Calvinist views on origins?

[Defcon]

I don't want to ruffle feathers here, but to contend that you draw the line at evolution and are 'OK' with everything else only prolongs the inevitable. The Church's main problem with a literal 6 day Creation period up until a century or two ago was that they couldn't believe it took God 6 days to accomplish it! Augustine believed that Creation was 'instant' and that 6 days was a model (which was opposed by Calvin, the Westminster Confession, etc.). So what's the point of this you ask? Well, what's compelling Christians to look at longer ages and accepting millions of years? Evolution itself. Not Church history, not sound exegesis, but a secular theory designed to eliminate the need for a Creator. Theistic evolution and Old earth Creation have not been constant mainstays in the history of the Church. No, only to align themselves with secular long-age theories have recent Christians started looking for the loopholes and liberal readings of Genesis 1. Others have decided that it's not important, which I disagree with wholeheartedly.

Do I believe you have to accept literal 6 day Creation to be saved? No.

Do I believe it is a slippery slope to liberal theology in an effort to appease the unbelieving world? You bet.

 

[Oye11]

I don't want to ruffle feathers here, but to contend that you draw the line at evolution and are 'OK' with everything else only prolongs the inevitable. The Church's main problem with a literal 6 day Creation period up until a century or two ago was that they couldn't believe it took God 6 days to accomplish it! Augustine believed that Creation was 'instant' and that 6 days was a model (which was opposed by Calvin, the Westminster Confession, etc.). So what's the point of this you ask? Well, what's compelling Christians to look at longer ages and accepting millions of years? Evolution itself. Not Church history, not sound exegesis, but a secular theory designed to eliminate the need for a Creator. Theistic evolution and Old earth Creation have not been constant mainstays in the history of the Church. No, only to align themselves with secular long-age theories have recent Christians started looking for the loopholes and liberal readings of Genesis 1. Others have decided that it's not important, which I disagree with wholeheartedly.

Do I believe you have to accept literal 6 day Creation to be saved? No.

Do I believe it is a slippery slope to liberal theology in an effort to appease the unbelieving world? You bet.

Thanks for sharing that Bro. I want truth, not appeasement... There were a few ECFs that saw the Genesis creation days as figurative or as "ages" rather than literal, Origen being one. And we know the sun doesn`t literally rise as some verses say so perhaps God chose to reveal himself in the context of a primitive world rather than blow their minds with a science lesson. This whole gig came down with Galileo and we cannot deny what he found... You are right, it matters but I`m one to follow truth wherever it leads and I`m convinced those on solid spiritual ground will not embrace the false Christ of the liberals. But Neandrathal man only a few 1000 years old? All the distinctly different human physical characteristics or races of the earth developed over a few 1000 years? I`m not sold yet but will continue to study varying points of view from different men of God such as Ham and Ross. I was curious though if Calvinists tended to be young earth. It seems that there is diversity among Refomed believers...

 

[Defcon]

Thanks for sharing that Bro. I want truth, not appeasement...

You are right, it matters but I`m one to follow truth wherever it leads

I am of the opinion that truth is God's Word. Looking at Scripture alone, I think you would be hard pressed to derive an argument against a literal 6-day Creation.

Beyond that, there are questions that are uncovered in the 'figurative' approach. You question how 'races of people formed', which I take to means that you not only question Creation, but the Global Flood (Noah and his family being the only survivors). This also is becoming rampant in the Christian Church today. When does the figurative narrative start and stop? The plagues? The parting of the Red Sea? When does fiction become fact? Or does it ever?

Other issues include: Was there death before the "Fall"? Could God really call the world 'good' at that point? If there was death before sin, then what did the curse do to Creation? Doesn't all Creation yearn to be made new? (Rom. 8:22)

Did all mankind originate with Adam and Eve? If not, what of the curse of mankind, sin? We know it follows the seed of Adam, so those who also existed weren't cursed? Or were they soulless beings?

With all due respect, the rising and setting of the sun hardly classifies as the Bible being incorrect. Turn on the weather report any hour of the day and you will have the phrase used. But of course, this really is what the issue is all about; Is the Bible inerrant?
I think you may find this link informational concerning that topic: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

I hope your search is a fruitful one - but beware of the snares of supposed knowledge from a secular culture that longs to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18).

 

[Oye11]

Beyond that, there are questions that are uncovered in the 'figurative' approach. You question how 'races of people formed', which I take to means that you not only question Creation, but the Global Flood (Noah and his family being the only survivors).

I don`t question "creation," only the timing and the means. Honestly, I didn`t come here to have all sorts of erroneous positions and motivations imputed to me or to be given the impression that if I do not believe the sun literally rises I`m in all sorts of trouble of falling into heresy and going to hell.... None of that moves me, actually only came to find out the typical Calvinist position on origins. Ah ha, there is diversity as I suspected. Mission accomplished...

 

[Defcon]

I don`t question "creation," only the timing and the means. Honestly, I didn`t come here to have all sorts of erroneous positions and motivations imputed to me or to be given the impression that if I do not believe the sun literally rises I`m in all sorts of trouble of falling into heresy and going to hell.... None of that moves me, actually only came to find out the typical Calvinist position on origins. Ah ha, there is diversity as I suspected. Mission accomplished...

Well, that's quite a different message than I briefly read a couple hours ago; a different tone, no longer interested in anymore views, constructing strawmen to tear down, etc. Again - not like the original.....

Have blast finding diversity, you'll be surprised how often you'll find it and how little its presence actually proves.

 

[Oye11]

Well, that's quite a different message than I briefly read a couple hours ago; a different tone, no longer interested in anymore views, constructing strawmen to tear down, etc. Again - not like the original.....

LOL Well given all the mischaracterizations I thought the new and improved version more appropriate...

Have blast finding diversity, you'll be surprised how often you'll find it and how little its presence actually proves.

There it is again... Who was or is on a diversity hunt? More judgments and imputed motives without basis... I can be ever amazed how many know their denominational theology but are oblivious to essential Christian virtues such as honesty...

 

[Imblessed]

Personally, whether wrong or not, this is why I don't like to be drawn into the whole creation debate.

It only leads to christians fighting each other. What starts out as civil disagreement soon leads to actual arguments.

Defcon: My feathers are not ruffled in the least. I understand where you are coming from. I know that in most everything, I am extremely conservative, so you don't have to worry about that slippery slope of liberalism(lol), however, I'm not so sure that we need to totally discount everything that science has found. Where truth and guess meet in science, I do not know. I just really haven't studied into it very much. Part of it is lack of desire, as science is not a strong suit at all, and it gives me a headache. I do lean toward the literal 6 day creation, if it makes you feel better! ~

 

[bradfordl]

First:

Ah ha, there is diversity as I suspected. Mission accomplished...

Then:

There it is again... Who was or is on a diversity hunt? More judgments and imputed motives without basis... I can be ever amazed how many know their denominational theology but are oblivious to essential Christian virtues such as honesty...

Amen to that!

 

[bradfordl]

I don't know if I fit into any category already labelled somewhere, but my own ideas from personal study have led me to the view that the whole debate is immaterial. Time is not a universal constant, but a created thing. The Creator of it can expand and contract it according to His own will and purpose. He was the only circumspect witness to the events of creation. It happened in 6 days from God's perspective. Time, space, and motion have equivalent properties. God is able to manipulate them as He sees fit, and what they appear to be to us is of no consequence. Being material in nature, we give stars and other material objects preimmenent importance, but the light beams that we record from distant sources must have just as great importance in the plan of God, or He would not have placed them between the stars and our eyes. God is perfectly capable of creating both in an instant. So what is the issue?

Brad

 

[Oye11]

First:Then:
Amen to that!

Huh? LOL The "mission" was revealed in the OP. I see we have another that reads through their own imaginations and is amening ta boot. Charming...

 

[bradfordl]

Huh? LOL The "mission" was revealed in the OP. I see we have another that reads through their own imaginations and is amening ta boot. Charming...

No "mission" was implied in the OP, just a question. You then stated you'd found diversity, followed by "mission accomplished". The obvious implication of that was that the "mission" was to find diversity, then you said,

"There it is again... Who was or is on a diversity hunt? More judgments and imputed motives without basis... I can be ever amazed how many know their denominational theology but are oblivious to essential Christian virtues such as honesty...".

You contradict yourself, then accuse one who notices it of being oblivious to the virtue of honesty. Then you accuse me of reading through my own imagination. For one so quick to point fingers at the foibles of others, you sure seem to have defective eyesight when it comes to recognizing same in yourself. And humility doesn't appear to be a strong suit. The UMC icon fits, though. Arrogance is one common trait among those of the arminian bent, seeing as they assign salvation to their own august and commendable decision rather than the merciful and determinate will of God, unwillingnes to acknowledge the glaringly plain implications of the written word is another. Even your own writing.

Your smug accusations are all the more ridiculous when you commit the very error you pronounce in the process of making them. But I won't hold my breath expecting you will actually practice any form of self reflection to determine if what I've said has merit. You appear to have the singular motive of jousting with Calvinists, and anything like that would be a distraction. You're cute, but ineffective in that. Perhaps you should take up a new hobby?

Brad

 

[Oye11]

No "mission" was implied in the OP, just a question. You then stated you'd found diversity, followed by "mission accomplished". The obvious implication of that was that the "mission" was to find diversity, then you said, You contradict yourself, then accuse one who notices it of being oblivious to the virtue of honesty. Then you accuse me of reading through my own imagination. For one so quick to point fingers at the foibles of others, you sure seem to have defective eyesight when it comes to recognizing same in yourself. And humility doesn't appear to be a strong suit. The UMC icon fits, though. Arrogance is one common trait among those of the arminian bent, seeing as they assign salvation to their own august and commendable decision rather than the merciful and determinate will of God, unwillingnes to acknowledge the glaringly plain implications of the written word is another. Even your own writing.

Your smug accusations are all the more ridiculous when you commit the very error you pronounce in the process of making them. But I won't hold my breath expecting you will actually practice any form of self reflection to determine if what I've said has merit. You appear to have the singular motive of jousting with Calvinists, and anything like that would be a distraction. You're cute, but ineffective in that. Perhaps you should take up a new hobby?

Brad

My Brad, what`s with the essay? LOL The OP reveals a simple curiousity as to common conservative Calvinist positions on origins. "Mission accomplished," got the info I wanted. What I suspected beforehand by way of common sense is immaterial to the motivation for the inquiry. And now we have yet another fanciful imputed motive, "he is just a low down Ariminian here to harass us." Get a grip Bro...

 

[hopperace]

:MODSTUFF:

Gentlemen, let's be gentlemen please. There's more than enough room for the topic of the OP to be discussed without coming to blows and reading too much into one another's words. Can we use a more respectful tone, please.

Thanks,

- kib

 

[heymikey80]

First, I invite you to note my view (if I've left it public; I don't even remember). To call me cranky about this issue would be an overstatement. I don't think it's critical to salvation. I don't hold ill will toward people who think differently.

I wasn't there. But it's been a constant issue for me, too.

Thanks for sharing that Bro. I want truth, not appeasement... There were a few ECFs that saw the Genesis creation days as figurative or as "ages" rather than literal, Origen being one.

Origen thought every verse had an allegorical meaning for Christians. I wouldn't embrace Origen as a great advocate in pursuing the meaning of Scripture.

But maybe I can help here. There is a strong contingent of day-age creationists within Reformed thought from the European continent. They're not particularly liberal, either.

And Kline should also be a reasonable modern advocate.

And we know the sun doesn`t literally rise as some verses say so perhaps God chose to reveal himself in the context of a primitive world rather than blow their minds with a science lesson.

It could be. It could also be that we just don't know exactly what God meant. As you know I don't see it as 24-hour, 6-day creation. But I have no reason to exclude the view as a viable meaning of the passage, either.

I agree there's something to science. I was once an Astronomy major, I remember enough to know. But truth isn't a competition, as you see. Spoiling for a fight from either direction just doesn't accomplish anything.

For many of the issues I go to http://www.asa3.org/ .

 

[Oye11]

First, I invite you to note my view (if I've left it public; I don't even remember). To call me cranky about this issue would be an overstatement. I don't think it's critical to salvation. I don't hold ill will toward people who think differently.

I wasn't there. But it's been a constant issue for me, too.

Origen thought every verse had an allegorical meaning for Christians. I wouldn't embrace Origen as a great advocate in pursuing the meaning of Scripture.

But maybe I can help here. There is a strong contingent of day-age creationists within Reformed thought from the European continent. They're not particularly liberal, either.

And Kline should also be a reasonable modern advocate.

It could be. It could also be that we just don't know exactly what God meant. As you know I don't see it as 24-hour, 6-day creation. But I have no reason to exclude the view as a viable meaning of the passage, either.

I agree there's something to science. I was once an Astronomy major, I remember enough to know. But truth isn't a competition, as you see. Spoiling for a fight from either direction just doesn't accomplish anything.

For many of the issues I go to http://www.asa3.org/ .

You have a point about Origen. He was also a universalist... Hugh Ross I believe mentioned other ECFs of the figurative bent in one of his audio lessons but the names allude me. This stuff is pretty new to me and a struggle as natural science was never my strong subject. But I definitely want to hear what academics have to say. For one thing, it strengthen my faith as they keep helping us, providing no real evidence of evolution from plants to animals, one animal type to another, etc. and they have yet to create life in a science lab.

 

[bradfordl]

:MODSTUFF:

Gentlemen, let's be gentlemen please. There's more than enough room for the topic of the OP to be discussed without coming to blows and reading too much into one another's words. Can we use a more respectful tone, please.

Thanks,

- kib

Certainly! And I contend that I have been nothing but respectful to someone who has come here and accused a brother, and denied the plain implication of his own statements.