More misconceptions - do they ever actually listen to us?

[rmwilliamsll]

Meredith G. Kline Westminster Theological Seminary Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

from: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WTJ/WTJ58Kline.html

We do not require a doctrinal pledge of our students on the front end or
on the back end," said Vander Pol. "Our major marketing point is inerrancy
and Biblical infallibility. To serve the non-Reformed student this is what we
want to do.

The faculty, however, must sign a very specific doctrinal pledge affirming
not only Reformed theology but also Presbyterian polity "as agreeable to the
divine oracles." Faculty members must "solemnly promise and engage not to
inculcate or insinuate anything which shall contradict or contravene, either
directly or impliedly, any element of that system of doctrine, nor to oppose
any of the fundamental principles of that form of church government, while
[they] continue a member of the faculty in this seminary."

"We do have to subscribe to the Westminster Confession ex animo as
professors and we do so joyfully," said Baugh. "There are certain clear
teachings in the Scripture that we stand upon."
Vander Pol said the result of strict adherence by faculty members to Reformed
theology and Presbyterian polity was that while half of Westminster's
students come from non-Reformed backgrounds, "the joy is that 95 percent end
up thoroughly Reformed upon graduation."

from: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/reformed/archive94/nr94-040.txt

The orthodox view includes the following elements: that Scripture is the inerrant Word of God and self-interpreting, the full historicity of Genesis 1-3, the unique creation of Adam and Eve in God’s image as our first parents, and Adam as the covenant head of the human race. A necessary corollary of this view is the fact that the curse and the resultant discord in the universe began with the sin of Adam. It is the incomprehensible God who has revealed himself clearly in nature and in Scripture. He has revealed exactly what He intended, and those areas which are not revealed belong to the Lord our God (Deut 29:29).

There are areas in which there are differences of interpretation of both Scripture and of our Standards, which we need to continue to explore patiently and respectfully before God.

In light of the present diversity regarding the creation doctrine in the PCA., the committee was established to study the exegetical, hermeneutical, and theological interpretations of Genesis 1-3 and the original intent of the Westminster Standards’ phrase “in the space of six days,”. . .[and to] report. . .its findings, along with its non-binding advice and counsel if any.

As we have studied the history of this matter, reflected in Section II, it is clear that there has been a good deal of diversity of opinion over the issue of the length of the days throughout the history of the Church. It is this kind of diversity that is found in the PCA today. The fact is that the Church, while affirming with one voice the creation of all things visible and invisible by the triune God, has not come to a unity of position on the matter of the nature and length of the days, as she has with regard to such doctrines as the Trinity and the Person of Christ. This indicates that the Westminster divines were correct in their affirmation that “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. . .” (WCF I, 7). We believe that this is the reason that this Committee has not been able to reach unanimity. We have come to a better understanding of each other’s views, resulting in a deeper respect for one another’s integrity.

We are aware that this is a divisive issue. It is the hope and purpose of the Committee to give advice that could avoid any division of the church. While affirming the above statement of what is involved in an orthodox view of creation, we recognize that good men will differ on some other matters of interpretation of the creation account. We urge the church to recognize honest differences, and join in continued study of the issues, with energy and patience, and with a respect for the views and integrity of each other.

It should be observed that the ordinary courts of jurisdiction for officers in the church are the presbytery for the teaching elders and the session for the ruling elders and deacons. These are the courts that deal with the theological position of the officers, and it is not the prerogative of the Assembly to interfere with the judgments of these courts, except by way of review of the presbytery minutes, or by judicial process.

The advice of some who hold the Calendar Day view is that the General Assembly recognize that the intent of the Westminster divines was the Calendar Day view, and that any other view is an exception to the teaching of the Standards. A court that grants an exception has the prerogative of not permitting the exception to be taught at all. If the individual is permitted to teach his view, he must also agree to present the position of the Standards as the position of the Church.

Others recommend that the Assembly acknowledge that the four views of the interpretation of the days expounded in this report are consistent with the teaching of the Standards on the doctrine of creation, and that those who hold one of these views and who assent to the affirmations listed below should be received by the courts of the church without notations of exceptions to the Standards concerning the doctrine of creation.

The advice of others on the committee is that the PCA has existed for over 25 years with a variety of viewpoints regarding creation being accepted, and a diversity of presbytery and sessional practices. These members of the Committee recognize that it would be disturbing to the Church if the Assembly sought to change the present practice of the Church which has provided for various ways of receiving candidates for office, who make the following affirmations.

All the Committee members join in these affirmations: The Scriptures, and hence Genesis 1-3, are the inerrant word of God. That Genesis 1-3 is a coherent account from the hand of Moses. That history, not myth, is the proper category for describing these chapters; and furthermore that their history is true. In these chapters we find the record of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth ex nihilo; of the special creation of Adam and Eve as actual human beings, the parents of all humanity (hence they are not the products of evolution from lower forms of life). We further find the account of an historical fall, that brought all humanity into an estate of sin and misery, and of God’s sure promise of a Redeemer. Because the Bible is the word of the Creator and Governor of all there is, it is right for us to find it speaking authoritatively to matters studied by historical and scientific research. We also believe that acceptance of, say, non-geocentric astronomy is consistent with full submission to Biblical authority. We recognize that a naturalistic worldview and true Christian faith are impossible to reconcile, and gladly take our stand with Biblical supernaturalism.

from: http://www.pcanet.org/history/creation/report.html

yes. M. Kline is fully orthodox. period. deal with the ideas, not attack personalities.

 

[GodSaves]

As I said, no scripture, either stating death came after the fall, or God created man out of nothing, or God created woman out of man will ever change your mind. My point proven by you.

And if creationism is true, then almost all theistic evolutionists that I have come across will turn and say God is a liar and a deceiver. Fantastic, if YOUR interpretation is wrong then it is God's fault.

 

[Vance]

No, it is just that we will be asking Him why He would have created a world which looks, tests, and acts, in all its minute particulars and in its major evidences to be billions of years old. If He did, then I am sure He has a reason. But it is still correct to say that such a creation would have been made in a deceptive way (even if not for the purpose of deceiving).

But for this very reason, as well as a complete lack of any compelling theological reason to believe in a young earth and non-evolutionary development, I see no reason NOT to take God's Creation at it's face value.

Unlike literature, a physical creation can not speak it's truth in allegory or figurative language. If it is a choice between reading God's Word non-literally or reading God's Creation non-literally (and it is), the choice has to be the former.

 

[adam149]

Adam - I fully accept all of the nicene and apostles' creeds, which are the touchstone of orthodoxy.

Those creeds are wonderful, but behind them is a position of inerrency. If the Bible is in error at any one point, how can you trust the rest of it and therefore, how can you know that what is said in those Creeds are actually true? You cannot.

I cannot take seriously either your redefinition of orthodoxy to include inerrancy and the identification of Scripture as the "Word of God", neither of which I recognise as core orthodox positions, nor your attempt to call my position heterodox or heretical on the basis of your redefinition of orthodoxy.

And I cannot take seriously someone who claims to subscribe to biblical Creeds and then says this. Both inerrancy and identification of Scripture as the "Word of God" are borne out in the historical confessions and in the Scripture itself, including the words of Christ Jesus, whom you claim to follow. It is most certainly not I who am redefining orthodoxy since my position has long been recognized as orthodoxy in all of church history and is that of the position of the Apostles. So in short, you are not orthodox according to the long agreement of the church and the position taken in Scripture.

In other words, no, I'm not what you call an orthodox Christian, and I don't care much, because I'm more concerned about the Church's defintion, by which I am one.

Ah, so we are in agreement that the Church's definition of orthodoxy is! Did you mean the current demonination you are involved in, or the actual history of the Church in the last, say, 2,000 years?

Christianity is bigger than that twentieth century upstart Fundamentalism, thank God.

I agree completely. However, you mistakenly assume that I am some kind of "fundie" because I accept inerrancy and recognize the Scriptures to clearly be what they are: the "Word of God." I am a Reformer in the reformed tradition. See the Calvinist icon on all of my posts.

 

[herev]

And I cannot take seriously someone who claims to subscribe to biblical Creeds and then says this. Both inerrancy and identification of Scripture as the "Word of God" are borne out in the historical confessions and in the Scripture itself, including the words of Christ Jesus, whom you claim to follow. It is most certainly not I who am redefining orthodoxy since my position has long been recognized as orthodoxy in all of church history and is that of the position of the Apostles. So in short, you are not orthodox according to the long agreement of the church and the position taken in Scripture.

Ah, so we are in agreement that the Church's definition of orthodoxy is! Did you mean the current demonination you are involved in, or the actual history of the Church in the last, say, 2,000 years?

underline, bold, larger print--added by me for emphasis:

"Creationists present themselves as the true bearers and present-day representatives of authentic, traditional Christianity, but historically speaking this is simply not true (Ruse 1988, 2001, 2003; Numbers 1992; McMullin 1985). The Bible has a major place in the life of any Christian, but it is not the case that the Bible taken literally has always had a major place in the lives or theology of Christians. For most, indeed, it has not (Turner 2002). Tradition, the teachings and authority of the church, has always had main status for Catholics, and natural religion — approaching God through reason and argument — has long had an honored place for both Catholics and Protestants. Catholics, especially dating back to Saint Augustine around 400 AD, and even to earlier thinkers like Origen, have always recognized that at times the Bible needs to be taken metaphorically or allegorically. Augustine was particularly sensitive to this need, because for many years as a young man he was a Manichean and hence denied the authenticity and relevance of the Old Testament for salvation. When he became a Christian he knew full well the problems of Genesis and hence was eager to help his fellow believers from getting ensnared in the traps of literalism.

It was not until the Protestant Reformation that the Bible started to take on its unique central position, as the great Reformers — especially Luther and Calvin — stressed the need to go by scripture alone and not by the baroque traditions of the Catholic Church. But even they were doubtful about totally literalistic readings. For Luther, justification by faith was the keystone of his theology, and yet the Epistle of Saint James seems to put greater stress on the need for good works. He [Luther] referred to it as ‘right strawy stuff.’ Calvin likewise spoke of the need for God to accommodate His writings to the untutored public — especially the ancient Jews — and hence of the dangers of taking the Bible too literally in an uncritical sense. The radical branch of the Reformation under Zwingli always put primacy on God's speaking directly to us through the heart, and to this day one finds modern-day representatives like the Quakers uncomfortable with too-biblically centered an approach to religion.
It was after the revivals of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century in Britain and America — revivals that led to such sects as the Methodists — that a more full-blooded literalism became a major part of the religious scene. In America particularly literalism took hold, and especially after the Civil War, it took root in the evangelical sects — especially Baptists — of the South (Numbers 1998). It became part of the defining culture of the South, having as much a role in opposing ideas and influences of the North as anything rooted in deeply thought-through theology. Creationism started to become more than just a local phenomenon in the early part of the twentieth century, thanks to a number of factors. First, there were the first systematic attempts to work out a position that would take account of modern science as well as just a literal reading of Genesis. Particularly important in this respect were the Seventh Day Adventists, especially the Canadian-born George McCready Price, who had theological reasons for wanting literalism, not the least being the belief that the Seventh Day — the day of rest — is literally twenty-four hours in length. (Also important for the Adventists and for other dispensationalists, that is people who think that Armageddon is on its way, is the balancing and complementary early phenomenon of a world-wide flood.) Second, there was the realized energy of evangelicals as they succeeded in their attempts to prohibit liquor in the United States. Flushed from one victory, they looked for other fields to conquer. Third there was the spread of public education, and more children being exposed to evolutionary ideas, bringing on a Creationist reaction. Fourth, there were new evangelical currents afloat, especially the tracts the Fundamentals that gave the literalist movement its name. And fifth, there was the identification of evolution — Darwinism particularly — with the militaristic aspects of Social Darwinism, especially the Social Darwinism supposed embraced by the Germans in the First World War (Larson 1997)."
SOURCE:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/#1

so, to claim YEC as THE historical position of the church is dangerously misleading.

 

[Vance]

By the way, Adam, did you happen to notice Calvin's stand on geocentrism?

 

[adam149]

You have been bamboozled, my friend. Irrespective of what origins position you believe, what you just quoted is not borne out by known historical fact.

1. The Bible was accepted as authoritative on all things from before the completion of the New Testement and has been looked upon as inerrent since that time. Ruse is a militant anti-creationist who has a large axe to grind against it. Numbers, while interesting and perhaps a little less militant is unfortunately completely inaccurate in his contention that the 7th Day Adventists were behind flood geology and "literalism" and very biased against creationists (see Andrews, E., 1995, Origins, 8(20):21-23 for a complete response). Price did NOT start creationism, it has been around since the closing of New Testement cannon.

2. I have told you before that I am not a "literalist." I agree with Augustine and Origen that at times the Bible should be taken metaphorically or allegorically. Your source merely assumes that this is a powerful blow against "those darned literalist fundies" when it actually supports my position. The context and authoral intention and style of writing determines which a given passage is. Genesis is borne out to be historical and "literal." There is no textual evidence to indicate otherwise, and all of the divinely-inspired authors took it to be as such.

3. Your source makes the mistake of generalizing church history. It is complex. No one is saying that all theologians in church history have believed in a literal genesis, but that this is the position that the majority have.

4. Augustine argued that God had created in an instant, not six days. This is no help for long agers. Furthermore, he could not read hebrew or greek so there is no reason to believe him on this issue.

5. The vast majority of early church fathers supported the idea of ordinary days. Take table 3.3 from http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm. Most of those in the "uncertain" column either never addressed the issue or their writings have been lost.

6. I agree with Calvin and Luther that complete literalism is bad. See Point 2. THis has no bearing on whether we should take Genesis literally. Both the above-mentioned men agreed that we should.

7. Luther's comment about James being "right strawy stuff" is a misapplication of Luther's attitude. He did not say it in relation to it's apparent "works-righteousness" (which we shall get to) but rather because it "did not witness to Christ in the Pauline manner." (Laymon, C.M., The Interpreter's one-volume Commentary on the Bible, Abingdon Press, pg. 916)

8. A superficial reading of James disallows the claims of your source. They write about James as if it disproves (or at least contradicts) justification by faith. THis is absolutely not so! James is saying rather that faith and righteousness produce good works; or put another way, the more a person tries to be like Christ, the more outwardly you will behave as such (as much as an imperfect and fallen being can, of course). Thus it compliments and not contradicts justification by faith. Furthermore, James talks more about works because the epistle is a moral exhortation. "The letter is no such theological treatise. It is rather a collection of moral exhortations . . . . The practice of the Christian life is the author's subject. To this end he compiles a collection of teachings to give specific directions to Christians: things they should do or not do, attitudes they should adopt, and others they should reject. . . .its purpose [is] practical." (Laymon, C.M., above citation in Point 7, pg. 916).

9. Contrary to their assertion that YEC began in after the revivals of the 18th and 19th centuries, most of the church fathers believed in a young earth. See Table 3.4 from the link in Point 5, which is a list of some of those early church fathers who believed in a young earth.

10. YOur source suggests that the need for literalism in genesis was for their eschatological system. Again, we now know that a historical interpretation of Genesis came long before the rise of dispensationalism and 7th-Day Aventistism in the 1700s. However, church history shows us that the belief in a future universal judgement, resurrection of the quick and the dead, and the Second Advent of Christ are futuristic. Scripture supports this. It also supports the orthodox preterist contention that most other prophesy was fulfilled in AD 70 with Christ's judgement against Israel for rejecting their Messiah, but that is for a different board. It suggests that the reason they believed in the global flood was because of their eschatological system, but this too is clearly wrong (see Table 6.1 fromhttp://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter6.htm)

The flood was regarded as global since at least the time of Moses, and probably before.

For extensive documentation and discussion of the beliefs of the early church, see Creationism and the Early Church, http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Contents.htm

We can clearly see that it is those who claim the below who are being dangerously misleading.

​

underline, bold, larger print--added by me for emphasis:

"Creationists present themselves as the true bearers and present-day representatives of authentic, traditional Christianity, but historically speaking this is simply not true (Ruse 1988, 2001, 2003; Numbers 1992; McMullin 1985). The Bible has a major place in the life of any Christian, but it is not the case that the Bible taken literally has always had a major place in the lives or theology of Christians. For most, indeed, it has not (Turner 2002). Tradition, the teachings and authority of the church, has always had main status for Catholics, and natural religion — approaching God through reason and argument — has long had an honored place for both Catholics and Protestants. Catholics, especially dating back to Saint Augustine around 400 AD, and even to earlier thinkers like Origen, have always recognized that at times the Bible needs to be taken metaphorically or allegorically. Augustine was particularly sensitive to this need, because for many years as a young man he was a Manichean and hence denied the authenticity and relevance of the Old Testament for salvation. When he became a Christian he knew full well the problems of Genesis and hence was eager to help his fellow believers from getting ensnared in the traps of literalism.

It was not until the Protestant Reformation that the Bible started to take on its unique central position, as the great Reformers — especially Luther and Calvin — stressed the need to go by scripture alone and not by the baroque traditions of the Catholic Church. But even they were doubtful about totally literalistic readings. For Luther, justification by faith was the keystone of his theology, and yet the Epistle of Saint James seems to put greater stress on the need for good works. He [Luther] referred to it as ‘right strawy stuff.’ Calvin likewise spoke of the need for God to accommodate His writings to the untutored public — especially the ancient Jews — and hence of the dangers of taking the Bible too literally in an uncritical sense. The radical branch of the Reformation under Zwingli always put primacy on God's speaking directly to us through the heart, and to this day one finds modern-day representatives like the Quakers uncomfortable with too-biblically centered an approach to religion.
It was after the revivals of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century in Britain and America — revivals that led to such sects as the Methodists — that a more full-blooded literalism became a major part of the religious scene. In America particularly literalism took hold, and especially after the Civil War, it took root in the evangelical sects — especially Baptists — of the South (Numbers 1998). It became part of the defining culture of the South, having as much a role in opposing ideas and influences of the North as anything rooted in deeply thought-through theology. Creationism started to become more than just a local phenomenon in the early part of the twentieth century, thanks to a number of factors. First, there were the first systematic attempts to work out a position that would take account of modern science as well as just a literal reading of Genesis. Particularly important in this respect were the Seventh Day Adventists, especially the Canadian-born George McCready Price, who had theological reasons for wanting literalism, not the least being the belief that the Seventh Day — the day of rest — is literally twenty-four hours in length. (Also important for the Adventists and for other dispensationalists, that is people who think that Armageddon is on its way, is the balancing and complementary early phenomenon of a world-wide flood.) Second, there was the realized energy of evangelicals as they succeeded in their attempts to prohibit liquor in the United States. Flushed from one victory, they looked for other fields to conquer. Third there was the spread of public education, and more children being exposed to evolutionary ideas, bringing on a Creationist reaction. Fourth, there were new evangelical currents afloat, especially the tracts the Fundamentals that gave the literalist movement its name. And fifth, there was the identification of evolution — Darwinism particularly — with the militaristic aspects of Social Darwinism, especially the Social Darwinism supposed embraced by the Germans in the First World War (Larson 1997)."
SOURCE:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/#1
so, to claim YEC as THE historical position of the church is dangerously misleading.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i beg to differ with you on the historicity of the English term inerrant.

Warfield is perhaps it's strongest defenders, although i wouldn't quibble if you thought the Hodge's. However before them the term is consistently infallible not inerrant. Since the term inerrant has become aligned with the "inerrancy of the parts" while "infalliblity of the whole" as in infallible in matters of faith and practice, there is a define difference between the terms as currently used.

i would be interested in pre-Warfield defenses of inerrancy that you are aware of, especially if they use infallible and inerrant in different ways.

it is not the topic of this thread however. perhaps we can take this aside to a new thread.

 

[adam149]

By the way, Adam, did you happen to notice Calvin's stand on geocentrism?

Yes, I am attempting to track down the source to check it out. I would also be interested in finding some cross-references.

As a Calvinist, I'm not required to adhere to every last thing Calvin said in his lifetime, only the five points of his theology. He made no mention of geocentrism in his Institutes either, so he didn't think it very important.

 

[adam149]

i beg to differ with you on the historicity of the English term inerrant.

Warfield is perhaps it's strongest defenders, although i wouldn't quibble if you thought the Hodge's. However before them the term is consistently infallible not inerrant. Since the term inerrant has become aligned with the "inerrancy of the parts" while "infalliblity of the whole" as in infallible in matters of faith and practice, there is a define difference between the terms as currently used.

i would be interested in pre-Warfield defenses of inerrancy that you are aware of, especially if they use infallible and inerrant in different ways.

I was using the term "inerrent" as a composite term that meant "God-breathed, inspired, inerrent, and infallible." I probably shouldn't have, but I haven't unfortunately read that much of either Warfield or Hodge. THere are too many books in the world that I want to read! Maybe heaven will have a complete library!

it is not the topic of this thread however. perhaps we can take this aside to a new thread.

Agreed. It might be better suited in the reformed board?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Now least either I or Calvin be wrongfully accused of an anti-scientific attitude, i'd like to quote from his commentary on Genesis:

[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-cvgenesis.html index for commentary]
[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-01/cvgn1-03.txt this verse]

15. "Let them be for lights." It is well again to repeat what I have said
before, that it is not here philosophically discussed, how great the sun
is in the heaven, and how great, or how little, is the moon; but how much
light comes to us from them. For Moses here addresses himself to our
senses, that the knowledge of the gifts of God which we enjoy may not
glide away. Therefore, in order to apprehend the meaning of Moses, it is
to no purpose to soar above the heavens; let us only open our eyes to
behold this light which God enkindles for us in the earth. By this method
(as I have before observed) the dishonesty of those men is sufficiently
rebuked, who censure Moses for not speaking with greater exactness. For
as it became a theologian, he had respect to us rather than to the stars.
Nor, in truth, was he ignorant of the fact, that the moon had not
sufficient brightness to enlighten the earth, unless it borrowed from the
sun; but he deemed it enough to declare what we all may plainly perceive,
that the moon is a dispenser of light to us. That it is, as the
astronomers assert, an opaque body, I allow to be true, while I deny it
to be a dark body. For, first, since it is placed above the element of
fire, it must of necessity be a fiery body. Hence it follows, that it is
also luminous; but seeing that it has not light sufficient to penetrate
to us, it borrows what is wanting from the sun. He calls it a "lesser
light" by comparison; because the portion of light which it emits to us
is small compared with the infinite splendour of the sun.

16. "The greater light." I have said, that Moses does not here subtilely
descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in
these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the
planets and stars; but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and, at
the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the
firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by
conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great
distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies
the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without
instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to
understand; but astronomers investigate with great labour whatever the
sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is
not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some
frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them.
For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it
cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God.
Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honoured who have expended useful
labour on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not
to neglect this kind of exercise. Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us
from this pursuit in omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but
because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of
the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending
to this grosser method of instruction. Had he spoken of things generally
unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects
were beyond their capacity. Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a
common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose
those subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer
inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the
moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the
sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his
discourse to common usage. For since the Lord stretches forth, as it
were, his hand to us in causing us to enjoy the brightness of the sun and
moon, how great would be our ingratitude were we to close our eyes
against our own experience? There is therefore no reason why janglers
should deride the unskilfulness of Moses in making the moon the second
luminary; for he does not call us up into heaven, he only proposes things
which lie open before our eyes. Let the astronomers possess their more
exalted knowledge; but, in the meantime, they who perceive by the moon
the splendour of night, are convicted by its use of perverse ingratitude
unless they acknowledge the beneficence of God.
"To rule". He does not ascribe such dominion to the sun and moon as
shall, in the least degree, diminish the power of God; but because the
sun, in half the circuit of heaven, governs the day, and the moon the
night, by turns; he therefore assigns to them a kind of government. Yet
let us remember, that it is such a government as implies that the sun is
still a servant, and the moon a handmaid. In the meantime, we dismiss the
reverie of Plato who ascribes reason and intelligence to the stars. Let
us be content with this simple exposition, that God governs the days and
nights by the ministry of the sun and moon, because he has them as his
charioteers to convey light suited to the season.
------

2. The work of the six days show God's goodness toward men

With the same view Moses relates that the work of creation was accomplished not in one moment, but in six days. By this statement we are drawn away from fiction to the one God who thus divided his work into six days, that we may have no reluctance to devote our whole lives to the contemplation of it. For though our eyes, in what direction soever they turn, are forced to behold the works of God, we see how fleeting our attention is, and holy quickly pious thoughts, if any arise, vanish away. Here, too, objection is taken to these progressive steps as inconsistent with the power of God, until human reason is subdued to the obedience of faith, and learns to welcome the calm quiescence to which the sanctification of the seventh day invited us. In the very order of events, we ought diligently to ponder on the paternal goodness of God toward the human race, in not creating Adam until he had liberally enriched the earth with all good things. Had he placed him on an earth barren and unfurnished; had he given life before light, he might have seemed to pay little regard to his interest. But now that he has arranged the motions of the sun and stars for man's use, has replenished the air, earth, and water, with living creatures, and produced all kinds of fruit in abundance for the supply of food, by performing the office of a provident and industrious head of a family, he has shown his wondrous goodness toward us. These subjects, which I only briefly touch, if more attentively pondered, will make it manifest that Moses was a sure witness and herald of the one only Creator. I do not repeat what I have already explained, viz., that mention is here made not of the bare essence of God, but that his eternal Wisdom and Spirit are also set before us, in order that we may not dream of any other God than Him who desires to be recognised in that express image.

from: http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/lesson6_essay.html

 

[herev]

You have been bamboozled, my friend. Irrespective of what origins position you believe, what you just quoted is not borne out by known historical fact.

1. The Bible was accepted as authoritative on all things from before the completion of the New Testement and has been looked upon as inerrent since that time. Ruse is a militant anti-creationist who has a large axe to grind against it. Numbers, while interesting and perhaps a little less militant is unfortunately completely inaccurate in his contention that the 7th Day Adventists were behind flood geology and "literalism" and very biased against creationists (see Andrews, E., 1995, Origins, 8(20):21-23 for a complete response). Price did NOT start creationism, it has been around since the closing of New Testement cannon.

2. I have told you before that I am not a "literalist." I agree with Augustine and Origen that at times the Bible should be taken metaphorically or allegorically. Your source merely assumes that this is a powerful blow against "those darned literalist fundies" when it actually supports my position. The context and authoral intention and style of writing determines which a given passage is. Genesis is borne out to be historical and "literal." There is no textual evidence to indicate otherwise, and all of the divinely-inspired authors took it to be as such.

3. Your source makes the mistake of generalizing church history. It is complex. No one is saying that all theologians in church history have believed in a literal genesis, but that this is the position that the majority have.

4. Augustine argued that God had created in an instant, not six days. This is no help for long agers. Furthermore, he could not read hebrew or greek so there is no reason to believe him on this issue.

5. The vast majority of early church fathers supported the idea of ordinary days. Take table 3.3 from http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm. Most of those in the "uncertain" column either never addressed the issue or their writings have been lost.

6. I agree with Calvin and Luther that complete literalism is bad. See Point 2. THis has no bearing on whether we should take Genesis literally. Both the above-mentioned men agreed that we should.

7. Luther's comment about James being "right strawy stuff" is a misapplication of Luther's attitude. He did not say it in relation to it's apparent "works-righteousness" (which we shall get to) but rather because it "did not witness to Christ in the Pauline manner." (Laymon, C.M., The Interpreter's one-volume Commentary on the Bible, Abingdon Press, pg. 916)

8. A superficial reading of James disallows the claims of your source. They write about James as if it disproves (or at least contradicts) justification by faith. THis is absolutely not so! James is saying rather that faith and righteousness produce good works; or put another way, the more a person tries to be like Christ, the more outwardly you will behave as such (as much as an imperfect and fallen being can, of course). Thus it compliments and not contradicts justification by faith. Furthermore, James talks more about works because the epistle is a moral exhortation. "The letter is no such theological treatise. It is rather a collection of moral exhortations . . . . The practice of the Christian life is the author's subject. To this end he compiles a collection of teachings to give specific directions to Christians: things they should do or not do, attitudes they should adopt, and others they should reject. . . .its purpose [is] practical." (Laymon, C.M., above citation in Point 7, pg. 916).

9. Contrary to their assertion that YEC began in after the revivals of the 18th and 19th centuries, most of the church fathers believed in a young earth. See Table 3.4 from the link in Point 5, which is a list of some of those early church fathers who believed in a young earth.

10. YOur source suggests that the need for literalism in genesis was for their eschatological system. Again, we now know that a historical interpretation of Genesis came long before the rise of dispensationalism and 7th-Day Aventistism in the 1700s. However, church history shows us that the belief in a future universal judgement, resurrection of the quick and the dead, and the Second Advent of Christ are futuristic. Scripture supports this. It also supports the orthodox preterist contention that most other prophesy was fulfilled in AD 70 with Christ's judgement against Israel for rejecting their Messiah, but that is for a different board. It suggests that the reason they believed in the global flood was because of their eschatological system, but this too is clearly wrong (see Table 6.1 fromhttp://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter6.htm)

The flood was regarded as global since at least the time of Moses, and probably before.

For extensive documentation and discussion of the beliefs of the early church, see Creationism and the Early Church, http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Contents.htm

We can clearly see that it is those who claim the below who are being dangerously misleading.

But you will notice the closing statement that I made. I said: "so, to claim YEC as THE historical position of the church is dangerously misleading."
Notice the capital THE. You have suggested that the position was uniform and held by nearly everyone in the early church. I am merely pointing out that there were other views. The views on a non-literal interpretation of Genesis creation accounts were around long before Darwin. It has been suggested repeatedly that evolution has been the downfall of Biblical exegesis in Genesis, but these early church fathers (some whom I believe to be in this category were quoted by your source as being unclear) demonstrate that one can hold to a non-literal interpretation can also hold to the creeds which you said were dependent on a literal viewpoint--it is not.

 

[Vance]

Augustine also believed in a non-literal reading of Genesis and in a form of evolution of life on earth, rather than just simple creation. More importantly is his solid recognition of the stumbling block factor I have been pointing out. I will bump that thread up again since his statements are now in issue again.

 

[GodSaves]

Are you suggesting that we should believe Augustine over Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ said that the woman was made out of the man and for this reason man and woman will reunite as husband and wife. But of course evolutionary scientists say this is not so, so we must believe them and not Christ? Is this what you infer? Or maybe that part of the Gospel was allegorical as well?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Why do you accept evolution over creationism Karl?

The evidence, the whole evidence, and nothing but the evidence.

 

[artybloke]

Jesus Christ said that the woman was made out of the man and for this reason man and woman will reunite as husband and wife.

Jesus was using an analogy, as any preacher would. He was taking an image from a story that was well-known to the hearers and using it as an image they would have been familiar with. He was doing no more than someone who says that Arnold Shwarzeneggar has a "Herculean" physique. That says nothing for or against the existence of Hercules himself, and neither does Jesus' use of rhetoric here.

Besides which, how would he know if Adam and Eve existed? If you claim that Jesus had some kind of knowledge that the people of his time didn't, then you compromise the incarnation; if Jesus knew everything, then he couldn't possibly be fully human. And if he wasn't fully human, from the tip of his toes to the neuro-transmitors in his brain, he couldn't save us. That makes him merely a divine being that looks human, and that cannot save us. In fact, it's heresy. What is not assumed is not redeemed.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The irony is, Artybloke, that there's generally more than a whiff of both Nestorianism and Docetism on CF.

 

[GodSaves]

Jesus was using an analogy, as any preacher would. He was taking an image from a story that was well-known to the hearers and using it as an image they would have been familiar with. He was doing no more than someone who says that Arnold Shwarzeneggar has a "Herculean" physique. That says nothing for or against the existence of Hercules himself, and neither does Jesus' use of rhetoric here.

Besides which, how would he know if Adam and Eve existed? If you claim that Jesus had some kind of knowledge that the people of his time didn't, then you compromise the incarnation; if Jesus knew everything, then he couldn't possibly be fully human. And if he wasn't fully human, from the tip of his toes to the neuro-transmitors in his brain, he couldn't save us. That makes him merely a divine being that looks human, and that cannot save us. In fact, it's heresy. What is not assumed is not redeemed.

Whoa!!! Ok, so you are basically saying in the first sentence above, how could Jesus Christ, who is God Himself, know if Adam and Eve existed??? God created through Jesus Christ, maybe you missed that in the Bible.

Have we just hit the core of the problem? Maybe I am completely wrong in reading this, but this looks to me like this: A Christian has just said how could Jesus Christ, LORD and Saviour, God Himself, know anything more then the men of His time. How could Jesus Christ, the Messiah, be more then human. If Jesus Christ is God Himself then no matter if He humbled Himself by coming in human form, He is still God Himself. Yet, what about the miracles, walking on water, raising the dead, did just anyone do these in those days? Is saying Jesus Christ is God Himself, just heresay????????? And if Jesus CHrist is God Himself and was in human form, you say how can He save us?? And you ask why some have questioned your faith....

One would get from your post that if Jesus was God, then He could not have saved us by dying on the cross. So this infers that a mere man, nothing more, could save us from sin. Not God who humbled Himself to come in human form.

I am sorry, we are on a Christian forum and I am blown away that a theistic evolutionists who says he is a Christian is question the divinity of Jesus Christ. Now you wonder why creationists worry about theistic evolutionists.

May the LORD help you.

 

[Vance]

Whoa!!! Ok, so you are basically saying in the first sentence above, how could Jesus Christ, who is God Himself, know if Adam and Eve existed??? God created through Jesus Christ, maybe you missed that in the Bible.

Have we just hit the core of the problem? Maybe I am completely wrong in reading this, but this looks to me like this: A Christian has just said how could Jesus Christ, LORD and Saviour, God Himself, know anything more then the men of His time. How could Jesus Christ, the Messiah, be more then human. If Jesus Christ is God Himself then no matter if He humbled Himself by coming in human form, He is still God Himself. Yet, what about the miracles, walking on water, raising the dead, did just anyone do these in those days? Is saying Jesus Christ is God Himself, just heresay????????? And if Jesus CHrist is God Himself and was in human form, you say how can He save us?? And you ask why some have questioned your faith....

One would get from your post that if Jesus was God, then He could not have saved us by dying on the cross. So this infers that a mere man, nothing more, could save us from sin. Not God who humbled Himself to come in human form.

I am sorry, we are on a Christian forum and I am blown away that a theistic evolutionists who says he is a Christian is question the divinity of Jesus Christ. Now you wonder why creationists worry about theistic evolutionists.

May the LORD help you.

Um, yes, you did read it wrong.

Read it again carefully. He made no statement that Jesus did not know something. Only that He chose to use the allegorical language of Genesis to make a point in a current sermon.

 

[Remus]

Besides which, how would he know if Adam and Eve existed? If you claim that Jesus had some kind of knowledge that the people of his time didn't, then you compromise the incarnation; if Jesus knew everything, then he couldn't possibly be fully human.

Luke 10:18 does say

And He said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

This tells me that he had some kind of knowledge that others did not.