Is a Certain Origins Belief Important?

[Chesterton]

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".

 

[juvenissun]

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".

In fact, it depends on the logic thinking of a person.

Take TE (Theistic Evolution) as an example, I could not connect E to T in my logic. But other people either can make, or don't care about the logic connection between the two. So, believe in TE affects my faith. But it may not affect the faith of others.

To be saved or not is based on the faith of T. The E part only affects the heavenly reward, in my opinion.

 

[Vance]

I agree with Juvi! (see there, it can be done!)

The only real danger is when someone ties the truth of their position with the truth of Scripture or the Gospel message. It is only when someone says "if Genesis is not what I think it is, then we can not trust Scripture, and may as well throw it all out!"

You don't know how often I have heard that, and anyone can see how dangerous that is.

 

[shernren]

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.

 

[vossler]

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".

First I'd like to say that everything we believe from the Bible is important, but of course some things are more important than others. Second, everything in the Bible has truth attached to it, and since there can only be one truth how we interpret such truth becomes critical to our present well being and eternity.

With that as my foundation I can strongly assert that when discussing the Bible (a book given to us by God for instruction) that consists of 66 separate books written over a long period of time and many different authors it is absolutely critical how we interpret it. Then considering that the first book discusses our origins and the root of all the problems we in the world are experiencing today; yes I think it is extremely important how we interpret it. Don't you?

Imagine taking any modern well known book of instruction that in the first chapter outlines the history of how the author came to tell you his reasons for writing the book. Then imagine misinterpreting the meaning of that foundational first chapter, obviously the rest of book will, to at least some degree, be less meaningful and thereby easier to misinterpret. Given the life and death ramifications that the Bible teaches you will have to multiply the degree of consequences by a lot to even remotely compare it to something else. I hope you can begin to see the importance that the book of Genesis has and the effect it will have on our soul for eternity. If we misinterpret those foundational truths, how much more likely are we to do so with the rest of the Bible?

 

[Vance]

Vossler, I agree with what you are saying generally, but with one very important caveat. The message of God in early Genesis is very, very important, and it is essential that we grasp and cling to that message. But, what I find is that we ALL seem to get those essential messages (God created, He is sovereign, He created Man in His image, Mankind has become separated from God and is in need of redemption, etc, etc, etc), and they are believed in equal measure, by Christians regardless of their views on literalness of the historicity, the timing of the creation, the method of the creation, etc.

I think most here would agree that what is truly important about Genesis 1 and 2, for example are the WHO and WHY of creation, not the WHEN and HOW. And, surprising to some maybe, both sides seem to get the same message regarding who and why, even when we entirely disagree on the when and how. God seems to be a pretty good communicator in that regard! :0)

 

[JCFantasy23]

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".

As Christians its important to study and learn as much as we can, yet to me faith is of the most importance. There are some things in the bible and some things about Christianity that interest me more than others, I suspect it's the same for many here and in everything I do. I do not believe having a belief about creation and being wrong is enough to get you barred from Heaven or else from developing a strong relationship with God. I am sure none of us completely get it in terms of everything with Christianity; as long as get the most important things right - like Christ as our savior - then that is the most important. Personally I don't visit much in the debate forums about creation versus evolution. I have thought about the subject, of course, but not too heavily, as it just doesn't interest me as much as other things.

 

[Merlin]

It's not important for salvation.

 

[crawfish]

The creation/evolution argument is probably the biggest waste of time and effort in the Christian world today. It has absolutely no bearing on our salvation, or IMO our heavenly rewards.

Shame on me for enjoying it so much.

 

[Vance]

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)

 

[shernren]

First I'd like to say that everything we believe from the Bible is important, but of course some things are more important than others. Second, everything in the Bible has truth attached to it, and since there can only be one truth how we interpret such truth becomes critical to our present well being and eternity.

With that as my foundation I can strongly assert that when discussing the Bible (a book given to us by God for instruction) that consists of 66 separate books written over a long period of time and many different authors it is absolutely critical how we interpret it. Then considering that the first book discusses our origins and the root of all the problems we in the world are experiencing today; yes I think it is extremely important how we interpret it. Don't you?

Imagine taking any modern well known book of instruction that in the first chapter outlines the history of how the author came to tell you his reasons for writing the book. Then imagine misinterpreting the meaning of that foundational first chapter, obviously the rest of book will, to at least some degree, be less meaningful and thereby easier to misinterpret. Given the life and death ramifications that the Bible teaches you will have to multiply the degree of consequences by a lot to even remotely compare it to something else. I hope you can begin to see the importance that the book of Genesis has and the effect it will have on our soul for eternity. If we misinterpret those foundational truths, how much more likely are we to do so with the rest of the Bible?

There are plenty of combative things I could say here - and if that was all I had to say I just wouldn't reply. However I'm curious about something. How does this statement that "Genesis is foundational" actually work out in practice?

I'm asking because when I deal with new Christians / spiritual seekers, I don't usually direct them to Genesis. Obviously my bent in origins theology has something to do with it but I have other reasons as well, and I was just wondering if you could comment on them.

For one, most people who start with Genesis continue with Exodus, and then plan to continue with Leviticus and never do. Thus they never get around to Luke, let alone Romans or Ephesians. I have an agnostic seeking friend who's gotten trapped right there, and I think you'll agree that this isn't a helpful way to (not) read the Bible!

For another, I don't see Genesis making sense to someone with little knowledge of the Gospel. Ok, so God makes everything in six days and finishes with man. (And then he makes man before animals in Chapter 2, depending on your translation. That aside.) Then in Chapter 3, there's a snake - whoa, where did he show up from? And ok, so they ate a fruit God didn't want them to, but isn't God being a bit harsh to everyone involved? I mean sure He promised them that they would die, but He didn't say anything about painful childbirth! Or working for food! Or this curse on the rest of creation that you guys keep talking about! And on it goes ... I don't know about you, but when I see someone with little to no understanding of the Christian faith, I find it a lot more helpful to direct them either to Luke and John (if they absorb more narrative) or to Romans and Ephesians (if they're more intellectual). What do you think?

I agree with you that someone who gets Genesis wrong will have a diminished view of the rest of the Bible, but I think that's true just in the sense that every book in the Bible depends on every other book, and that Genesis isn't special in that regard. (Is the page of contents infallible? ) I'm saying that not just as a Christian who accepts evolution, but as someone who in guiding new believers often finds it a lot more helpful to point them to Jesus and the Cross first and foremost.

 

[Melethiel]

For another, I don't see Genesis making sense to someone with little knowledge of the Gospel. Ok, so God makes everything in six days and finishes with man. (And then he makes man before animals in Chapter 2, depending on your translation. That aside.) Then in Chapter 3, there's a snake - whoa, where did he show up from? And ok, so they ate a fruit God didn't want them to, but isn't God being a bit harsh to everyone involved? I mean sure He promised them that they would die, but He didn't say anything about painful childbirth! Or working for food! Or this curse on the rest of creation that you guys keep talking about! And on it goes ... I don't know about you, but when I see someone with little to no understanding of the Christian faith, I find it a lot more helpful to direct them either to Luke and John (if they absorb more narrative) or to Romans and Ephesians (if they're more intellectual). What do you think?

Just to add to this, the Adult Instruction bible study currently going on at my church (kind of an overview/review of the basic points of Christianity) has an agnostic/seeker person attending with no background in religion, and she obviously had the most confusion with understanding Genesis. Much of the in-class discussion was spent in there, with less clarification needed for the Gospels and Epistles.

 

[shernren]

Indeed. In OCF here we ran our studies on Genesis for the second half of last year, and on Romans 1-8 for the first half of this year.

Genesis was hard-going on a lot of us, in part because of the sheer amount of material to cover (50 chapters! In 8 studies! And self-written ones at that!). And we found that our groups created a lot of discussion and generally had trouble grasping what was going on - many of our members being creationists either out of conviction or convenience, I should add.

So I was naturally apprehensive about Romans 1-8 last semester, but to my surprise my group sailed through it with comparatively less difficulty. I don't know how typical this experience is with other people involved in Bible studies?

 

[juvenissun]

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.

To you, these two parallel lines do not intersect.
To me, they are not really parallel and they will intersect when extended long enough.

The key (the only meaningful thing to us) is to believe if they are parallel or not. And, that IS science.

 

[juvenissun]

The creation/evolution argument is probably the biggest waste of time and effort in the Christian world today. It has absolutely no bearing on our salvation, or IMO our heavenly rewards.

Shame on me for enjoying it so much.

Well, it depends on HOW do you see the debate. Admitted that there will be no conclusion and no winner in many debates, one (like me) do get chance to polish many personal idea of C/E.

My only regret in arguing on this forum is that I haven't met another well-rounded geologist yet (I have no intention to discredit people here who are in wider geology profession.)

 

[vossler]

There are plenty of combative things I could say here - and if that was all I had to say I just wouldn't reply.

That's good a thing! As it is my purpose for responding is that I believe I can shed some light on this most important topic.

However I'm curious about something. How does this statement that "Genesis is foundational" actually work out in practice?

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

Until we know about our sin nature and how it came about the Good News of the Gospel will make little sense. We first need to know why no one is good, not even one in order to understand the need for Jesus our Savior. It does little good to point someone to Jesus if they don't understand why they need Him and what He did in response to that need and why.

 

[Melethiel]

That's good a thing! As it is my purpose for responding is that I believe I can shed some light on this most important topic.
Until we know about our sin nature and how it came about the Good News of the Gospel will make little sense. We first need to know why no one is good, not even one in order to understand the need for Jesus our Savior. It does little good to point someone to Jesus if they don't understand why they need Him and what He did in response to that need and why.

I agree with this. (See, it's possible! )
It's quite important to understand the Fall before you can see the need for the Gospel. I think it's the other stuff - age of earth, literal 6 days, etc etc that is largely irrelevant.

 

[shernren]

Until we know about our sin nature and how it came about the Good News of the Gospel will make little sense. We first need to know why no one is good, not even one in order to understand the need for Jesus our Savior. It does little good to point someone to Jesus if they don't understand why they need Him and what He did in response to that need and why.

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.

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.

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.

The link is only clear in (an interpretation, which I don't wholly agree with, of) Romans 5. Which is why I would start a new believer off in Luke / John and then Romans, before sending him or her anywhere else in the Bible.

 

[Vance]

Exactly, and what is ESSENTIAL to understand is that you need not accept creationism to accept the "Fall". I have met very few Christians who accept evolution who do not also accept EVERY essential theological concept regarding Genesis as fully as even the most ardent YEC. So, there is absolutely NO slippery slope from a disbelief in a young earth creationism to a disbelief in essential Christian doctrine.

The only real difference is that TE's tend to say we don't know all the details of such a Fall. The texts we have were not meant to describe events using strict literal historical narrative, we believe, and are more concerned about giving us the essential truths, including that Mankind has somehow, sometime, somewhere, become separated from God and is in need of redemption. We end up believing in that need as strongly and fully as any creationist, or even stronger when you consider that this belief is not threatened in the least by scientific evidence piling up against young earth creationist propositions.

 

[gluadys]

Good too see you back, Vance.