Yet Mallon could answer your question:

So, what is the primary (and the secondary) duty of a woman toward a man according to the creation "story"?

The very same you would read from the story if it were history.

It is the literal interpretation that can easily sit back and say this is simply a historical record of how God did it. Looking for a deeper meaning to the account, that God is telling us something other than just the historical record is to join with those looking for figurative meaning in the account.

 

[billwald]

God is going to send someone to hell for concluding that the sun existed before the earth? What kind of a god is that?

 

[shernren]

To be fair, not all creationists believe that the earth existed before the sun. Many interpret the creation of light on day 1 as including the creation in situ of the celestial lights, and then the "creation" of lights on day 4 as their unveiling to Earth. And to describe origins beliefs as a matter of eternal damnation is certainly a caricature of their position.

But yes, if anyone actually believed in a god like that - what kind of a god is that?

 

[juvenissun]

Yet Mallon could answer your question:

It is the literal interpretation that can easily sit back and say this is simply a historical record of how God did it. Looking for a deeper meaning to the account, that God is telling us something other than just the historical record is to join with those looking for figurative meaning in the account.

Are we not continuing to "interpret" historical documents?

Again, it is an old argument, literal does not mean no interpretation, but making interpretation based on logic. Figurative interpretation could be illogical.

 

[Assyrian]

Are we not continuing to "interpret" historical documents?

You have two things here, 1) your literal interpretation tells you it is a historical document, but 2) while you continue to interpret it what you think is a historical document your further explorations go beyond literalism in to the deeper message of the text.

Again, it is an old argument, literal does not mean no interpretation,

It is an old argument, though usually it is TEs who have to point out that literal interpretation is still interpretation, to YECs who think it is only TEs who are guilty of interpretation, and do not realise they are interpreting scripture too.

But that is not the issue here. It is not that literalism is an interpretation, but that people who insist on literalism will happily, (and rightly), go way beyond literalism into deeper meaning of scripture. But they still think their interpretation is literal. That is why you could look at the meaning of the Eve story and think a figurative interpretation could never have come up with that sort of question.

but making interpretation based on logic. Figurative interpretation could be illogical.

Literal interpretations can be illogical too as Nicodemus discovered. Don't hide behind the idea of literalism being 'logical' interpretation. If a text was meant as a metaphor then the logical way to interpret it is metaphorically. If scripture is composed of literal, metaphorical, allegorical and a wide range and combination of literary styles, then it is only logical to try to understand what sort of text we are dealing with rather than simply assume it must be literal.

 

[Mick116]

How important is it for us to know that in the Old Testament charging interest on loans was forbidden, and that in the New Testament we are commanded to let no debt remain outstanding except the debt of love (Romans)? If you pause and think through things for even a moment you will realize that our capitalist system of economics and finance is quite antithetical towards Christianity. Or at least, that's what the initial analysis would suggest.

How important would it be, then, for us to take a stand on interest on loans? It would be quite irrelevant unless we were able to live without loans (in our modern society), or if we were setting loan rates - in other words, if we were Christian economists. As a Christian I want to do what God desires - as a non-economist I simply don't know what that is in the field of economics, and I don't have the time to find out. Therefore I trust that God will convict me of anti-Christian economics when it is important enough for me to deal with, and that His grace is more than enough to cover it in the mean-time.

The reason the cr-evo issue seems more important than the interest on loans issue is because we as a civilization have hopelessly prostituted ourselves to science and technology - yes, even the church, and yes, especially the creationists. But if we lived in a world where economics was considered more fundamental than science, in which children were taught before they were 12 about J.P. Morgan and John Nash instead of Einstein and Newton, in which high schools run simulated stock markets instead of chemistry labs, then I have no doubt that there would be an American Economists' Association explaining why economics dictates that usury on loans is simply necessary and we should re-interpret the Bible in light of that - and there would no doubt be, instead of Answers in Genesis, Economics in Exodus or something such.

I personally think that the issue is not important unless you are either undertaking a serious exegesis of Genesis 1-11, or you are a practicing Christian scientist. It is far more severe in the latter case because the cr-evo discussion then is not just an isolated discussion; it is often a litmus test for your views towards how science works with God as a whole. It is not literalism towards Genesis per se that turns me off from creationism, but the fact that if I adopted the underlying beliefs they hold (most notably the tendency towards a God-of-the-gaps defeatism), I either could not be a Christian or could not be a scientist. It just wouldn't work.

But if the person I am talking to is not a scientist then I don't consider the origins issue very important (unless, of course, s/he is making a big deal of it). There are far more serious defects than creationism to be corrected in the Body.

Very nicely said.

 

[huldah153]

Is there a Christian here who believes its important to believe one thing or another in regard to 1) literal interpretation of Genesis and other Old Tesament stories, and/or 2) biological evolution. If so, could you explain why it's important? I do have an opinion of my own, but it's not a strongly held opinion. I see folks here arguing about it often, but I wonder if, and to what extent, someone considers some belief about origins an "essential".

I don't think it matters whether you're a TE or YEC as long as you take Adam, Eve, Noah, etc. as literal, historical figures. When I assumed an allegorical interpretation of Genesis, I could no longer take the whole Bible (including the NT) seriously.

One thing I will say is that TE is a far more humane theology. According to YEC, those descendants of Adam who have never heard the Gospel (children, babies, mentally handicapped, people on deserted islands) are roasting for eternity in hell. Whereas TE tends to adopt the annihilationist view, and contends that sin is not imputed where there is no law. Both, however, agree that Christ is the only way to eternal life.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't think it matters whether you're a TE or YEC as long as you take Adam, Eve, Noah, etc. as literal, historical figures.

What do you mean "matters"? Matters for salvation? Matters for a mature Christian life?

When I assumed an allegorical interpretation of Genesis, I could no longer take the whole Bible (including the NT) seriously.

Why should the fact that you couldn't take it seriously as a TE have anything to do with anyone else? TE folk on this sub-forum take the rest of the Bible (and FTR, Genesis itself) quite seriously.

One thing I will say is that TE is a far more humane theology. According to YEC, those descendants of Adam who have never heard the Gospel (children, babies, mentally handicapped, people on deserted islands) are roasting for eternity in hell. Whereas TE tends to adopt the annihilationist view, and contends that sin is not imputed where there is no law.

Cite? I'm not be snarky here. I really want to know if you can show research that demonstrates or whether this is your personal observation. If so, where have you observed this? Conversations here rarely stray into annihilationism or universalism.

 

[juvenissun]

Why should the fact that you couldn't take it seriously as a TE have anything to do with anyone else? TE folk on this sub-forum take the rest of the Bible (and FTR, Genesis itself) quite seriously.

Yes, but not serious enough. It is not about faith, it is about the strength of faith.

Question: Is the strength of faith significant? Yes, right?

 

[gluadys]

Question: Is the strength of faith significant? Yes, right?

Not according to Jesus. All you need is faith as small as a mustard seed.

 

[Melethiel]

One thing I will say is that TE is a far more humane theology. According to YEC, those descendants of Adam who have never heard the Gospel (children, babies, mentally handicapped, people on deserted islands) are roasting for eternity in hell. Whereas TE tends to adopt the annihilationist view, and contends that sin is not imputed where there is no law. Both, however, agree that Christ is the only way to eternal life.

I'll have to echo Tinker Grey's comment here and ask you whether this is just you personal observation. Speaking for myself, my theology tends to be extremely conservative and orthodox, and annihilationism is not an option. For the groups you mentioned, we simply say "We don't know." Quite the opposite of "not taking the Bible seriously."

 

[juvenissun]

You have two things here, 1) your literal interpretation tells you it is a historical document, but 2) while you continue to interpret it what you think is a historical document your further explorations go beyond literalism in to the deeper message of the text.

It is an old argument, though usually it is TEs who have to point out that literal interpretation is still interpretation, to YECs who think it is only TEs who are guilty of interpretation, and do not realise they are interpreting scripture too.

But that is not the issue here. It is not that literalism is an interpretation, but that people who insist on literalism will happily, (and rightly), go way beyond literalism into deeper meaning of scripture. But they still think their interpretation is literal. That is why you could look at the meaning of the Eve story and think a figurative interpretation could never have come up with that sort of question.

Literal interpretations can be illogical too as Nicodemus discovered. Don't hide behind the idea of literalism being 'logical' interpretation. If a text was meant as a metaphor then the logical way to interpret it is metaphorically. If scripture is composed of literal, metaphorical, allegorical and a wide range and combination of literary styles, then it is only logical to try to understand what sort of text we are dealing with rather than simply assume it must be literal.

It could be confusing when you think about it. It may end with something like the literalism is no different from figurativeness in nature.

Look it this way: The Bible uses some words to "reveal" some deeper meanings. This revealing could be literal or could be figurative (as you interpreted it). A common situation is that literalists do not criticize figurative interpretation (they usually embrace it as additional or alternative meaning). But it is not the case the other way around. People usually laughed at literal interpretations and thought it is WRONG. So, there MUST be something special in literal "interpretation". Could you identify what it is?