Should we not be seeking unity?

[Vance]

The evangelist who preached in our church yesterday spoke on the need for unity within the Church on all those things which are essential to the faith and the presentation of the Gospel to a lost and dying world. He talked about how the Church has historically and in modern times, focused on those areas in which the various denominations are divided, rather than focusing on the basic things we have in common (the Gospel message).

And this is what I have been trying to get across for a VERY long time now. This entire modern Creationist movement is simply a massive focus on something that is a divisive issue, not a "basic, essential issue" which we all can agree on and which will help us spread the Gospel message. No matter how much Creationists think that they are right, this is simply NOT the issue to be fighting about. It is a minor, tangential, debatable-but-not-doctrinally-important, issue. It is NOT something to have money-making ministries about, seminars, books and websites promoting. It is most definitely NOT something to dogmatically assert in a way that ends up becoming the "face" of Christianity today.

Those of us who accept evolution as simply the means by which God created are not out there preaching this in the churches, developing ministries and asking for donations. We are not trying to sell lecture series and books. We are simply trying to show that this issue is NOT one that needs to be divisive. It is one of those issues that Christians should decide for themselves and not worry and fret over. Interesting, yes. An area for discussion and even debate, yes. But one to teach and preach dogmatically?

Again, what is wrong with just saying:

"You know, it doesn't really matter. The Bible is still correct, regardless of the exact timing and procedure of the Creation process. I believe the earth is young and that all the species were created at once over six 24 hour days because I think the text is literal. But, I realize this is not the only possible reading, and other Christians DO read it differently, and so conclude that the earth is billions of years old and God created using evolutionary processes. It really doesn't matter. Scripture is true either way, and none of it is a salvation issue, and should not be a stumbling block to anyone."

 

[Remus]

Personally, I have no problem standing beside TE’s when it comes to salvation. If that’s what it takes for someone to come to Christ, then it’s all well and good. Personally, I don’t think it’s a safe position, but to each his/her own. However; if you want unity, then the first thing you have to do is stop attacking my position. You say that you are against the dogma, but then you go off and start threads where you attempt to “disprove” YEC’ism. You continually speak in general terms and when challenge, you fall back to the dogma argument. Speaking for myself, if you want unity, then you’ll have to stop undermining unity.

 

[Vance]

This forum is specifically set up to discuss this issue, and so it is the appropriate place for Christians to discuss and debate the pros and cons of which view of origins has the most validity theologically, literarily, scientifically, etc. The debate is not harmful, as long as both side say that this is NOT a salvation issue, it is not an issue that should be a stumbling-block to anyone. We can debate it like we would debate infant baptism or predestination or transubstantiation, etc, etc.

But, that is NOT what many YEC's are saying (even though it is exactly what every TE on this board is saying). Look at the threads in which I propose that people be willing to say exactly that, and I get VERY few YEC's willing to buy into that idea. So, even here you will have YEC's who do not just debate the points in favor and against each position, but insist on the dogmatic "either/or" presentation of their theory.

More importantly, I am talking about all the YEC "ministries" out there, which are MAKING this a dramatic issue in the Church today. Not long ago, the pastor at my church preached an entire message on it, and we have had seminars and lecture series given to our youth. We have groups trying to get Creationism taught in schools as a science. All of this begins to equate "Christianity" with "Creationism" in a way that is not necessary, useful or productive to the Gospel, as compared to the division it creates not to mention the possible damage it can do to the spreading of that Gospel. A lot of downside, very little upside.

 

[mhess13]

I personally don't want unity with TEs. I won't sacrife doctrine just to get along.
Theistic Evolution puts our savior Jesus Christ when He became human --umpeteen generations from "ape-like". This is a disgusting thing to do to our savior, put him in the image of a ape! The Godman having a common anscestor with an ape! shame, shame, shame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shame on theistic evolution!

 

[Calminian]

This has to be a joke. You want unity with the very ones you believe are destroying the lives of christians? I'd actually like more unity on the essentials but that would make quite an interesting relationship.

"Hey brother how are you? Destroyed any lives today with YEC teachings?"

Very strange indeed! One of the most most disingenuous posts I've ever seen.

 

[Vance]

This has to be a joke. You want unity with the very ones you believe are destroying the lives of christians? I'd actually like more unity on the essentials but that would make quite an interesting relationship.

"Hey brother how are you? Destroyed any lives today with YEC teachings?"

Very strange indeed! One of the most most disingenuous posts I've ever seen.

No, not at all. My point is not unity in the social interaction level (which would be a nice end result, however), but unity of the presentation of the Gospel message! We should not be out there elevating these minor, side issues to the level of "Christianity-identifying" ones, which is exactly many what YEC's have done. I have no problem with anyone believing in YEC'ism, but unity of purpose AND the ultimate message can be the positive end result if Christians turn their energies to the presentation of the Gospel, Jesus crucified, and leave these issues to specialized discussion as we have in this type of forum.

 

[vossler]

No matter how much Creationists think that they are right, this is simply NOT the issue to be fighting about. It is a minor, tangential, debatable-but-not-doctrinally-important, issue. It is NOT something to have money-making ministries about, seminars, books and websites promoting. It is most definitely NOT something to dogmatically assert in a way that ends up becoming the "face" of Christianity today.

Those of us who accept evolution as simply the means by which God created are not out there preaching this in the churches, developing ministries and asking for donations. We are not trying to sell lecture series and books. We are simply trying to show that this issue is NOT one that needs to be divisive. It is one of those issues that Christians should decide for themselves and not worry and fret over. Interesting, yes. An area for discussion and even debate, yes. But one to teach and preach dogmatically?

More importantly, I am talking about all the YEC "ministries" out there, which are MAKING this a dramatic issue in the Church today. Not long ago, the pastor at my church preached an entire message on it, and we have had seminars and lecture series given to our youth. We have groups trying to get Creationism taught in schools as a science. All of this begins to equate "Christianity" with "Creationism" in a way that is not necessary, useful or productive to the Gospel, as compared to the division it creates not to mention the possible damage it can do to the spreading of that Gospel. A lot of downside, very little upside.

Vance, it's very easy to portray this as AiG (and other YEC ministries) being dogmatic and dramatic about something that, in your view, of the overall scheme of things isn't all that important. Let me tell you about someone I go to church with and how he thinks. He, btw, is a big Hugh Ross supporter who financially supports his ministry. Anyway, he is divorced and lives apart from his children. His ex-wife is sending their kids to a Christian school that teaches creationism. He is absolutely livid about that and would rather his kids go to a public school than be taught such heresy. So it's not as one-sided as you would like us to think.

No I'm not going to say that TEs are just as dogmatic as YECs, although if one hangs around here for long you might just think otherwise. But to portray the issue as a non-issue isn't right either. Remember, the primary enemies of AiG and similar ministries are the evolutionists and other atheists who contend that we all materialized out of nothing. Unfortunately, it just so happens that TEs have sided more with the opposite side and have thereby had to endure some of the same dogmatic and dramatic responses to which you refer.

Rather than speak for all YECs I'll just give my own specific view of this issue. I believe Genesis to be the foundational book of the Bible. If we, as Christians, can't agree on what it says then how are we to (with the Holy Spirit's assistance) ever to enlighten a lost soul who has some very basic and foundational questions? If we allow multiple interpretations of Genesis, then why not have multiple interpretations of salvation or anything else which is really important.

I look at it a lot like a house. When we live in a house we rarely if ever think about the foundation, it's just there. Yet the temperature within the house, electricity, and water which we use daily are all things that have a here and now significance. They are important!

Now if a crack were to form in the foundation we probably wouldn't be too concerned at first, but would monitor it until it became a threat to the rest of the house. That's how I see billions of years and evolution, as potential threats to the Gospel.

 

[Vance]

Yes, yes, I agree that we should be preaching a united message even about Genesis! So, what is it that we ALL agree about the Creation stories? Well, not surprisingly, it is what is MOST IMPORTANT about the Creation stories: God created it all, He did so with a purpose, He created Man in His image, etc, etc. What I am advocating is that we unite on these points and preach out against the true enemies of the Creation story: those who teach that it all happened without God. We all agree that naturalistic philosophy is wrong, whether we accept evolution and an old earth or not.

All Christians should be united in saying that, regardless of whether evolution is true or whether it all happened in six days 6,000 years ago, these essential messages in Genesis are STILL TRUE and real and trustworthy. We might still disagree among ourselves regarding which is the better reading of Scripture, the better theology, etc. in forums like this, but we are not compromising what we all agree are the true essentials by these internal wranglings.

 

[vossler]

On the surface everything you just said is true and something we should all be pursuing. In fact, it even appears to unite us all under one banner. Truly an admirable quest. Yet, I'm still concerned and a bit torn.

Hebrews 4:12 states: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

When I read that and ask myself how I'm to interpret certain scriptures like Genesis I can only go with what the very marrow of my heart is convicted of. Without any shadow of a doubt I believe in six literal 24 hour days and if someone were to categorically prove to me that it wasn't so but was in fact billions of years it would shake me to my core. If something that is, to me, as simple and straight-forward as Genesis can be changed completely then I would have to ask myself how many other books or scriptures are now also up for possible reinterpretation.

I've been pierced by the Word and I can't compromise.

 

[SBG]

The evangelist who preached in our church yesterday spoke on the need for unity within the Church on all those things which are essential to the faith and the presentation of the Gospel to a lost and dying world. He talked about how the Church has historically and in modern times, focused on those areas in which the various denominations are divided, rather than focusing on the basic things we have in common (the Gospel message).

And this is what I have been trying to get across for a VERY long time now. This entire modern Creationist movement is simply a massive focus on something that is a divisive issue, not a "basic, essential issue" which we all can agree on and which will help us spread the Gospel message. No matter how much Creationists think that they are right, this is simply NOT the issue to be fighting about. It is a minor, tangential, debatable-but-not-doctrinally-important, issue. It is NOT something to have money-making ministries about, seminars, books and websites promoting. It is most definitely NOT something to dogmatically assert in a way that ends up becoming the "face" of Christianity today.

Those of us who accept evolution as simply the means by which God created are not out there preaching this in the churches, developing ministries and asking for donations. We are not trying to sell lecture series and books. We are simply trying to show that this issue is NOT one that needs to be divisive. It is one of those issues that Christians should decide for themselves and not worry and fret over. Interesting, yes. An area for discussion and even debate, yes. But one to teach and preach dogmatically?

Again, what is wrong with just saying:

"You know, it doesn't really matter. The Bible is still correct, regardless of the exact timing and procedure of the Creation process. I believe the earth is young and that all the species were created at once over six 24 hour days because I think the text is literal. But, I realize this is not the only possible reading, and other Christians DO read it differently, and so conclude that the earth is billions of years old and God created using evolutionary processes. It really doesn't matter. Scripture is true either way, and none of it is a salvation issue, and should not be a stumbling block to anyone."

I see it as such. The Church Fathers, Apostles and Jesus Christ taught creation not evolution. Paul and many of the Church Fathers attacked views that said the world is very very old, the earth spontaneously producing,and the local flood. Clement of Rome really went on the attack against the Greeks preaching that Genesis was literal history and to understand Scripture as it was meant to be understood was to believe as such. Clement of Rome was an associate of the Apostles Paul and learned a great deal from Paul. In Acts we can see how Paul felt on this subject.

In your statement above that you have posted so many times, I feel you are tying to shove it down my throat, I will not agree with. I value good theology and sound doctrine too much to just throw it into the wind.

By your statement above, you asking me to take a position that puts me in opposition with all of the early Church back to Jesus Christ. You are asking me to disagree with God and preach that He is wrong. That He needs to have our understanding and knowledge today to see how wrong He is. Jesus doesn't know science is one of the saddess attempts I have seen here by Christians to discredit Jesus being God. As if Jesus lacked understanding of the Scriptures that came from His mouth.

If you want to preach Jesus Christ crucified anytime in your future, then I no problem being in unity. But if you rather on this crusade, where you want people to compromise on Scripture with the world, ask me to stand and say it is ok to read the Bible however we wish and still be correct... don't even look to me to side with you.

For where ever you try and preach God's word can be understood in such a fashion, I will be to tell you, you are in error. You are teaching a theology where the reader is in power to interpret, leaning on their own understanding the wisdom of modern man to see what God says. Anytime it is based on yourself and other men of this world where the Holy Spirit isn't leading, where we aren't looking to how the early Church taught and what the Bible says, we will find many problems and create many stumbling blocks.

It is you who are creating future stumbling blocks with your dogmatic teaching that we can all be right even if we all have different conclusions that are in opposition with each other, concerning God's word.

 

[Vance]

SBG, there are many points to make here:

1. Your own interpretation of Scripture is based on your own understanding and wisdom. Your belief about what Paul and Jesus thought about these is based on your own understanding and wisdom, or those of other humans, even if they were the leaders of the early church. I don't find them any more authoritative than any other Christian leaders. I tend to find Billy Graham more persuasive on this point, and agree with him completely on how we should treat this issue, even if I disagree with him on how and when God actually did it. I can assure you that HE would be willing to make the statement I have proposed.

2. It is a bit presumptuous of you to assume that the Spirit is leading YEC's in their interpretation, but not TE's. More than presumptuous, actually. And, it is simply incorrect, regardless.

3. I am not asking anyone to disagree with God. What I am asking is that you not be so proud and confident that your particular reading of Scripture is infallible, and be willing to present this issue in a way that prevents any stumbling blocks, while still stating loud and clear what your own preferences are in exegesis. I see this as simply being responsible and mature about the presentation of God's Gospel message.

4. Nowhere does Paul teach about the proper reading of Genesis. The fact that he refers to events in Genesis does not give us ANY clue, since that is exactly how he would have referred to it even if he read it figuratively. If God wanted to make it clear, He would have. But He didn't.

Look at what Augustine says on that. Do you disagree with him when he says that when we are trying to interpret Genesis, we are dealing with something difficult to understand, something UNCLEAR, and that we should hold all conclusions on this issue lightly and with humbleness and an awareness that this is a matter that is open for debate among believers? Regardless of what he actually concluded, we can see from his statements that he would disagree with any dogmatic clinging to a particular belief.

 

[SBG]

SBG, there are many points to make here:

1. Your own interpretation of Scripture is based on your own understanding and wisdom. Your belief about what Paul and Jesus thought about these is based on your own understanding and wisdom, or those of other humans, even if they were the leaders of the early church. I don't find them any more authoritative than any other Christian leaders. I tend to find Billy Graham more persuasive on this point, and agree with him completely on how we should treat this issue, even if I disagree with him on how and when God actually did it. I can assure you that HE would be willing to make the statement I have proposed.

Actually, my interpretation has been held by the Church since Jesus Christ. You are more than able and have shown so to disagree.

2. It is a bit presumptuous of you to assume that the Spirit is leading YEC's in their interpretation, but not TE's. More than presumptuous, actually. And, it is simply incorrect, regardless.

It is not the yecs I have talked about. I presume that the early Church - Apostles; Church Fathers - were lead by the Holy Spirit. Their interpretation on this matter I agree with, you don't.

3. I am not asking anyone to disagree with God. What I am asking is that you not be so proud and confident that your particular reading of Scripture is infallible, and be willing to present this issue in a way that prevents any stumbling blocks, while still stating loud and clear what your own preferences are in exegesis. I see this as simply being responsible and mature about the presentation of God's Gospel message.

When you are asking people to abandon the teachings of the Apostles and early Church who ultimately learned from Jesus Christ, you are asking me to disagree with God. I am not proud, but I am confident that Jesus was correct and His Apostles were correct on this matter.

I see you as trying created a middle ground between God's word and modern teachings.

4. Nowhere does Paul teach about the proper reading of Genesis. The fact that he refers to events in Genesis does not give us ANY clue, since that is exactly how he would have referred to it even if he read it figuratively. If God wanted to make it clear, He would have. But He didn't.

I have presented sufficient material written by Clement of Rome who was an associate of Paul's and learned from him about what the Scriptures say. Clements understanding of this subject was from Paul's teachings.

You can deny it, you can plug your ears, shut your eyes, but this is the truth. Acts 17 states the initial position of Paul on this subject.

And if God wanted to make it clear He would have, AND HE DID. Have you read the part where it goes 'evening and morning' over and over again? Have you read the parts where it talks of six day creation? Seems pretty clear.

In fact, I believe you know this is clear and you don't care.

Look at what Augustine says on that. Do you disagree with him when he says that when we are trying to interpret Genesis, we are dealing with something difficult to understand, something UNCLEAR, and that we should hold all conclusions on this issue lightly and with humbleness and an awareness that this is a matter that is open for debate among believers? Regardless of what he actually concluded, we can see from his statements that he would disagree with any dogmatic clinging to a particular belief.

I don't disagree with Augustine. I disagree with how you presented him. You have devisively tried to use his writings out of context to try and get someone to agree with you. You have not even come close to being honest.

Well, many Church Fathers who were taught by the Apostles themselves were very dogmatic on this subject. And these people you are calling in error, thus calling the Apostles into error and ultimately Jesus Christ. For Jesus taught the Apostles who taught the Church Fathers.

I find this teaching of your to be damaging and destructive to what the Apostles labored over and died for. Not just Genesis, but the fact that you want people to go around say even if we disagree with what the Bible stated we both can be right and we shouldn't be dogmatic on its teachings.

You are trying to create a massive stumbling block, that I confess will be created anyways, and will ultimately damage Christianity as we know it. It will bring tolerance on every teaching, including Jesus Christ being the ONLY WAY. This what Paul labored so much against, apostacy within the Church teaching against what Scripture says, giving away to myths rather than sound doctrine.

As Remus, I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt in my heart. But you make it increasingly hard. I don't really think you care about sound doctrine but rather give away to myths and teach them as way as well.

 

[Vance]

When I have spoken of Augustine, I have spoken of his hermenuetics and his approach to Scripture. In doing so, I quoted from him extensively. Feel free to go through those quotes and show me where my analysis of what he is saying is incorrect.

Are you honestly saying that if a church father was in error, it would mean that Paul and Jesus were in error? Are you calling the early fathers infallible in doctrinal matters? Even though they vehemently disagreed among themselves over many doctrinal issues? Why did not God incorporate their teachings into Scripture? Why stop with the early fathers? Since those fathers taught their successors, etc, right on down, at what point do you think their teachings became no longer authoritative? No, this will not work.

As for the two of us having different readings of Genesis, the point is that only one of us can be right, and both of us are convinced that we are the ones that are right. It is NOT a case that we can both be right. But the important point is that we don't disagree on what is essential about Genesis. What does Augustine say about this very issue?

"37. In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture [and remember, he IS speaking of Genesis here], different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture. "
and

"40. With these facts in mind, I have worked out and presented the statements of the Book of Genesis in a variety of ways according to my ability; and, in interpreting words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating our thought, I have not rashly taken my stand on one side against a rival interpretation which might possibly be better. I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of understanding, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp. . . ."

Do you not agree with his approach on these issue?

 

[SBG]

Ok, first show me were I said Church Fathers were infallible? Second, Clement was taught by Paul, PolyCarp and Ignatius were pupils of John. Ignatius and Clement argued against your views. Do you honestly think these guys would have went against Paul and John? Or even that John or Paul would not have corrected them if they were wrong? Yet, we have extensive writings that exist that these two Church Fathers say they are upholding the teachings of the Apostles who themselves learned from Jesus Christ. Are you calling them liars?

Post book references for your quotes as well page numbers so I can look them up.

 

[Vance]

Well, if you think the early fathers were fallible regarding Church doctrine, then all is well and good. They are not, then, authoritative on such matters. They are instructive and useful, surely, as are Christian thinkers and theologians right up to the present. I think that they are fully capable of teaching things that went beyond what the Apostles taught, since it is very possible (actually probable) that the issue of the age of the earth never came up. Further, I think it is perfectly possible that they actually later taught things that were not entirely consistent with what the Apostle's would have taught on a given subject. Fallible humans do that. Even ones that are inspired by the Spirit since that Spirit can only work with broken vessels. Again, at one point do you think the church leaders were no longer authoritative? How long would it take to start getting it wrong? I say almost immediately. Which is why I stick with what God inspired to be in the Canon and read the rest as Christian thinkers and teachers just as we have today.

The quotes from Augustine are from his treatise on Genesis, you can find that in many different collections of his writings. The numbers are the paragraph numbers that have been assigned to them, so they will be the same in any version you may have.

 

[SBG]

First off, #37 is specifically talking about "The Spirit stirring or brooding over the waters. In obscure matters we should not be too tenacious of our opinions." Those are Augustines exact words where #37 is speaking of.

Second, you have left the majority of #40 out. Let me post the rest of it since you conviently left it out:

"...I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of under-standing, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp. Where he cannot understand Holy Scripture, let him glorify God and fear for himself. But since the words of Scripture that I have treated are explained in so many senses, critics full of worldly learning should restrain themselves from attacking as ignorant and uncultured these utterances that have been made to nourish all devout souls. Such critics are like wingless creatures that crawl upon the earth and, while soaring no higher than the leap of a frog, mock the birds in their nests above.
But more dangerous is the error of certain weak brethren who faint away when they hear these irreligious critics learnedly and eloquently discoursing on the theories of astronomy or on any of the questions relating to the elements of this universe. With a sigh, they esteem these teachers as superior to themselves, looking upon them as great men; and they return with disdain to the books which were written for the good of their souls; and, although they ought to drink from these books with relish, they can scarcely bear to take them up. Turning away in disgust from the unattractive wheat field, they long for the blossoms on the thorn. For they are not free to see how sweet is the Lord, and they have no hunger on the Sabbath. And thus they are idle, though they have permission from the Lord to pluck the ears of grain and to work them in their hands and grind them and win-now them until they arrive at the nourishing kernel."

 

[Remus]

"...I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of under-standing, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp. Where he cannot understand Holy Scripture, let him glorify God and fear for himself. But since the words of Scripture that I have treated are explained in so many senses, critics full of worldly learning should restrain themselves from attacking as ignorant and uncultured these utterances that have been made to nourish all devout souls. Such critics are like wingless creatures that crawl upon the earth and, while soaring no higher than the leap of a frog, mock the birds in their nests above.
But more dangerous is the error of certain weak brethren who faint away when they hear these irreligious critics learnedly and eloquently discoursing on the theories of astronomy or on any of the questions relating to the elements of this universe. With a sigh, they esteem these teachers as superior to themselves, looking upon them as great men; and they return with disdain to the books which were written for the good of their souls; and, although they ought to drink from these books with relish, they can scarcely bear to take them up. Turning away in disgust from the unattractive wheat field, they long for the blossoms on the thorn. For they are not free to see how sweet is the Lord, and they have no hunger on the Sabbath. And thus they are idle, though they have permission from the Lord to pluck the ears of grain and to work them in their hands and grind them and win-now them until they arrive at the nourishing kernel."

That seems to be a very important part of what Augustine wrote. Glad you posted that SBG. Shows us what he really thought.

 

[shernren]

Were the Church Fathers speaking out against Christians promoting non-literal interpretations, or against outright non-Christians? Because that would inform me whether their target group would be analogous to today's atheistic evolutionists, or to today's evolutionists in general Christian or not.

And creation is in no way degraded, contaminated, or defeated by being a "myth". First strip the word of its undeserved (in this context) connotations such as "lie", "rumor", "urban legend", "fallacy", "untruth" and look back to reputable definitions:
->[size=-1]a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people
->[/size][size=-1]A myth is often thought to be a lesson in story form which has deep explanatory or symbolic resonance for preliterate cultures, who preserve and cherish the wisdom of their elders through oral traditions by the use of skilled story tellers.

in which sense I am using it. Must everything in Scripture be historical to be true? After all, Jesus often started His parables with "There was" and went on whether or not it ever existed. I have a strong feeling that if you asked Moses or a typical Jew in the wilderness, whether they had verifiable historical proofs of the creation, they would either not care or not understand what you were talking about. To them something was part of their lives without being an objectifiable, historical event.
[/size]

 

[Vance]

But don't you see that quote argues in favor of everything I have been saying!

There are two dangers, and we should be fighting against BOTH! On the one hand, we have those who cling to their own interpretation regardless of what anyone else says, what God says through nature, etc. As he says, this is not defending Scripture, this is defending a particular reading of Scripture.

On the other hand, we need to avoid falling for those naturalists who insist that all this happened without God, these IRRELIGIOUS people, with their atheistic teaching about origins. Why? Because when they turn back to Scripture, and believe that Scripture is contrary to what is being said, then they will doubt Scripture!

Now, what is essential is that people know that Scripture is accurate and trustworthy, regardless what the natural world tells us about how God created! This is the pure immunity, it is the keystone, the solid rock. The best way to innoculate people against the wiles of the atheists is to pull their fangs by showing that what they are saying does NOT mean their is no God.

Augustine is arguing against the teachings of someone like Dawkins or Gould, not against an acceptance of what IS true in nature. This is shown very clearly by his very clear statements about accepting what is valid in Scripture, and being willing to admit a given reading is wrong in the face of valid evidence.

As for number 37, do you think that he is referring to that single line, and not referring to the creation stories as a whole? If he is willing to approach that text in this way, it shows such a willingness regarding the text in general. Now, lets consider what else Augustine says:

"39. Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

If you look at his teaching as a whole, his hermenuetical approach is clear. Regardless of the conclusions that he reaches using that approach, based on the information that he had, the approach expressed is pretty good. Not infallible, of course, but wise words.

 

[SBG]

But don't you see that quote argues in favor of everything I have been saying!

But more dangerous is the error of certain weak brethren who faint away when they hear these irreligious critics learnedly and eloquently discoursing on the theories of astronomy or on any of the questions relating to the elements of this universe. With a sigh, they esteem these teachers as superior to themselves, looking upon them as great men; and they return with disdain to the books which were written for the good of their souls;

Don't see how that supports your argument.

There are two dangers, and we should be fighting against BOTH! On the one hand, we have those who cling to their own interpretation regardless of what anyone else says, what God says through nature, etc. As he says, this is not defending Scripture, this is defending a particular reading of Scripture.

On the other hand, we need to avoid falling for those naturalists who insist that all this happened without God, these IRRELIGIOUS people, with their atheistic teaching about origins. Why? Because when they turn back to Scripture, and believe that Scripture is contrary to what is being said, then they will doubt Scripture!

Now, what is essential is that people know that Scripture is accurate and trustworthy, regardless what the natural world tells us about how God created! This is the pure immunity, it is the keystone, the solid rock. The best way to innoculate people against the wiles of the atheists is to pull their fangs by showing that what they are saying does NOT mean their is no God.

Augustine is arguing against the teachings of someone like Dawkins or Gould, not against an acceptance of what IS true in nature. This is shown very clearly by his very clear statements about accepting what is valid in Scripture, and being willing to admit a given reading is wrong in the face of valid evidence.

As for number 37, do you think that he is referring to that single line, and not referring to the creation stories as a whole? If he is willing to approach that text in this way, it shows such a willingness regarding the text in general. Now, lets consider what else Augustine says:

"39. Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

If you look at his teaching as a whole, his hermenuetical approach is clear. Regardless of the conclusions that he reaches using that approach, based on the information that he had, the approach expressed is pretty good. Not infallible, of course, but wise words.

Let us look at his teaching as a whole, he taught a young earth, created by God. He taught a global flood as the Scriptures say.

#37 is under "The Spirit stirring or brooding over the waters. In obscure matters we should not be too tenacious of our opinions." There are numerous other points he talks about. So I believe when he has a heading and then expounds on it, he is speaking indepth on the heading.

#39 is under the heading "On interpreting the mind of the sacred writer.Christians should not talk nonsense to unbelievers." First Augustine talks about "And God said 'Let there be light' and light was made," in #38, under this same heading. Augustine does not talk about the age of the earth, the global flood, or the six day creation here. He is talking about obscure passages and trying to understand what Moses meant by them.

Above all things, Augustine said constantly that Scripture is the Authority in all matters. He, himself, argued against those who claimed the earth was very old. He argued against those who believed the earth spontaneously produced life. He argued against those who believed a local flood happened not a global one. One can see easily enough his stance on such issues, by his numerous writings that are left for us to read.

Augustine is not above being wrong, never was. Neither are most creationists here on this forum. But we all believe Scripture is the Authority in all matters, and we all know how often science likes to change. Because of this we can see how science is not a good source to use as our interpretative guide in understanding God's word. Paul did not teach us to go back and forth on doctrine, but rather to be in sound, unchanging doctrine.

Neither do we accept this belief where we can all come to different conclusions on the Bible and still be right. You Vance, I believe, are purposely creating this stumbling block that will be determental to those who are not as strong in the faith. This belief you so desire to be accepted by all, will go farther than just Genesis, for it is just the beginning; Genesis. Once we can say this about 1 book, it will be pushed for another and eventually all the Books of the Bible. You are the one is trying to come under the faith of many and disrupt it. To say that we can all believe as we wish and still be saved. We can all find our own way to God and be saved. This is what you are creating in your statement that you desire us to accept - that all of our interpretations can equally be correct. Won't be long before Jesus being the Only Way is allegorized as well by those who desire to have religious tolerance.