Can anything change your mind?

[Vance]

Regardless of how one reads the passages that you bring up, they have no bearing on salvation or any other doctrine of substance. I see no purpose in this analysis other than to divert attention from the real and important issues that have a bearing on peoples lives so I refuse to entertain them.

You are absolutely right about the lack of any real theological problem in the heliocentric science, but what we are pointing out is that people then (and a few now) THINK there is such a problem.

Similarly, many of us do not think there is any theological problem with evolution or an old earth, but many creationists THINK there is, and they use much the same language in disputing these concepts as the geocentrists did.

I think it is also worth noting that the majority of Christians worldwide have no problem with evolution and do not see any insurmountable theological problem. They may not all be right, but it does show that these theological problems are not so dramatic and inherent that it is inconceivable to view Christianity and evolution together. We that accept it still see sin and redemption and all of the other theological doctrines exactly the same as a creationist would. We just think differently about how it all played out historically.

 

[vossler]

You are absolutely right about the lack of any real theological problem in the heliocentric science, but what we are pointing out is that people then (and a few now) THINK there is such a problem.

There are plenty of people who think there are problems in all sorts of areas. Heck, there supposedly still are folks who believe the earth is flat.

Similarly, many of us do not think there is any theological problem with evolution or an old earth, but many creationists THINK there is, and they use much the same language in disputing these concepts as the geocentrists did.

The language used by creationists to argue their point is legitimate. Your attempt to make it appear illegitimate by comparing it to an argument that was insignificant should bear little weight. Especially when this form of argument has far more validity and strength than has ever been proven otherwise.

I think it is also worth noting that the majority of Christians worldwide have no problem with evolution and do not see any insurmountable theological problem. They may not all be right, but it does show that these theological problems are not so dramatic and inherent that it is inconceivable to view Christianity and evolution together.

It is also worth noting that the majority of Christians have little to no true knowledge of the Word of God and can therefore not be considered a good barometer of this discussion. I would argue that those who do possess a strong knowledge of the Word of God (most pastors and laymen of the church) side against evolution.

We that accept it still see sin and redemption and all of the other theological doctrines exactly the same as a creationist would. We just think differently about how it all played out historically.

I'm not sure this is true. Most TEs that I've come across see lots of doctrinal issues differently.

 

[shernren]

Now, to list the doctrines that evolution actually does contradict ...

 

[Vance]

As a conservative Christian, I don't think there is a single essential doctrine that I would hold differently than you do. Or, better to say that any differences we would have would not be caused by our differing view of how Genesis was meant to be read or our view of origins. This is what I call the "phantom menace", the idea that accepting evolution or a different reading of Genesis 1 and 2 (which everyone agrees is not in the "essential" or "salvation" category itself) will lead to faulty conclusions on "salvation issues".

It just doesn't happen that way. I have been around these issues long enough to say that TE's and YEC's hold to the essentials of Christianity to the same degree.

 

[vossler]

Now, to list the doctrines that evolution actually does contradict ...

As a conservative Christian, I don't think there is a single essential doctrine that I would hold differently than you do. Or, better to say that any differences we would have would not be caused by our differing view of how Genesis was meant to be read or our view of origins. This is what I call the "phantom menace", the idea that accepting evolution or a different reading of Genesis 1 and 2 (which everyone agrees is not in the "essential" or "salvation" category itself) will lead to faulty conclusions on "salvation issues".

It just doesn't happen that way. I have been around these issues long enough to say that TE's and YEC's hold to the essentials of Christianity to the same degree.

I disagree! TEs and YECs do not hold, to the same degree the essentials of Christianity.

Here’s a prime example of the abuse of the Genesis account of creation that the majority TEs adhere to. TEs will, without any justification from the text itself, or any hermeneutics or exegetical information, randomly and inappropriately turn the historical events of Genesis and the Creation of the first man, into symbolic imagery, thus gutting the text of its primary meaning and message (i.e.: mankind is born into a state of fallen depravity, and is, therefore, in desperate need of a Savior and Redeemer.)

 

[Dannager]

I disagree! TEs and YECs do not hold, to the same degree the essentials of Christianity.

Here’s a prime example of the abuse of the Genesis account of creation that the majority TEs adhere to. TEs will, without any justification from the text itself, or any hermeneutics or exegetical information, randomly and inappropriately turn the historical events of Genesis and the Creation of the first man, into symbolic imagery, thus gutting the text of its primary meaning and message (i.e.: mankind is born into a state of fallen depravity, and is, therefore, in desperate need of a Savior and Redeemer.)

And yet in our interpretation we do not feel that message to be "gutted" in any way, shape or form. The perception that our interpretation somehow "guts" Christianity is restricted to those who disagree with us.

 

[Mikey68]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

how can you as a Christian believe in Evolution ???

this is one of the deceptions the devil is trying to trick you with.

 

[gluadys]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

how can you as a Christian believe in Evolution ???

this is one of the deceptions the devil is trying to trick you with.

Since evolution is not about the heavens and the earth, what's the problem you see with it?

 

[shernren]

Here’s a prime example of the abuse of the Genesis account of creation that the majority TEs adhere to. TEs will, without any justification from the text itself, or any hermeneutics or exegetical information, randomly and inappropriately turn the historical events of Genesis and the Creation of the first man, into symbolic imagery, thus gutting the text of its primary meaning and message (i.e.: mankind is born into a state of fallen depravity, and is, therefore, in desperate need of a Savior and Redeemer.)

Is this really coming back to evolution and original sin? You're not new here vossler, surely you must remember the great discussions we've had here before.

Such as:

http://christianforums.com/t1050269-how-does-a-theistic-evolutionist-view-original-sin.html

ook at the details of the church trial at:
http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/

the ONLY issue was if Adam was created from the earth or from a pre-adamite evolved creature. there is no difference between Gray's TE views on original sin, federal headship etc from any orthodox YECist. 1 issue-did Adam have a physical precusor.

indistinguishable.

Original Sin and the Science of Theology http://christianforums.com/t4967151

I don't think any Christian will disagree on the importance of the doctrine or that original sin is inherited from our first parents (however that term in understood). However, to sustain your argument, you need to show that the mode of inheritance of original sin is biological.

Since sin itself is a spiritual reality, then why should we consider that the propogation of sin is biological?

http://christianforums.com/t5128420-how-does-evolution-change-original-sin.html

I'm a theistic evolutionists, and yet I believe in a historic Adam who, like Christ, served as the federal head and mediatorial priest over all subsequent humanity. And his original, historic sin is indeed imputed to all those he represents.

Yet those theistic evolutionists who don't believe in a historic Adam and historic fall can still believe humans are conceived in sin. That might just be the natural state of the human individual.

Even if the story of how we became sinful is a myth, it speaks of a literal truth. We are sinful; we do sin. And as sinners, we need a redeemer.

We need to remember that myth is a way of teaching. A true myth may never have literally happened as a single historical event, but what it is teaching is in some sense literally true. There is a literal fall every time someone sins for the first time.

Oh and of course this classic http://christianforums.com/t5003674 The Idols and False Notions have taken Deep Root

The Gospels and Acts do a remarkable job of avoiding Adam, considering his "importance". ... I'm extremely surprised that the "defining event" of Adam's fall, on which "everything hinges", is not once referenced in the evangelistic work of Jesus and the Apostles! Aren't you?

Anything new?

 

[vossler]

Is this really coming back to evolution and original sin? You're not new here vossler, surely you must remember the great discussions we've had here before.

Sure there have been plenty of discussions Tee, but there was nothing from a hermeneutical and exegetical analysis of Scripture itself to back up any of the many different views that TEs have. Lots of ideas and thoughts, very little of a substantive basis for those ideas.

 

[Mallon]

Sure there have been plenty of discussions Tee, but there was nothing from a hermeneutical and exegetical analysis of Scripture itself to back up any of the many different views that TEs have. Lots of ideas and thoughts, very little of a substantive basis for those ideas.

You're starting to sound like mark.
If it's an evolutionary creationist theology you're looking for, and if you're not going to go over the threads shernren linked to, then I recommend the following resources:
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Evolving-Creation-Keith-Miller/dp/0802805124/
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/default.asp

Just please stop pretending that EC's lack a biblical theology.

 

[vossler]

You're starting to sound like mark.
If it's an evolutionary creationist theology you're looking for, and if you're not going to go over the threads shernren linked to, then I recommend the following resources:
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Evolving-Creation-Keith-Miller/dp/0802805124/
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/default.asp

Just please stop pretending that EC's lack a biblical theology.

Mallon, you make sounding like Mark a bad thing. If sounding like someone who stands up for and supports Scriptural Inerrancy is the accusation, then I'll gladly take that label.

I went over the threads shernren linked and I even went over the first one you provided. I didn't find anything that could even remotely qualify as a hermenuetical exegetical analysis of Genesis that in any way could support evolution and a mythical Adam. Rather than provide me a link to countless pages of text that jump all over the place, why don't you just tell me, in your own words, your biblical justification for taking the literal text and reading it as you do?

 

[Vance]

OK, here is another place to give my "Phantom Menace" concept. The bottom line is that the essentials are STILL held and they are held to the same degree. Do you think you believe in the resurrection more fully than I do, or that we are sinners in need of redemption, or any of the other handful of essential "salvation" issues of belief? Of course not.

It seems to me that the majority of the Creationist platform is based on the fear of a Phantom Menace. So often, when a topic is raised, whether it be interpretation of Scripture, the Fall of Man, a literal Adam, etc, etc, the argument that Creationists will eventually fall back on is a slippery slope/phantom menace position. They will acknowledge that a belief in evolution, or figurative Adam, etc, is not itself a "salvation" issue, but soon we see this "menace" argument come out.

I will give some examples and in each, consider X something that is not a "salvation" issue in and of itself (an old earth, evolution itself, a figurative Adam, no global flood, etc), but Y *is* a salvation issue. Here is what we end up hearing:

"Well, if you don't believe X, then how can you believe Y?" [or even, "you can't possibly believe Y."]

"A belief in X means you reject A and B, which means, ultimately, that you reject Y".

"You can't truly have faith in the truth of Y if you believe X".

"A belief in X will lead to a disbelief in Y"

"The whole concept of X does away with the need for Y".

And numerous other variations on this theme. Not only does this rely on a slippery slope (which ends up being not as slippery as they think), the entire "menace" is a PHANTOM menace, since all of these statements are almost immediately falsified. It is shown over and over that those who DO believe X almost always still believe Y. Just because a given Creationist can't imagine how someone can accept Y when they also accept X doesn't mean a thing. The facts are the facts.

Those Christians who accept all those X's tend to believe (and believe just as strongly) in every orthodox essential for salvation. Their belief in evolution, or a figurative reading of Genesis, or a typological Adam, does not seem to do ANY damage, whatsoever, to their faith in anything essential for salvation at all. Yes, there have always been those within Christianity who hold unorthodox beliefs, as much before the advent of this debate as now. But the fact that millions of Christians entirely accept evolution and have NONE of their essential Christian beliefs undermined is a plain and simple falsification of the phantom menace.

The bottom line is that any rejection of an idea or concept based on "what the effect will be on other beliefs", is only a valid objection to the extent that effect actually is observable. In the case of Creationist arguments, it is NOT observable. We are still Christians, and devout, committed, Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians at that!

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well said, Vance.

 

[vossler]

OK, here is another place to give my "Phantom Menace" concept. The bottom line is that the essentials are STILL held and they are held to the same degree. Do you think you believe in the resurrection more fully than I do, or that we are sinners in need of redemption, or any of the other handful of essential "salvation" issues of belief? Of course not.

It seems to me that the majority of the Creationist platform is based on the fear of a Phantom Menace. So often, when a topic is raised, whether it be interpretation of Scripture, the Fall of Man, a literal Adam, etc, etc, the argument that Creationists will eventually fall back on is a slippery slope/phantom menace position. They will acknowledge that a belief in evolution, or figurative Adam, etc, is not itself a "salvation" issue, but soon we see this "menace" argument come out.

I will give some examples and in each, consider X something that is not a "salvation" issue in and of itself (an old earth, evolution itself, a figurative Adam, no global flood, etc), but Y *is* a salvation issue. Here is what we end up hearing:

"Well, if you don't believe X, then how can you believe Y?" [or even, "you can't possibly believe Y."]

"A belief in X means you reject A and B, which means, ultimately, that you reject Y".

"You can't truly have faith in the truth of Y if you believe X".

"A belief in X will lead to a disbelief in Y"

"The whole concept of X does away with the need for Y".

And numerous other variations on this theme. Not only does this rely on a slippery slope (which ends up being not as slippery as they think), the entire "menace" is a PHANTOM menace, since all of these statements are almost immediately falsified. It is shown over and over that those who DO believe X almost always still believe Y. Just because a given Creationist can't imagine how someone can accept Y when they also accept X doesn't mean a thing. The facts are the facts.

Those Christians who accept all those X's tend to believe (and believe just as strongly) in every orthodox essential for salvation. Their belief in evolution, or a figurative reading of Genesis, or a typological Adam, does not seem to do ANY damage, whatsoever, to their faith in anything essential for salvation at all. Yes, there have always been those within Christianity who hold unorthodox beliefs, as much before the advent of this debate as now. But the fact that millions of Christians entirely accept evolution and have NONE of their essential Christian beliefs undermined is a plain and simple falsification of the phantom menace.

The bottom line is that any rejection of an idea or concept based on "what the effect will be on other beliefs", is only a valid objection to the extent that effect actually is observable. In the case of Creationist arguments, it is NOT observable. We are still Christians, and devout, committed, Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians at that!

First of all Vance, I’m not here to accuse you or anyone else of not being a Christian. So there won’t be any sort of “Phantom menace” presented here. As I stated earlier, my role is to defend the Word of God and its Truths. Now if you wish to believe all the things you believe that’s totally up to you, I’m not here to convince you of anything or sway you into believing my point of view or anyone else’s.

Truth, contrary to modern thinking, has but one source and comes in only one flavor. We’re not at a Baskin Robbins where we get to pick our flavor of Truth. Truth isn’t subjective, it’s objective and it is pure. It certainly can’t be measured by any man made standards or ideas. So when you and others take God’s Word and put your own personal spin on it in order for it to comply with your view of history and that history changes God’s history, I sometimes get involved. My involvement is primarily for the benefit of those whose minds haven’t yet been swayed by misinformation. It isn’t to discuss to ad nauseam why your views are wrong. It is to show that there is another view, one that is, hopefully, based solely on the Truth, certainly not a made derived idea that is contrary to the Word of God.

TEs have this post modern approach to interpreting Scripture, that’s where my beef is. It’s not in whether you are true Christians, that is something for God to decide. Scripture somehow becomes a grab bag of ideas and they’re all somehow equal as long as you believe in Jesus or something to that effect. In other words, as long as we believe in the most important things, everything else is somehow free game. I just don’t adhere to that philosophy, and I don’t believe that God does either.


Here’s a quote from Dr. Milton S. Terry who in my opinion sums this up quite well:

“The allegorical method of interpretation is based on a profound reverence for the Scriptures and a desire to explore their many and diverse depths of wisdom. But it must be noted: The tendency of allegory is to disregard the common significance of words, and that has the potential…if misused…to lead to all kinds of imagined interpretations, and to give wing to all manner of fanciful speculation.” ​

I want those that sincerely are looking to know that the literal principle to biblical interpretation, if well applied, never gives wing to imagined interpretations or fanciful speculation.

 

[busterdog]

Quote:
Originally Posted by vossler
Sure there have been plenty of discussions Tee, but there was nothing from a hermeneutical and exegetical analysis of Scripture itself to back up any of the many different views that TEs have. Lots of ideas and thoughts, very little of a substantive basis for those ideas.

You're starting to sound like mark.
If it's an evolutionary creationist theology you're looking for, and if you're not going to go over the threads shernren linked to, then I recommend the following resources:
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Evolving-Creation-Keith-Miller/dp/0802805124/
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/default.asp

Just please stop pretending that EC's lack a biblical theology.

Yes. Sounding like Mark is a good thing. I don't think we should use such comparisons, however.

Yes, you guys do have a theology that is carefully reasoned, even if unacceptable to YECs. It is probably not a good idea to say that you have no hermeneutic at all.

I would agree with Vossler's apparent position that the hermeneutic is not internally consistent in looking at scripture. It requires scientific consensus to put the lie to the surface text.

I can't remember whether anyone has declared total victory on the basis for TE hermeneutics of Genesis. If that were the case, I would tend to shake my head and walk away muttering something like "oy vey" or "meshuga." Maybe that is what Vossler was talking about.

 

[busterdog]

.

And numerous other variations on this theme. Not only does this rely on a slippery slope (which ends up being not as slippery as they think), the entire "menace" is a PHANTOM menace, since all of these statements are almost immediately falsified.

Any biblical error or misinterpretation is a slippery slope.

Any such error will tend to devalue the essential confession of the resurrection and Lordship of Jesus.

Such errors do not make that result inevitable. That is the philosophical miracle of mercy and the Gospel. But, they all have that tendency.

Are YECs lacking that tendency more than TEs? Probably not. We just happen to be right about Gen. 1-6.

 

[Vance]

Busterdog, I would agree with your post entirely (other than that last bit!). The point I am making is that there is no observable higher rate of falling into the "salvation issue" level of error for the TE's than there is for the YEC. In fact, while I have seen many, many YEC's abandon their faith due to their inability to accept that Scripture could still be true in the face of the scientific evidence if they come to accept it, I have NEVER seen that happen to a TE. For us, there is NO scientific evidence that can shake our faith in the the absolute and ultimate Truth of the Gospel message, as contained in Scripture. Even here, when the question is raised on occasion, we see YEC's who will say outright that if they became convinced that evolution was true, they would lose their faith. That is a not just a slippery slope, it is much more dangerous.

Vossler, you seem to keep forgetting that every time you open the Bible and read it, you are putting your own spin on it. You are reading it from the perspective of your culture, your education, your biases. The best we can do is attempt to read it the way the original authors intended it as a starting place, not with literalism as the starting place, since too much literalism can lead to as much error as anything else.

BTW, also remember that we TE's do not necessarily use an allegorical reading. That is seeing an account as being presented as an allegory for something else. There are many types of non-literal writing that do not do that at all. I read Genesis 1, for example, NOT as an allegory, but as a figurative and symbolic telling of very real, literal events. It is an historical account, but just not using strict literalism in the telling of it.

Oddly, it is often the most "literal" readers that will take something like the Song of Solomon and (because they are uncomfortable with the frank sexuality) insist that it is meant as an allegory for Christ and His Bride, the Church. Rather than go that route, I read it entirely literally. :0)

 

[Mallon]

I went over the threads shernren linked and I even went over the first one you provided. I didn't find anything that could even remotely qualify as a hermenuetical exegetical analysis of Genesis that in any way could support evolution and a mythical Adam. Rather than provide me a link to countless pages of text that jump all over the place, why don't you just tell me, in your own words, your biblical justification for taking the literal text and reading it as you do?

That's quite the preconviction you slipped in there. I guess if the opening Genesis text was so obviously meant to be understood literally, I would be quite the dastard for not taking it that way. Perhaps that is the reason why EC theology is so often ignored by you and mark (why else would you refuse to read the "countless" links I provided for you above?).
Regardless, the reason why I don't think the Genesis creation account needs be read literally is because I do not subscribe to a concordist view of the Bible like youself, not because of any hermeneutic inherent in the text itself (something I've been voicing recently in this thread: http://christianforums.com/t6949082). I am an accomodationalist, the meaning and rationale for which are provided by Denis Lamoureux here:

Recognizing that the Bible features an ancient science is troubling to most conservative Christians because they assume that statements in Scripture about the physical world are inerrant and infallible. That is, they believe the Holy Spirit revealed scientific facts thousands of years before their discovery by modern science. In other words, the majority of these Christians accept 'concordism' (or better 'scientific concordism'). They believe there is an accord between the Bible and science. In contrast, evolutionary creationists make no apologies for the obvious ancient science in the Bible. Instead they attempt to understand God's revelatory process in the light of this feature. In the same way that the powerful Message of Faith penetrates our heart and remodels our mind (Heb 4:12, Rom 12:2), evolutionary creationists contend that the Scripture's incidental ancient science should also penetrate and remodel our understanding of Biblical inerrancy and infallibility.
Evolutionary creationists are not disturbed by the fact that the Scriptures feature an ancient science. For that matter, they expected it. These Christian evolutionists draw a parallel to God's greatest Act of Revelation-the Incarnation. The Creator came down from heaven and took on human flesh in the person of Jesus in order to reveal His unending love for us. The Lord spoke Aramaic, the common person's language in 1st century Palestine, and He preached using parables, indicating that He employed the ordinary ideas and concepts of the people at that time. For example, Jesus often used the agricultural knowledge of His listeners in the parables of the good sower (Mk 4:1-9), the seed growing secretly (Mk 4: 26-29), the weeds (Matt 13:24-30) and the mustard seed (Matt 13:31-32). Of particular interest is the last parable. The Lord utilized the 'botany of the day' in stating that the mustard seed is "the smallest of all seeds" when in fact many seeds, like orchids, are much smaller. In other words, Jesus accommodated or descended to the knowledge level of His ancient audience.
Evolutionary creationists claim that the ancient science in the creation accounts is an accommodation to the conceptual level of the ancient Hebrews, similar to that used by Jesus in His teaching ministry. This position underlines that before the Holy Spirit reveals to humanity that the world is His creation, men and women must have some sort of understanding about the nature. That is, a science is needed before anyone can grasp the theological notion of creation. In the case of the ancient Hebrews, the science of their day was an Ancient Near Eastern conception of the structure, operation and origin of the universe and life. Evolutionary creationists emphasize that it is inconsequential to the Message of Faith whether this understanding of the world is scientifically accurate and actually represents physical reality. The powerful Divine Message concerning the creation transcends the incidental vessel of the science that transports it. For example, the ancient Hebrews believed the blue of the sky was a body of water overhead. Today, modern science has determined that this is a visual effect due to the scattering of short wave light in the upper atmosphere. Despite these radically different views, the theological principle remains steadfast-the blue waters/effect above is a creation of the Creator. By employing the ancient science of the Hebrews in Genesis 1, the Holy Spirit descended to their knowledge level in order to communicate as effectively as possible that God was the Creator of the extensive blue structure that was before their eyes. Stated another way, the Biblical creation accounts are accommodated to an ancient audience in the same way that Jesus accommodated to us by taking on human flesh.

I couldn't agree with this principle more, and it completely frames the way I interpret Genesis.

 

[vossler]

Mallon,

Thanks for posting a clear and easy to understand view (even though I asked for your own words) of how you see Genesis. It makes very clear the points I've made, I appreciate your honesty.