If I didn't feel very strongly that evolution is true and literal creationism was a misinterpretation of scripture, then I would not be in this discussion. As to why we don't seem to "stand on the scriptures", I would argue that it is similar to a snake handler asking you to prove through scripture that a snakebite could kill a faithful Christian. The proper response cannot be to point to scripture to prove the opposite, but to point to the scripture they're using to show why they're wrong in their interpretation (plus mounds of physical evidence to the contrary).
Being a Creationist who takes Genesis literally isn't the same thing as a snake handler. I've sorted through a great deal of the supposed evidence and creation is not only a reasonable explanation for the origin of life, it's the clear testimony of Scripture.
I am a creationist in the sense that I believe that God is the ultimate cause, all things were intentional creations, and God is and has been active in the universe in a supernatural sense. For some, that is not enough to make me a creationist. I'm not really concerned about terms, but I do want to be very clear where I stand.
If you are a Christian then your a creationist, no theistic evolutionist who is seriously thinking about what he is saying would argue otherwise. The Nicene Creed and the Bible itself begins with a confession of God as Creator and the clear testimony of Scripture is that to worship Christ as Savior and Lord you must worship him as Creator. You need not explain that you are a creationist, your Christian profession is sufficient.
That's a provably falsifiable statement. Genesis has been viewed as more or less symbolic by theologians longer than Christianity has existed. Some of the most influential theologians in the early church held a less than literal view of Genesis, and probably would have had no issues with it in light of evolution.
Origen with his allegorical interpretation of Genesis comes to mind while reading this, he favored that approach. Unfortunately this man fostered some highly questionable views and it's hard to see where his Hellenistic philosophies ended and his Christian theology started. There have been theologians who have warned against taking Genesis too literally, that would not appear to be a problem in this day and age. Now it's dismissed categorically as figurative allegory signifying nothing of significance with regards to human history.
None of the early church fathers took the creation account in Genesis or the creation of Adam allegorically. The certainly didn't have any ideas about Adam having ancestors.
I would encourage you to ask yourself: does Genesis truly "lack interpretive challenges", or are you so sold to the literal interpretation that you are blinded to other alternatives? For me, earning to understand the simple difference between exegesis & eisegesis made a world of difference to my own views.
I assure you that I have explored the early chapters of Genesis in depth, looking carefully at the original Hebrew and a vast array of thought on the subject. It is translated into the English with well established exegetical expertise and can be taken very much as it reads. It, like all of Genesis, is an historical narrative and that presents no interpretive challenges what so ever. I am quite open to other alternatives and explored them only to find that they have no basis in the clear testimony of Scripture.
I'd agree with you if my conclusions were a result of holding on and not letting go. It has taken a lot of humility to give up the biases that I was raised with -against musical instruments in the church, on the salvific nature of baptism, on the nature of grace. I don't feel I truly let the Spirit speak to me when reading Genesis until I finally understood it on the basis of an ancient text.
I actually spent my early years as a Christian in a Church of Christ. I have never seen any hint of a prohibition against musical instruments nor do I believe that how or even if you were baptized had any bearing on the faith that saves you. I understand Genesis as an ancient text and have grown to appreciate it's literary distinctiveness. That in no way diminishes it as an historical narrative or changes how it should be interpreted.
I don't even know what "darwinism' is. I accept where the facts and evidence point. Forcing me and others like me to reject what we believe is reality to accept Christ is to put up a huge barrier to salvation, one that I think God would find abhorrent. Sound doctrine? I have attended many different denominations and independent churches and heard dozens of definitions of what "sound doctrine" is. Sound doctrine is grace through Jesus Christ. You start from there, and the further you get to the fringes the less "essential" it should be.
Darwinism is the assumption of exclusively naturalistic explanation for the origin and development of life on this planet:
...all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
It's nothing more then a categorical rejection of any and all inferences of the miraculous. Sound doctrine is recognized as the Nicene Creed as the rule of thumb for Christian profession on these boards and in Christian theism at large. Creation is sound doctrine, it is in fact, essential doctrine. Continually hammering away at it is not and cannot be considered a healthy approach to Christian theism.
Now I don't happen to care one way or the other if you believe Adam had ancestors, that has never been the point. It's when an historical narrative is dismissed figuratively and none of the essential doctrines of the church are affirmed starting with creation that I start to get indignant.
You also don't speak for many Creationists, and don't seem to understand the level of antipathy that many of them have. A friend was told by one of his other friends that his soul was in jeopardy because of his acceptance of evolution; I should mention that this other friend was twice divorced and living with his girlfriend at the time. Christians often put their emphasis on things that don't affect their lives directly, and trumpet them as proof of their faith. YEC theology, by building this dichotomy, is creating a potentially dangerous situation for believers like me, and definitely an uncomfortable one.
Creationists at large simply ignore the animosity of Darwinism. YEC is not in a position where it needs to subject itself to the constant ridicule of a philosophy that has shown itself to be atheistic in it's worldview. The issue here is that of Theistic Evolution and whether or not it has sold out to Darwinian naturalistic assumptions or legitimately reflects solid Christian theism. Creationism at large is indifferent to Theistic Evolution as well. Creationism is not disputed in Christian theism nor can it be. When Theistic Evolutionists spend so much of their time attacking it they do nothing but drive Creationists away. I see no real danger to any of this as much as the Darwinian would love you to believe that evolutionary biology presents real challenges it's simply not the case.
Perhaps you need to listen to us more to understand that many of us have a very strong understanding of scripture and of Christian history. Again, I see no problem with my belief and the Nicene Creed. (I don't feel that it's scripturally necessary to follow such a creed, mind you, but I don't see it as unbiblical.)
I can't listen to a profession that I never hear from you unless I drag it out of you. If you have such a strong understanding of Scripture then you should be prepared to defend your views Bionically with positive statements, clearly ordered lists of proof texts and bold proclamations of the Gospel as it pertains to Origins Theology. It's when you continually make fallacious attacks on the character and intelligence of Creationists that you show yourself to be contentious and divisive.
Now you don't happen to believe its necessary to believe the Nicene Creed in order to be a Christian but your a little weak here on the particulars. If your going to tell me you have a strong understanding of the Scriptures then I strongly suggest you share your testimony because the lack of one has been the bane of TE from it's inception.
The truth is, if such things as re-evaluating secondary meanings of Genesis in light of modern discovery is going down a slippery slope, we've been sliding down that slope for over a thousand years. I prefer we're sliding towards a greater understanding of God's natural world.
Look, I could whole heartedly embrace evolution as natural history and it would not effect my theology very much at all. That is not why I'm a YEC. What I am seeing is an unrelenting attack on essential Christian theism and since I favor a sound Christian apologetic I am drawn to the whole thing. I accept abortion in the first trimester and feel no inward struggle to repent with sackcloth and ashes because I think it's perfectly compatible with my faith. The only compromise I will not and cannot condone is with regards to essential doctrine and the Nicene Creed makes a reliable guide for summing up Christian confession.
Where do I start? John Walton for one. John Collins. James Kugel. Tom Wright. And a bunch of others I can't remember right now. I don't know what to say, but there are too many clues (ambiguities, for instance) that it's not literal for it to be literal. When you understand the culture behind the times, those clues gain real-world reasons for being in the text; then it becomes blatantly obvious.
I have neither the time nor the patience to look these guys up.
Why does a natural creation mean that other text is not supernatural?
Natural creation is a contradiction in terms. The word for creation in Genesis that clearly means God doing what only God can do is 'bara', and there is no room for a naturalistic explanation. It's used of the original creation (Gen 1:1), the creation of life (Gen 1:21) and Adam becoming a living soul (Gen 1:27). I firmly believe in speaking where the Scriptures speak and remaining silent where the Scriptures are silent and the Scriptures are abundantly clear that God created life by divine fiat during a six day period.
I'm not taking liberties with the text, that's what it teaches, that's literally what it says.
Think about this. For God, as mentioned in my last post, there is no real difference between natural work and supernatural work. God, as an eternal being, obviously doesn't care about time frames. God doesn't find one easier or harder than the other. The reason would seem to be in our perceptions; we see the supernatural as something that cannot be explained by anything other than God's direct intervention, while we can explain away the natural.
There is every difference between a naturally occurring phenomenon and God doing what only God can do. When the world was created, when life was created, when Christ was raised and you were saved the same power of God was exercised. You have to come to terms with this, it is inescapable.
Why would God choose a natural creation? Well, a natural creation would leave history. It would leave tangible, repeatable, predictable evidence that we could use to divine the nature of the universe. It allows us to better harness creation, to bend it to our needs, to utilize it, to subdue it. A natural creation is useful.
As it unfolded the natural creation was important in the sense you mean here just as when you exercise your faith God's will is manifest in your life. Life still has at the point of origin, a miracle, that can never be reduced to a naturalistic explanation.
A supernatural creation is certainly impressive; but to be obviously supernatural, it must not be something that contains history or predictability. It is useful for faith but not for science.
Lets see where you go with this.
The vast majority of miracles in the bible - in fact, all but one that I can see (assuming creation is supernatural) - are done through a human intercedent or directly in view of a human intercedent. There is no reason to think that just because creation is natural that the other miracles of the bible are not - and I haven't discussed the literary reasons.
You lost me so I'll just take it for whatever its worth.
I don't know where you get your information. From what I've seen, TE is mostly an apologetic. It definitely defends itself against attacks by YEC/OEC sources, and definitely points out why it believes that YEC/OEC are not truly viable beliefs. YEC and OEC act pretty much the same way towards each other. From where I sit, YEC is the only theology that is actively seeking to control the conversation about origins.
Theistic Evolution drips with animosity for Creationism and Creationists ignore the debate the vast majority of the time. Theistic Evolution is not defending anything other then Darwinian evolution. It is rare to even hear a Christian profession from them and their cry has long been 'Genesis is poetry not history'. Clearly, Theistic Evolution is an antithetical view, not remotely resembling an apologetic response.
Then here is one suggestion: do not dish it out. Love us and treat us like the brothers and sisters in Christ that we are, not as heretics that should be expunged from the church. Let's make the origins debate a point of conversation between faithful Christians, like theologies such as Calvinism/Arminianism, eschatologies, OSAS, creeds and other such disagreements.
I'm not trying to deny that you are people of faith, I'm reminding you of it. You bought a lemon and it keeps breaking down at crucial theological junctures. I didn't sell it to you so don't blame me when it leaves you stranded.
I prefer (and enjoy) a civil but honest discussion. However, if you think I haven't taken a long look at creationism or its arguments, then you don't know me well. I do not take a stand without trying to thoroughly understand each side as much as a can, from each side's own perspective.
Which is perfectly fine and altogether doable. Rest assured I have no axe to grind and enjoy exploring genetics and evolutionary biology when time permits. I just think Theistic Evolutionists have been the big losers in this whole controversy and it frustrates me to see them being used by secular thinkers I know are essentially atheistic.
Grace and peace,
Mark
