The impact of YEC'ism

[SBG]

i for one am here to learn, i am annoyed at those who think that doing their homework is optional.

Maybe he isn't here to learn what you desire to learn.

he obviously didn't interact with the posting, Warfield, Hodge, and Machen are prominent late 19thC -early 20thC theologians not scientists, yet he responded to it.

He responded to you, not their points of view. I assume that it is ok to respond to you even if you don't respond to your arguement, right? Or should everyone who does not respond to your arguements not talk to you?

I think it shows 1-a sloppiness in thinking 2-a desire to persuade not with evidence or argument 3-a rudeness to respond without even engaging with the posting 4-a lack of desire to really learn

I think that your statements above are judgemental. We all have to realize we are each here with a different purpose. You said you desire to learn, others may have a different reason. No matter what your reason is for being here, I would think it would still be ok to be here, would it not?

all 4 are unbecoming of a Christian. and are not a good witness to an unbelieving world.

And do you think you are always the perfect Christian, an ever great example to all people of what a Christian should be? I doubt you do. So can you forgive him without judging him on his actions?

additional:
i think that the characterization of "intellectuals who trust more in their own understanding than the Word of Truth." which is directed at these 3 godly, Scriptural very knowledgable and honorable Christians is wrong and it is worth my time to say so.


.....

You know, even Christians make these mistakes of trusting themselves more than they should. I am sure you have done the same, as we all have. I don't think you are without sin. Am I wrong to say you are not without sin?

You know I very much appreciate and admire many early Christian Fathers, but I do disagree with them on some things. Because I disagree and feel that they were not lead to the truth on some aspects, is that wrong of me to think that of them?

It would be so much more worth your time to respond in love rather than in irritation. It would be so much worth all of our time to do so. Sadly, we all fail in this.

 

[Matisyahu]

Vance:

I actually was going to post this over there, but I wanted to ask whether it was a good idea (the last thing I am looking to do is stir up dissension and bring dishonor to the name of Messiah).

I was moved to contemplation by your poll in the other forum. I must admit that I am struggling on the age of the earth issue.

*********************

All,

While by no means a TE, I share certain concerns of Vance and others.

*Some YECs have a tendency to move beyond their own logical program about 10 steps ahead of their audience, in the desire to win others to Christ.* This is both admirable and tragic.

It is admirable because they want to contend for the faith. Moreover, there are that there are evidences that make such a belief in a literal Genesis reasonable, in my opinion. But those evidences have little to do with the age of the earth, and only partially fulfilled by arguing intelligent design. They concern:

whether truth about reality can be known;
whether God exists;
the possibility and significance of the miraculous in a theistic context;
the historical reliability of the New Testament documents;
the claims of Jesus in those documents to be God;
the confirmation of that claim through the fulfillment of prophecy, a sinless and miraculous life, and the resurrection from the dead; and finally,
what this person had to say about Genesis.

(that is a classical approach in the tradition of the old Princetonians, Lewis, Geisler, Craig, etc.)

If none of this is even adressed, a skeptic would feel some right, or even a duty, to reject what is said to them. I haven't been here long, but many times (multiple times a day) I have seen YECs get shut down, and it hurts me, because I see the logical core of their argument, but they just had so much bathwater with the baby. What hurts me more is when some YEC react spitefully to being shut down.

This attitude forces others either to

1) accept Genesis as a literal scientific text about 10 steps ahead of where YECs have come in their own logical program, or just

2) reject the YECist and the faith he represents.

That is why I think YECism is likely to be *tragically ineffective* if brought as a criterion for faith.

My recommendation:

Defend the Bible from the very first verse only after you have shown that the authority of Bible as whole is something worth defending.

A major point to consider if out there sharing your faith is Intelligent Design (and here is where I may differ with Vance). While still ridiculed by skeptics and atheists (and even TEs), ID, in my opinion, is ridiculed somewhat less justly.

Alas, I suspect this applies more to newbies like myself (who will show up and act out their ill-fated approach in the C&E forum without hearing this), than veterans of whatever origins view.

I hope I have not been uncharitable to my brothers and sisters in Messiah. We need each other.

Matisyahu

 

[jasperbound]

Whether it makes sense to you or not is irrelevant. If it made sense to the first readers, that is what counts.

Anything makes senses to anybody. Now if you try to get them to actually explain it in a sensible way...

 

[jasperbound]

Regardless, I have been out in the real world, witnessing on college campuses and I can assure you that the dogmatic YEC teaching will have a LOT to answer for when we get to Heaven.

Are you saying that God will be angry with YECs for believing what they believe to be true to be true and not believing something else simply because it's more acceptable? If so, then I'd like to see where it says that in Scripture. Because right now, I see it as only judgmental and arrogant, and I see you judging the YECs as negatively as the YECs supposedly judge the TEs. We really should remove the planks from our own eyes.

 

[Vance]

Matisyahu:

Welcome, and you make some good points. One thing I have been arguing all along here is that our job is to spread the gospel message, not convince people regarding origins. I have no problem with Christians believing in a young earth, or special creation, etc. I think they are wrong, and it is fine and even healthy to debate this issue all we want. But to come out and say, as so many YEC's do, that if their particular viewpoint of origins is not correct, then Scripture can't be trusted, is just unecessary and dangerous to the Gospel message. To tell people that the Bible is either literal or it is wrong is equally dangerous. To present this "either/or" view of evolution/old earth v. Scripture is equally uncessary and dangerous.

A while back I proposed that, when discussing the origins issues, with non-Christians or our youth (who will later be exposed to evidences for evolution and an old earth) that they explain their position, but acknowledge that devout, believing Christians differ on these issues and it simply is not a salvation issue. Scripture is trustworthy and valid regardless.

Only a very few YEC's seemed willing to make this statement.

As for ID, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I agree with their main idea of presenting the idea that God is the creator of all, and I am glad that so many of them are entirely willing to accept the idea of evolutionary development over billions of years, and even common descent. But I think they have pure science issues, since they make presumptions that only us Christians can accept. In other words, it can't convince those who don't have those assumptions. I just doubt that we can "prove" God.

Regardless, I think ID is a valuable movement in general, and I think it is opening the minds of a lot of YEC's who see that there are those opposing anti-theistic models of our origins, but who reject Young Earth'ism and a literal reading of Scripture (which almost all of the ID scientists do).

The only real difference between most ID scientists and TE's is that we accept that the method God used may have been a very natural process without a lot of tinkering and fine-tuning along the way. We believe God is able to have developed a natural process that will run the way He intended it without His ongoing intervention. Personally, I think God intervenes in our lives all the time, and overrides His natural processes all the time. I just don't think He created a system which requires it, the way the ID guys do.

 

[Vance]

Are you saying that God will be angry with YECs for believing what they believe to be true to be true and not believing something else simply because it's more acceptable? If so, then I'd like to see where it says that in Scripture. Because right now, I see it as only judgmental and arrogant, and I see you judging the YECs as negatively as the YECs supposedly judge the TEs. We really should remove the planks from our own eyes.

It has nothing to do with something being "more acceptable". It has to do with not placing unecessary stumbling blocks in front of our brothers or potential converts. That is definitely in Scripture.

The problem is not you believing what you believe. It is when YEC's present their beliefs dogmatically, as if their human interpretation (which is what YEC is) is infallible. It is when they say "if evolution is true, Scripture is wrong" or vice-versa, "if Scripture is true, then evolution is wrong" without any room for their own possibility of error. It is when YEC's raise our youth to believe that it is simply not possible for their literal reading of Scripture to be incorrect, so that when they get out there are find out that evolution is almost assuredly true, they automatically doubt Scripture.

It is when YEC's do like the one over in the other forum right now, and tell non-Christians (who all believe in evolution) that if they don't accept a literal reading of Scripture, they should not believe any Scripture at all.

It is not being humble about our understanding of Scripture in every detail, and refusing to consider it even possible that there might be a reading which also happens to agree with science.

 

[Vance]

BTW, here is what I proposed YEC's say when the issue comes up:

"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."

It validates their YEC belief without creating a stumbling block, and allows the individual to review the matter themselves, and to realize that no matter what, Scripture is valid.

 

[jasperbound]

It has nothing to do with something being "more acceptable". It has to do with not placing unecessary stumbling blocks in front of our brothers or potential converts. That is definitely in Scripture.

The problem is not you believing what you believe. It is when YEC's present their beliefs dogmatically, as if their human interpretation (which is what YEC is) is infallible. It is when they say "if evolution is true, Scripture is wrong" or vice-versa, "if Scripture is true, then evolution is wrong" without any room for their own possibility of error. It is when YEC's raise our youth to believe that it is simply not possible for their literal reading of Scripture to be incorrect, so that when they get out there are find out that evolution is almost assuredly true, they automatically doubt Scripture.

It is when YEC's do like the one over in the other forum right now, and tell non-Christians (who all believe in evolution) that if they don't accept a literal reading of Scripture, they should not believe any Scripture at all.

It is not being humble about our understanding of Scripture in every detail, and refusing to consider it even possible that there might be a reading which also happens to agree with science.

I, as an YEC, do not take my interpretation to be infallible. I do take the Bible to be infallible though, just as you take all science to be infallible (which I'm sure you don't, but I say this in light of your assumption about YECs). I take it to be true, which is why I believe it to be true. If TE was consistent and reasonable, I would accept it as a possibility. However, it isn't. Besides the reasons I gave previously, if the book of Genesis is merely a story to be taken as a figurative parable, then why cannot the same be said for the entire Bible?

I consider this type of inconsistent interpretation to be a stumbling block. I also see it as having more faith in humanity than in God. Therefore, I could say that the TEs have much to answer for when they die. Of course, I'm not God, so I won't tell God His opinion.

 

[SBG]

It is interesting that one side, the TE side, wants YECs to not be dogmatic about Scripture. Yet, the TEs are dogmatic about science.

Paul was quite dogmatic about Scripture, even creation as seen in Acts 17, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and in parts of his other Epistles.

 

[Matisyahu]

Vance:

Yes, I agree that the aim of our witness is to preach Messiah (and Him crucified). The issue you raise regards our apologetic approach, which is basically pre-evangelism. I think that the age of the earth is inappropriate as a matter for apologetics, (whereas for studying Genesis it is a crucial issue) and on this we agree.

We may need to have a discussion later about your view of a 'fully-gifted creation' (did I get that right?). That is a completely different issue, for a different thread.

 

[Matisyahu]

It is interesting that one side, the TE side, wants YECs to not be dogmatic about Scripture.

In Vance's defense, I think he is arguing that we should be dogmatic about the truth of Scripture, but not always our fallible interpretations thereof. This is why he said:

Scripture is true either way, and none of it is a salvation issue, and should not be a stumbling block to anyone."

It validates their YEC belief without creating a stumbling block, and allows the individual to review the matter themselves, and to realize that no matter what, Scripture is valid.

This can only be taken so far (you can only interpret John 3:16 so many ways), but the age of the earth is a major area for fallibility.

And I myself am very skeptical of 'theistic evolution'. I nevertheless share his concerns on this point.

 

[Vance]

I, as an YEC, do not take my interpretation to be infallible. I do take the Bible to be infallible though, just as you take all science to be infallible (which I'm sure you don't, but I say this in light of your assumption about YECs). I take it to be true, which is why I believe it to be true. If TE was consistent and reasonable, I would accept it as a possibility. However, it isn't. Besides the reasons I gave previously, if the book of Genesis is merely a story to be taken as a figurative parable, then why cannot the same be said for the entire Bible?

I consider this type of inconsistent interpretation to be a stumbling block. I also see it as having more faith in humanity than in God. Therefore, I could say that the TEs have much to answer for when they die. Of course, I'm not God, so I won't tell God His opinion.

1. If you don't take your interpretation to be infallible, and don't present your Young Earth'ism as the only possible interpretation, then you are not the problem.

2. I also take Scripture to be infallible, and no, I don't take science to be infallible. I take our ability to understand either Scripture or God's Creation itself to be subject to human error.

3. I also take Scripture to be true. It is the Holy and inerrant message from God to Mankind.

4. TE's don't take any Scripture to be "merely" anything, it is all God's message and it is all true. The only question is what literary style is God using to tell us that truth. You seem to think that God using a figurative literary style, using symbolism and typology to describe the events of Creation is somehow less "true" and "real" than a literal historical narrative. You seem to think of it as a less valid way of telling about the past or telling about theological truths. Why?

5. The reason you can read the Creation accounts as figurative and other accounts as literal is for same reason you read Revelations as account of literal future events, but still read other accounts literally. They are different literary styles. Genesis does not sound AT ALL like Acts, for example.

6. TE'ism is not AT ALL having less faith in God. We have the same degree of faith. Actually you could say we have more, since we are not insisting that God can only have told us about Creation using one literary style. We have so much faith that God did it all, that if we find out that the evidence shows that He did it over billions of years, and by evolution, it does not shake our faith at all. By contrast, many YEC's here have said that if they came to that conclusion about the age of the earth, or about evolution, they would have to abandon their Christian faith. Whose faith is really stronger, then?

 

[Vance]

Vance:

Yes, I agree that the aim of our witness is to preach Messiah (and Him crucified). The issue you raise regards our apologetic approach, which is basically pre-evangelism. I think that the age of the earth is inappropriate as a matter for apologetics, (whereas for studying Genesis it is a crucial issue) and on this we agree.

We may need to have a discussion later about your view of a 'fully-gifted creation' (did I get that right?). That is a completely different issue, for a different thread.

Yes, fully gifted creation is the description given by Van Till, and I think it is a good one. Personally, I am entirely open to the idea that God could have directed the evolutionary process all along, creating a mutation here, pushing a punctuated equilibrium there, etc. But I just don't think the evidence would show that involvement. Regardless, I am definitely not dogmatic about God having just created it to run on its own, as He does other processes we all accept.

Edit to add a response to your later post: skepticism is good.

 

[jasperbound]

1. If you don't take your interpretation to be infallible, and don't present your Young Earth'ism as the only possible interpretation, then you are not the problem.

2. I also take Scripture to be infallible, and no, I don't take science to be infallible. I take our ability to understand either Scripture or God's Creation itself to be subject to human error.

3. I also take Scripture to be true. It is the Holy and inerrant message from God to Mankind.

4. TE's don't take any Scripture to be "merely" anything, it is all God's message and it is all true. The only question is what literary style is God using to tell us that truth. You seem to think that God using a figurative literary style, using symbolism and typology to describe the events of Creation is somehow less "true" and "real" than a literal historical narrative. You seem to think of it as a less valid way of telling about the past or telling about theological truths. Why?

5. The reason you can read the Creation accounts as figurative and other accounts as literal is for same reason you read Revelations as account of literal future events, but still read other accounts literally. They are different literary styles. Genesis does not sound AT ALL like Acts, for example.

6. TE'ism is not AT ALL having less faith in God. We have the same degree of faith. Actually you could say we have more, since we are not insisting that God can only have told us about Creation using one literary style. We have so much faith that God did it all, that if we find out that the evidence shows that He did it over billions of years, and by evolution, it does not shake our faith at all. By contrast, many YEC's here have said that if they came to that conclusion about the age of the earth, or about evolution, they would have to abandon their Christian faith. Whose faith is really stronger, then?

1. There are millions of possible interpretations. The Gnostics have one, the Mormons have one, the Episcopal Church has one, etc.. I'm aware that mine is not the only possible one.

2. I understand that our interpretation of Scripture can be erroneous, just as I understand that our interpretation of the universe can be erroneous.

3. Agreed.

4. If God is figurative in some books and literal in some and does not differentiate, then He should not blame anybody for the confusion, and He should not blame anybody for not accepting Him because what appeared to be literal was actually quite figurative.

5. It's quite clear that Revelation is a vision. If Genesis was a vision, then Moses was not clear about that. As for Acts being different than Genesis, that's because of different writers. One must also compare Acts to other books in the Bible, and if there is also a difference, then those other books must also be figurative.
Also, why can't one interpret the entire Bible as figurative? Your interpretation of what books are literal and what books aren't is not infallible, after all.

6. Fine, you want to be holier than thou and pretend that you're better than YECs? I'm happy that we can make TEs feel proud.

 

[SBG]

BTW, here is what I proposed YEC's say when the issue comes up:

This always alerts me when someone thinks everyone who differs with him ought to say this, so that his own opinion can be valid.

"You know, it doesn't really matter.

The Bible tell us how God created. Should we care to understand or shall we just make our own excuses to why we need not to understand. I believe Paul said the creation is here for all to see so men are without excuse.

You realize that evolution is used as an excuse to say there is no God. This is what atheist use to say how everything came to be.

So to say it doesn't matter, is really to say I don't care what God says.

So as a YEC, I have to disagree with this very first statement.

The Bible is still correct, regardless of the exact timing and procedure of the Creation process.

The Bible says six days God created everything. That is what God inspired the writer to write: six days all things were created by God. To say it is not six days, but rather millions or billions of years, it cannot still be correct. Six days does not equal millions/billions of years.

So again, I have to disagree with this statement.

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.

Well first off, I don't believe all species were created at once. They were created on different days, so this statement would need revision.

I believe the earth is young when it is stated in the context to when it was created. I believe it was created mature so that all inhabitants would be able to survive within it.

I think also a revision needs to be made about the last comment: 'I think the text is literal.' This is true to a degree, but I think you prefer to say all YECs are 'strict literalists' which is not true. I suggest changing it to 'I believe this is a literal historical account of God creating the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.'

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.

I would agree with the very first part. I do not think the reading Genesis will automatically tell you the earth is billions of years old. Maybe you can show me where it says this.

It really doesn't matter.

Ah, but it does matter. Either Scripture is saying six days or it is saying billions of years. It cannot be saying both when talking about the how long God took to creating. You would have to justify why the statement 'evening and morning - the first day' means billions of years.

It does matter when you are talking about properly dividing the Word of God. I just cannot accept the statement that how you read the Bible does not matter, whether you think it is billions of years for creation or that Jesus never rose from the dead.

For me, understanding the Bible does matter.

Scripture is true either way, and none of it is a salvation issue, and should not be a stumbling block to anyone."

Scripture cannot be true if it is saying God created in six days and saying God created in billions of years. Only one can be right.

Secondly, God gave us His Word - the Bible - and it only contains such a small amount of what has taken place with God. I think every piece of it is much more important that just saying we don't need to believe it if it says six days.

Thirdly, when someone says emphatically that it is not a salvation issue, it really alerts me. How do you know for a fact that it is not? Salvation comes not just by the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and God Himself, but also by following Him. Following Him would include believing all that He says.

Jesus is the one who created this world. Since Jesus is God, it was Him who inspired the author to write in six days God created everything in it. So it is Jesus' Word that states six days and we are to follow and believe what He says.

So it may not be what saves us, but it very well may be a way to strengthen our faith. An example of this strengthen our faith is the opposition all YECs face from everyone who is not a YEC. YECs must go to the Bible every time they are attacked, because that is where our initial belief comes from.

It validates their YEC belief without creating a stumbling block, and allows the individual to review the matter themselves, and to realize that no matter what, Scripture is valid.

Your statement does in and of itself create a stumbling block. The stumbling block is, 'Scripture is true either way.' This can be applied not just to Genesis but to any other book as well. Just like the Jesus Seminar people do about the resurrection stating it never happened and it is just your interpretation saying it did happen, but we both can be right.

 

[Vance]

The only two issues we have then are:

4. If God is figurative in some books and literal in some and does not differentiate, then He should not blame anybody for the confusion, and He should not blame anybody for not accepting Him because what appeared to be literal was actually quite figurative.

But you would agree that God DOES use figurative accounts and literal accounts in Scripture, do you not? Is every statement in Psalms, Song of Solomon and Revelation to be taken literally? God does not, in any of these cases, say "hey, here comes a figurative part". To me, the Creation accounts do not seem in the least like an attempt to provide historical narrative, as we find elsewhere in Scripture. To me, the natural "plain" reading is very much that it is a figurative account of what happened.

God will not blame us for getting things wrong, but do you not think He would blame us for presenting such issues dogmatically?

5. It's quite clear that Revelation is a vision. If Genesis was a vision, then Moses was not clear about that. As for Acts being different than Genesis, that's because of different writers. One must also compare Acts to other books in the Bible, and if there is also a difference, then those other books must also be figurative.
Also, why can't one interpret the entire Bible as figurative? Your interpretation of what books are literal and what books aren't is not infallible, after all.

First, we are not saying that Genesis is a vision. It is a figurative account. God gave John the figurative account of the future in a vision. In the ancient near east, as you might know, the normal way of writing about the past was through figurative accounts. Even if they knew the exact historical details, they would much rather tell the important aspects of that past event by way of a figurative rendition, full of symbolism, typology and poetic language. In particular, they would use formulaic phrasing to assist with memorization and to increase the literary impact of the account. Can you imagine them telling about something as glorious as the Creation of the entire universe with a strict historical narrative?

Second, it is not just a matter of different writers, it is also a matter of different literary styles. We must look to the culture of the times and find out how they wrote. And no, not every book that differs from Acts must be read figuratively. There are lots of ways of writing literally, just as there are lots of ways of writing figuratively. We must take each writing on its own merits and seek to determine, using sound hermenuetics, exactly what God is telling us in that text.

And, ultimately, we can only make the best judgment we can. What is important is that, regardless of which interpretation you use, it is amazing how the essential message seems to come through loud and clear. You and I almost assuredly reach the same conclusions on that point regarding those essential "salvation" effecting points in Genesis.

Lastly, no, I am not being holier than thou. YEC's so often like to argue that it is a matter of "faith" and that TE's have less faith, and have more faith in human knowledge, I was just showing you that this is just a bunch of hogswollop. Funny how you felt perfectly free to claim that YEC's had more faith than TE's, and this was not being "holier than thou", but the minute those tables were turned . . .

 

[gluadys]

If TE was consistent and reasonable, I would accept it as a possibility. However, it isn't.

What do you find inconsistent/unreasonable about TE?

Besides the reasons I gave previously, if the book of Genesis is merely a story to be taken as a figurative parable, then why cannot the same be said for the entire Bible?

One reason it can't be is that we have objective historical and physical evidence that some parts of the bible are literal, historical fact. A remnant of the second temple still exists in Jerusalem, as does Hezekiah's water tunnel. So for each section of the bible one has to look at the whole configuration of the composition of the bible to determine whether it is fact, probably fact, possibly fact or most probably or even necessarily not factual.

Regarding the story of the flood, for example, it is necessarily false that it was global, but could possibly be based on a factual local flood. The story of Job may be based on a real person, but may be pure fiction. It does not change the message of the story in any way whichever one chooses to believe on this question. All we can say for sure is that there is no record of the historical existance of Job. That doesn't necessarily mean he never existed or that the events of his life were not the basis for the book.

I consider this type of inconsistent interpretation to be a stumbling block. I also see it as having more faith in humanity than in God. Therefore, I could say that the TEs have much to answer for when they die. Of course, I'm not God, so I won't tell God His opinion.

I think God puts a lot more faith in humanity than most YECs are willing to credit. Of course, I'm not God either.

 

[jasperbound]

The only two issues we have then are:



But you would agree that God DOES use figurative accounts and literal accounts in Scripture, do you not? Is every statement in Psalms, Song of Solomon and Revelation to be taken literally? God does not, in any of these cases, say "hey, here comes a figurative part". To me, the Creation accounts do not seem in the least like an attempt to provide historical narrative, as we find elsewhere in Scripture. To me, the natural "plain" reading is very much that it is a figurative account of what happened.

God will not blame us for getting things wrong, but do you not think He would blame us for presenting such issues dogmatically?



First, we are not saying that Genesis is a vision. It is a figurative account. God gave John the figurative account of the future in a vision. In the ancient near east, as you might know, the normal way of writing about the past was through figurative accounts. Even if they knew the exact historical details, they would much rather tell the important aspects of that past event by way of a figurative rendition, full of symbolism, typology and poetic language. In particular, they would use formulaic phrasing to assist with memorization and to increase the literary impact of the account. Can you imagine them telling about something as glorious as the Creation of the entire universe with a strict historical narrative?

Second, it is not just a matter of different writers, it is also a matter of different literary styles. We must look to the culture of the times and find out how they wrote. And no, not every book that differs from Acts must be read figuratively. There are lots of ways of writing literally, just as there are lots of ways of writing figuratively. We must take each writing on its own merits and seek to determine, using sound hermenuetics, exactly what God is telling us in that text.

And, ultimately, we can only make the best judgment we can. What is important is that, regardless of which interpretation you use, it is amazing how the essential message seems to come through loud and clear. You and I almost assuredly reach the same conclusions on that point regarding those essential "salvation" effecting points in Genesis.

It's clear that Psalms, Revelation, and the Song of Solomon are not literal. If Genesis isn't literal either, then he's not being clear about it, in which case, he might not be literal in any book.

And no, I don't think God will blame people for believing what they believe to be true to be true. After all, we can simply point to the Bible, and surely an omniscient God knows why one would be confused if some of it that seems historical is actually figurative.

Also, as for the essential message, that can change quite drastically depending on what books we take to be figurative. What if the sacrifice of Christ is figurative? What if hell, the devil, sin, etc. are figurative? We are not infallible, so we cannot say that our interpretation of those accounts are 100% right.

 

[Vance]

When you start off with "it's clear" then I know we will disagree. For example, your church may teach that Song of Solomon is an allegory for Christ and the Church. Other Christians believe it should be read literally, as a sensual (sometimes erotic) love poem.

To me, it is very clear and plain that the Creation accounts were not meant to be read as literal history. In fact, I have a hard time seeing how anyone reads them literally. They just don't sound like a strictly factual historical narrative at all. But I understand that we are all just fallible humans, so would never say that it must be so. I think my interpretation is right, as well as being plain to me, and I have evidence to back it up, but in the end, the point is that we should not be dogmatic. Presenting "seems to me" as "must be" is where the pride, hubris, and even worse, comes in.

And that is all I truly object to: dogmatic presentations. Saying that if a literal reading of Genesis is not true, then you can't trust Scripture. How can anyone NOT see the danger in that.

While it is good to debate the issues in all these areas, ultimately, the point is that we should not be doing that.

Remember what Augustine says about it, as quoted in my signature line. Remember what the Westminster Confession says about it: that much of Scripture is unclear, other than what is necessary for salvation.

 

[gluadys]

It is interesting that one side, the TE side, wants YECs to not be dogmatic about Scripture. Yet, the TEs are dogmatic about science.

Paul was quite dogmatic about Scripture, even creation as seen in Acts 17, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and in parts of his other Epistles.

I disagree that TEs want YECs to not be dogmatic about scripture. Of course we should be dogmatic about scripture. What we should not be dogmatic about is our fallible human interpretations of scripture.

Dogmatism is foreign to science, because it is never based on belief. Science is based on evidence--objective evidence--which, in principle, anyone can check out for themselves. Practically, of course, the lay person cannot always do this. I can't go out and check up on what physicists say about particle physics because I can't go out an pick up a particle accerelerator for personal use. But I can be sure that one physicist will be checking out the work of other physicists and so have some confidence in the conclusions shared by the majority of the scientific community.

In point of fact, that is how most of us do theology too. We almost never study scripture without a theology we have been taught influencing how we read it. We leave it to the professional theologians to actually debate the theological issues, just as we leave it to the professional scientists to do the actual scientific work.

So it behoves us to treat both alike, as works in progress, whose conclusions may one day change, just as both theology and science have changed in the past.