The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is currently a spectrum of belief regarding origins, and this is tied loosely to how literal one reads Scripture and/or the degree to which one is willing to allow the evidence of God’s Creation inform their beliefs *about* that Creation. We must keep in mind that every position except the one on top, the Flat-earthers, involves a certain degree of allowance of scientific knowledge to influence Scriptural interpretation.

1. Flat-earthers - believe that a plain reading of Scripture indicates that the earth is flat. Very few still hold on to this belief.

2. Geocentrists - believe that the sun and all the stars literally revolve around the earth. Still a surprising number of these around, although the movement suffered a major setback after the late 60's. They have lots of Scripture and theological bases to argue from, however, and insist that a literal reading of Scriptures requires geocentrism. Ironically, they hold young earth creationists (below) in the same light as theistic evolutionists: those who have let secular science alter their view away from a plain, literal reading of Scripture. A recent shake up over at ICR (or possibly it was AiG) occured when the group finally denounced geocentrism and a number of their contributing members quit because they were geocentrist.

3. Young Earth Creationists - believe that the earth and universe are both young (less than 10,000 years old) and that all the diversity of species is the result of special creation, based on a literal reading of Scripture (even if not AS literal as those above).

4. Gap Theorists (a form of Old Earth Creationism) - Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that God created Man and all the animals at the "young earth" time frame. Some believe this is a "recreation", God having scrapped an earlier version (dinosaurs, etc).

5. Progressive Creationists (aka "Day-Age Creationists", another form of OEC)- Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that each "day" in Genesis referred to an indefinite period of time. Genesis is a historically and scientifically accurate account, just that it happened over a VERY long time period.

6. Theistic Evolutionists (with a literal Adam and Eve) - believe in an old earth and universe, but accept that God used evolution as part of His creation, basically as science describes it. But they feel that there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal Garden. Some attribute this Adam and Eve to an instance of special creation, others to election as "representatives", etc. Also believe in biogenesis, not abiogenesis.

7. Theistic Evolutionists (no literal Adam and Eve, but biogenesis) - believe that Man evolved along with the other species (pursuant to God’s plan), but that the initial spark of life was immediately God induced. Some even push this forward to some mass special creation of a variety of "kinds" around the Cambrian period, with all the species evolving from there.

8. Theistic Evolutionists (abiogenesis) - God created everything and established the full system of natural laws upon with the universe and the earth would work. And it did. With life arising at the time and place He had known it would, etc.

A bit of a side category is the Intelligent Design movement of recent years. This asserts that *whatever* you accept about creation, there is firm evidence that the universe and the earth in particular were designed with specific intelligence, by a designer, and not happening randomly. Those holding this opinion come in each of the flavors mentioned above, although the most recent and influential of these have been Theistic Evolutionists (ie, they accept that species evolved over billions of years, including man, but that God directed the process all the way, it was not random or wholly naturalistic).

So, where do you fit in? I don’t necessarily want everyone to post their "number", but it is interesting to see it all laid out like this. If any have suggestions or tweaks to make to the this list, go ahead and say so.
 

Gold Dragon

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2004
2,134
125
47
Toronto, Ontario
✟10,460.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I would probably fit in #6 although I am agnostic on a literal Adam and Eve and abiogenesis so I could sway all the way to #8.

However I also believe that God can do all things and may have done it the YEC way, although the scientific evidence available to us does not support this.

So I range from #3 to #8 all as possibilities with #6 as the one I would most strongly agree with.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
yes, I am exactly the same, except I would probably have 7 as my "most likely". I also believe that God could have done it any way He wanted, even 3. The problem with 3, though, is that it would make God a deceiver and, while I am willing to believe that God's ways are not Man's ways, I simply have a hard time with this. Besides, I have no particular reason *to* believe in a young earth, since an old earth does not effect my belief in God's Word in the least.
 
Upvote 0

Bonhoffer

Hoping......
Dec 17, 2003
1,942
74
42
Preston, Lancashire, UK
✟10,043.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Gold Dragon said:
However I also believe that God can do all things and may have done it the YEC way, although the scientific evidence available to us does not support this.
This is all I want to TE's to admit. I do not think that a TE who shares the above veiw is lacking in faith. They have enough faith to beleive that God could do it the YEC way but for certain reasons think the TE way is more likely. It is when TE's totally rule out YEC when I get a little annoyed with them.

I will however say that to reject a literal Adam and Eve is very unbiblical because Gods Word states through genelogys that Jesus is a literal decendent of Adam.
 
Upvote 0

Gold Dragon

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2004
2,134
125
47
Toronto, Ontario
✟10,460.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Bonhoffer said:
This is all I want to TE's to admit. I do not think that a TE who shares the above veiw is lacking in faith. They have enough faith to beleive that God could do it the YEC way but for certain reasons think the TE way is more likely. It is when TE's totally rule out YEC when I get a little annoyed with them.
I'm cool with Young Earthers with your view Bonhoffer.

Bonhoffer said:
I will however say that to reject a literal Adam and Eve is very unbiblical because Gods Word states through genelogys that Jesus is a literal decendent of Adam.
We were getting along so well. :) Do you really want to go that route?
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But Bonhoffer, if you scanned through these posts, you would find that every TE here believes that God *could* have created the earth in an instant, that He could have done it however He wanted. We all believe this. He IS God, after all.

We just think that all the evidence points very clearly to the fact that He did NOT create it this way. So clearly, in fact, as to make the possibility miniscule. Further, as I state above, I have a theological reason for not accepting 3, since that would make God out to be a deceiver.

On the issue of Adam and Eve, a rejection of a literal Adam and Eve is not un-Biblical, it is just non-literal. It is very common for ancient cultures to tie actual history into figurative characters, even in genealogies. Early cultures did not draw the bright line between history and legend that we do today, with our scientific minds and greater knowledge of what *was* historical. Caesar, for example, traced his lineage back to Venus, but almost assuredly did not view this as historically accurate, but he still would have said it was "true" in every important sense. This is difficult for us to get our head around today, since we draw such a strict line between the two and search assiduously for which is which.

Again, those who might believe that Adam and Eve were not literal still believe that the Bible is true and is God's Holy Word to us today. For example, 90% of the Anglican clergy do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, yet they still believe Scripture is God's Holy Word.
 
Upvote 0

Gold Dragon

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2004
2,134
125
47
Toronto, Ontario
✟10,460.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Vance said:
Further, as I state above, I have a theological reason for not accepting 3, since that would make God out to be a deceiver.
I don't think that God being a deceiver is the only explanation for YEC. While I love the sciences, I recognize that with new evidence, our scientific models can change. There may be new evidence that radically changes the way we scientifically view origins that could support YEC.

However, those new evidences do not currently exist and are most definitely not found in the "evidence" that Creation Scientists try to pawn off as credible.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Just to be clear, if YEC *was* true, then it would make God out to be a deceiver, since He provided us with a universe and earth that looks and tests, down to its minutest detail, to be billions of years old. (I say this in case I was so poor in my wording that I seemed to be referring to God deceiving by writing "plainly" one thing in Genesis when something else happened, an argument I have seen YEC's make).

I am not sure if you were reading me forward or backward, if you know what I mean. :0)

While I understand that scientific models change, and many of the details of various theories will get refined, I think the "age of the universe/earth" issue is as well established as the concept that the earth revolves around the sun (rather than the other way around). There are just too many different forms of evidence from different aspects of God's Creation that agree too closely about its age. Not to mention that there is no credible evidence from God's Creation whatsoever that argues in favor of a young earth.

Let's put it this way. If it was not for the Biblical genealogies, there is not an educated person alive today that would believe in a 10,000 year old earth. Not a single AiG or ICR psuedo-scientist would believe in a young earth if it was not for his pre-existing interpretation of Scripture. It would not even be an issue that was discussed.
 
Upvote 0

Gold Dragon

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2004
2,134
125
47
Toronto, Ontario
✟10,460.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Vance said:
Just to be clear, if YEC *was* true, then it would make God out to be a deceiver, since He provided us with a universe and earth that looks and tests, down to its minutest detail, to be billions of years old. (I say this in case I was so poor in my wording that I seemed to be referring to God deceiving by writing "plainly" one thing in Genesis when something else happened, an argument I have seen YEC's make).
I'm on your side but I have to disagree with your position that YEC is only possible with a deceiving God. If YEC *was* true, it could be because our scientific models are incomplete, which is often the case in scientific theories. While there is no evidence to suggest this is true, it is always possible that future evidence will become available that suggests otherwise.

TEs need to be open to that possibility or else we do fall victim to YEC accusations of worshipping the infalliable religion of science when science itself never makes such a claim.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oh, I agree that there is the possibility that all of the evidence from God's Creation could be misread, but on this particular point given the multi-disciplinary nature of the evidence and the sheer strength of that evidence for an old earth/universe, I think the chances of a young earth being true is about the same as discovering that the Earth really is fixed in space and the Sun and stars revolves around it (ie less than .0001%). See, that leaves the door open. :0)

I think there is actually more of a chance that God created it to look and test old (since it does this in spades), and planted fossils, craters, and tons of other evidence of a billions year old earth and universe (not just "created in maturity", but actual stuff that could only exist in an old earth and universe), but that He did so for some mysterious purpose of His own, at the risk of seeming to be a deceiver. [Edit: meaning more of a chance than the earth *actually* being young, like .01% likelihood rather than .0001%].

So, if I was convinced that a literal interpretation was absolutely the ONLY way to read Genesis, I would actually believe the second option rather than the first, since the evidence is just too strong, varied and well-founded.

Now, I would have to agree that the evidence for evolution is less dramatically strong, probably only about 99% in my mind. And common descent itself may drop to 93% certainty in my mind. God could have done things differently than it LOOKS like He did.

I just have no reason to believe He did it by the YEC model.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

herev

CL--you are missed!
Jun 8, 2004
13,566
935
59
✟36,100.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Bonhoffer said:
This is all I want to TE's to admit. I do not think that a TE who shares the above veiw is lacking in faith. They have enough faith to beleive that God could do it the YEC way but for certain reasons think the TE way is more likely. It is when TE's totally rule out YEC when I get a little annoyed with them.

I will however say that to reject a literal Adam and Eve is very unbiblical because Gods Word states through genelogys that Jesus is a literal decendent of Adam.
Just to clarify, could you say However I also believe that God can do all things and may have done it the TE way, although the Biblical available in my opinion does not support this. In other words, do you hold Creationists to this same high standard?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtrb
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
I'd fall under 7 or 8. Adam ("man") and Eve ("living") are characters in a mythic account, so in the same way that I don't believe in Pandora ("all gifts) or Woden's ravens Huginn and Muninn ("thought" and "remembering"), I doubt Adam and Eve were historical figures. As Gluadys would explain, Paul made a parallel of Adam and Christ, conceiving Adam and Eve (male and female) as typological representatives of humanity in its totality.
 
Upvote 0

Dracil

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2003
5,005
245
San Francisco
✟16,707.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Somewhere between 6-8. Possibly a mixture too. In that, if there was not a "literal" Adam and Eve, you can still say that the first two organisms that could be called human, became sentient, gained a soul, etc. = Adam and Eve.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KleinerApfel

When I awake I am still with You
Mar 4, 2004
12,411
1,327
Somewhere
✟35,470.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Maybe we misread the evidence form science, maybe we misread the Bible.
Most likely we all do both to a greater or lesser extent in fact, and start off from our differing bias too, since we're all fallible.

I tend strongly towards the YEC view.

Vance, regarding your first two options; geocentricity and flat-earth theory:
there has been an overlap of those who believe them and also believe YEC, but they are not really to do with origins are they?

Blessings, Susana
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
56
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟20,947.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
They are, obliquely.

This is because for many YECs, the position is that whatever the scientific evidence, YEC is true, because that's what The Bible* says.

Geocentrists are geocentrists for exactly the same reasons. Flat earthers also.

And this is, of course, where my footnote comes in:

*by which the holder of the position means "my interpretation of the Bible".

What is always interesting is to see a heliocentric YECer (the vast majority) defend a non-literal reading of those passages which strongly suggest geocentrism, whilst decrying non-YECers who do the same with the passages suggesting a young earth.

But that's by the by.
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Susana, I understand your point. I agree that the title of the thread ("Christian Belief on Origins") is misleading. But in Vance's intro paragraph, he explained that he was coming at the question from a "how literal do you read Scripture" viewpoint.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think this is a good point, Susana, and the list is more based on the "degree of literalism" regarding issues to do with God's Creation, not strictly origins of life, as my title suggests. The way that it ties together is that Flatearthers and Geocentrists also point to Genesis 1 and 2 to support their position (although both point to other Scripture as well, using the most literal, "plain" reading). Basically, the concept is the degree to which we allow the scientific discoveries about God's Creation to inform and clarify our understanding of God's Word.

Geocentrists sometimes hold YEC's in the greatest contempt since YEC's *pretend* to hold strictly to Scripture while clearly allowing their understanding of Scripture to be influenced by secular scientific propositions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums