A little thought experiment

[California Tim]

But, really did you answer the question? Would you still believe those truths if you discovered what I describe in the OP?

How many ways can I say it. It's a non-issue mostly likely for you, me and a host of others here. That is, unless a particular interpretation can be conclusively and irrefutably demonstrated and then is subsequently rejected on the basis it does not agree with a world-view or naturalistic explanation. In that case, the validity of the divinity behind all other messages may as well be questioned too.

If, on the other hand an unintentional misunderstanding of any text peripheral to salvation is behind the error, I do not see how it can become paramount to giving up one's faith once the error is discovered and corrected. And if it does cause one's faith to stumble, then I submit to you the individual's faith was not genuine, or was misplaced in something other than the reality of the sacrifice Christ made on our behalf. To demonstrate my point, if you found out that Genesis was indeed literal, would that damage your faith in Christ or your assurance of personal salvation? I rest my case.

 

[Vance]

OK, so you your answer would be that if you discovered what was described in the OP, you would hold to those essential truths with just as much conviction, correct?

 

[California Tim]

OK, so you your answer would be that if you discovered what was described in the OP, you would hold to those essential truths with just as much conviction, correct?

As long as the "proof" came from within “Scriptura scripturam interpretatur,” (as I earlier mentioned the requirement that the Bible be accepted as the higher authority beyond the need for outside correlation) I would not be deterred in my confidence in the doctrrine of salvation nor of my personal salvation through Christ.

 

[Remus]

I am not sure where such a strawman lies. I am not saying that all YEC's would argue as I describe, but many do. As I said, the realization of the point I am making would take away those particular arguments, not destroy YEC'ism. So, I am not creating a straw-man version of YEC'ism, just validly addressing those particular "slippery slope" arguments that some YEC's are fond of.

The straw man starts in the OP with “strict literal history” that you are now saying that YEC’s adhere to. I know of no YEC’ist that claims that God came down and gave CPR to Adam to give him life, much less any that say that you’re going to hell if you don’t believe that. I always hated this kind of argument, but it really seems to fit here: if this is what you think creationist believe, then you need to do a lot more research.

 

[grmorton]

The straw man starts in the OP with “strict literal history” that you are now saying that YEC’s adhere to. I know of no YEC’ist that claims that God came down and gave CPR to Adam to give him life, much less any that say that you’re going to hell if you don’t believe that. I always hated this kind of argument, but it really seems to fit here: if this is what you think creationist believe, then you need to do a lot more research.

One comment. I have had Carl Froede. a minor published creationist, tell me I am "like my father Satan". And I had a couple of YEC ministries call me "apostate" and they wouldn't remove that until I contacted a lawyer. Does that count?

 

[Remus]

One comment. I have had Carl Froede. a minor published creationist, tell me I am "like my father Satan". And I had a couple of YEC ministries call me "apostate" and they wouldn't remove that until I contacted a lawyer. Does that count?

All because you don't believe that "God came down and gave CPR to Adam to give him life"?

 

[Vance]

Remus, that is why I was referring to the argument itself, not YEC'ism as a whole. What I was rebutting was an argument taht IS used by some YEC's and has been used here on this forum. And, while most sensible YEC's agree that how you believe about origins is not a salvation issue, there are many, many YEC's who still feel this way, even some on this very forum.

 

[Remus]

I don't know what more I can say except to repeat myself.

 

[Vance]

I don't know what more I can say except to repeat myself.

I think where the confusion may lie is when I use the term "strict literal history", I mean the belief that the text is going beyond telling of literal events of history. Even TE's think that there WAS a creation, that God DID create Man in His image, etc. We believe that Genesis 1 tells us about those literal events, but just does so in a figurative literary style, so that a lot of the details are symbolic or typological, etc. So, using the phrase "literal history" does not completely draw the distinction. Gluadys and others have pointed out that referring to Genesis as non-literal can be a bit of a misconception of our position. So, I chose "strict" literal history to describe the viewpoint that the events, in their very details, were literal history.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Let’s do a little thought experiment.

Think about every essential truth contained in Genesis 1 and 2. The ones that have spiritual and theological implications. The ones that mean something for our salvation and our relationship with God. Just list them out in your head, or even write them down.

Now let’s say that you found out today, without the possibility of doubt, that Genesis 1 and 2 were not meant to be read as strict literal history. You find out that it is written in figurative, symbolic and typological language in which historical events (God created the universe, God created Man in His image, etc) are explained in a figurative vehicle which is not intended to tell those truths with strict historicity in all its details.

If you found that out, would you still accept the great and essential truths you first listed?

Would you say that those essential truths could not be true if the text of the two creation accounts were not literal history?

No, I wouldn't discount them as not being true.

Now that I have answered, I have a little food for thought in return...
Would it be possible for God being the Truth to be so pure in truth that what He is and does could be true on a literal, spiritual and figurative level? That He transcends if not defines Truth.

Example being Jonah:

Matthew 12:39
He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

Matthew 16:4
A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away.

Luke 11:29-30
29As the crowds increased, Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.
30For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation.

Jesus refers to no sign EXCEPT and also states matter-of-factly that Jonah was a sign to an actual people in an actual place at an actual time.
So we have:
Jonah was literal example that is also symbolic and reflective of spiritual truth and prophecy.

Why must we trap God into either/or fallacies only because man's mind leans more to worldly simplicities?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I think where the confusion may lie is when I use the term "strict literal history", I mean the belief that the text is going beyond telling of literal events of history. Even TE's think that there WAS a creation, that God DID create Man in His image, etc. We believe that Genesis 1 tells us about those literal events, but just does so in a figurative literary style, so that a lot of the details are symbolic or typological, etc. So, using the phrase "literal history" does not completely draw the distinction. Gluadys and others have pointed out that referring to Genesis as non-literal can be a bit of a misconception of our position. So, I chose "strict" literal history to describe the viewpoint that the events, in their very details, were literal history.

I fail to see why God would use words that were not true. This would be a man's way of doing things, not God's. Even when visions, parables, etc. are given, the hearer understands that fact. It's not ambiguous and not misleading... there is only one that I can think of that uses misleading tactics and that would be an example of antithesis of God's Ways.

 

[Vance]

I fail to see why God would use words that were not true. This would be a man's way of doing things, not God's. Even when visions, parables, etc. are given, the hearer understands that fact. It's not ambiguous and not misleading... there is only one that I can think of that uses misleading tactics and that would be an example of antithesis of God's Ways.

Who said God is using words that are not true? They are only false if they are meant to convey something that is not actually true. If God meant for us to read it literally, either historically or scientifically, then gave us wrong information, that would be false. If he meant for us to read it non-historically, then the fact that the presentation is not historically accurate is not false at all. You mention parables, and argue that when it was meant to be a figurative reading, then everyone knew it. What about Job? That has been debated for centuries, with even such strong literal readers like Calvin deciding that Job was meant to be read figuratively, not as actual history. Still completely true, of course. What about Song of Solomon? For centuries, the Church insisted that it can only be read as an allegory for Christ and the Church, and could not be read as a sensual love poem (ie, a literal reading). Now, most (but not all) accept that the latter reading is not only acceptable, but probably the primary message from God. This is obviously a matter of confusion within the Church over the proper reading. Did God not know that it would cause confusion and disagreement? Of course, He is God. He wrote it that way anyway.

Look at geocentrism. God allowed the Scripture to be written in a way that would convince nearly every Christian thinker up to 1600 to believe that it was speaking of a geocentric universe. They read it so strongly this way that they called those who believed otherwise heretics and it took them hundreds of years to accept that their traditional reading was incorrect. Did God know that His choice of words would cause confusion? Of course.

There is confusion and disagreement about nearly every area of Christian teaching. It is simply not true to say that Scripture is clear in every instance. Even the ultra conservative Westminster Confession agreed that only those matters necessary for salvation were made clear to all, while all the rest required deeper considerations and insight. What is the gift of Teaching for, if not to study and pray and consider the proper reading of these non-salvation issues?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Who said God is using words that are not true? They are only false if they are meant to convey something that is not actually true. If God meant for us to read it literally, either historically or scientifically, then gave us wrong information, that would be false. If he meant for us to read it non-historically, then the fact that the presentation is not historically accurate is not false at all. You mention parables, and argue that when it was meant to be a figurative reading, then everyone knew it. What about Job? That has been debated for centuries, with even such strong literal readers like Calvin deciding that Job was meant to be read figuratively, not as actual history. Still completely true, of course. What about Song of Solomon? For centuries, the Church insisted that it can only be read as an allegory for Christ and the Church, and could not be read as a sensual love poem (ie, a literal reading). Now, most (but not all) accept that the latter reading is not only acceptable, but probably the primary message from God. This is obviously a matter of confusion within the Church over the proper reading. Did God not know that it would cause confusion and disagreement? Of course, He is God. He wrote it that way anyway.

Look at geocentrism. God allowed the Scripture to be written in a way that would convince nearly every Christian thinker up to 1600 to believe that it was speaking of a geocentric universe. They read it so strongly this way that they called those who believed otherwise heretics and it took them hundreds of years to accept that their traditional reading was incorrect. Did God know that His choice of words would cause confusion? Of course.

There is confusion and disagreement about nearly every area of Christian teaching. It is simply not true to say that Scripture is clear in every instance. Even the ultra conservative Westminster Confession agreed that only those matters necessary for salvation were made clear to all, while all the rest required deeper considerations and insight. What is the gift of Teaching for, if not to study and pray and consider the proper reading of these non-salvation issues?

The gift of teaching is one that becomes a curse when the teacher goes beyond his/her authority. As I see it; if it is read literally, it does not remove spiritual, prophetic, or instructional use. If it is read metaphorically and denied literal when in fact it was literal as well, it then becomes a lie by the denial and undermines faith if revealed later to be error in the understanding.

In other words - I do not insist that others understand it as I do, but I see that I am on solid ground in contrast to others risking rebuke for the sake of a small amount of pride.

And it is duly noted of the differing views, but that is exactly why this is not to be a weighty issue. We are to be known for our unity in Christ, not for our quarreling - which currently the opposition revels in pointing out.

 

[Vance]

The gift of teaching is one that becomes a curse when the teacher goes beyond his/her authority. As I see it; if it is read literally, it does not remove spiritual, prophetic, or instructional use. If it is read metaphorically and denied literal when in fact it was literal as well, it then becomes a lie by the denial and undermines faith if revealed later to be error in the understanding.

In other words - I do not insist that others understand it as I do, but I see that I am on solid ground in contrast to others risking rebuke for the sake of a small amount of pride.

And it is duly noted of the differing views, but that is exactly why this is not to be a weighty issue. We are to be known for our unity in Christ, not for our quarreling - which currently the opposition revels in pointing out.

I agree with you on all points here. And who is causing the dissension and the division? It is definitely not the TE's who are perfectly willing to allow Christians to believe in YEC'ism if they like. All we oppose is exactly what you oppose: the dogmatic teaching of a particular reading of origins as if it is a salvation matter. When any YEC ministry (AIG, ICR, Hovind, etc), or any pastor or even an individual, teaches that "evolution is, without doubt contrary to Scripture, and if you believe in evolution, you must deny Scripture", which IS what they say, then they are creating this division, this lack of unity. More importantly, they are creating an unecessary stumbling block to the Cross in the same way the Judaizers of Paul's day were doing with circumcision.

Also, the corollary of misreading Scripture must be kept in mind. Not only is it dangerous to read text figuratively when it was meant to be read literally, it is EQUALLY dangerous to read text literally when it was meant to be read figuratively. As St. Augustine said:

"At the outset, you must be very careful lest you take figurative expression literally. What the apostle says pertains to this problem: “for the letter killeth, but the spirit quikeneth.” That is, when that which is said figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally [carnalia]. Nor can anything more appropriately be called the death of the soul than that condition in which the thing which distinguishes us from beasts, which is understanding, is subjected to the flesh in the passing of the letter" [hoc est, intelligentia carni subjicitur sequndo litteram] (On Christian Doctrine 3. 5).

Also,

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I agree with you on all points here. And who is causing the dissension and the division? It is definitely not the TE's who are perfectly willing to allow Christians to believe in YEC'ism if they like. All we oppose is exactly what you oppose: the dogmatic teaching of a particular reading of origins as if it is a salvation matter. When any YEC ministry (AIG, ICR, Hovind, etc), or any pastor or even an individual, teaches that "evolution is, without doubt contrary to Scripture, and if you believe in evolution, you must deny Scripture", which IS what they say, then they are creating this division, this lack of unity. More importantly, they are creating an unecessary stumbling block to the Cross in the same way the Judaizers of Paul's day were doing with circumcision.

I agree that it should not be said that evolution is contrary to scripture, but I do believe it can be said "this is where they seperate and these are the implications". I wasn't there, so I can't say either way. I do cringe when someone does make matter-of-fact statements and can't back them up - on either side of the issue.

Also, the corollary of misreading Scripture must be kept in mind. Not only is it dangerous to read text figuratively when it was meant to be read literally, it is EQUALLY dangerous to read text literally when it was meant to be read figuratively. As St. Augustine said:

"At the outset, you must be very careful lest you take figurative expression literally. What the apostle says pertains to this problem: “for the letter killeth, but the spirit quikeneth.” That is, when that which is said figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally [carnalia]. Nor can anything more appropriately be called the death of the soul than that condition in which the thing which distinguishes us from beasts, which is understanding, is subjected to the flesh in the passing of the letter" [hoc est, intelligentia carni subjicitur sequndo litteram] (On Christian Doctrine 3. 5).

Although I understand the warning of thinking only by way man does, I do not limit myself to a strict carnal understanding. To think only of this kingdom on Earth and not consider other realms is... not something I would be considered guilty of. As I have hinted earlier, I see truth transcending many realms. I would also point out my opinion here since you bring this up... I see evolution as lacking a spiritual foundation.

But let us all be weary of becoming as the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Agreed.

 

[Vance]

I agree that it should not be said that evolution is contrary to scripture, but I do believe it can be said "this is where they seperate and these are the implications". I wasn't there, so I can't say either way. I do cringe when someone does make matter-of-fact statements and can't back them up - on either side of the issue. Although I understand the warning of thinking only by way man does, I do not limit myself to a strict carnal understanding. To think only of this kingdom on Earth and not consider other realms is... not something I would be considered guilty of. As I have hinted earlier, I see truth transcending many realms. I would also point out my opinion here since you bring this up... I see evolution as lacking a spiritual foundation.

But let us all be weary of becoming as the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Agreed.

And your approach is the right one, that of thoughtful investigation and consideration. In Augustine's discussions of Genesis, he discusses the need for humility often, and the need to not present anything as dogmatic, since we as humans are so prone to error. However one eventually comes down on whether God created through evolution or immediate special creation is of little consequence to me.