You say tomato.......

[Calminian]

Is this origins debate really no big deal? I generally am pretty tolerant of the various theological views. I find myself respecting premillennialists, preterists, amillenialists, open theists, molinists (well, because I am one), calvinists, arminians, infralapsarians, supralapsarians, presuppositionalists, evidentualists, pre post & mid tribulationists, determinists, compatibilists, multi-determinists, etc., etc.. I love to debate these issues, but in the end I can go to Romans 14 and disagree agreeably. In fact I’m quite fond of many that hold differing views.

But there’s something different about this debate. The above are all disagreements over exegesis. This is an issue of exegesis versus eisegesis. It seems to be a debate over the very authority of the Word of God and the ability of its authors to convey their message without the help of outside knowledge. Instead of scripture being sufficient in its historical and literary context, we need the outside input of science to reach the correct interpretation. Before we can believe a particular text we need to test it by the 67th book—science.

Seems to me that makes this debate very different. I think the term “compromise” is appropriate. This whole idea that it’s just a fun subject, but no big deal seems terribly naive.

Agree? Disagree? What say you?

 

[Brennan]

The 67th book is reality. Do you not believe it? Think of the Bible as allegory and metaphor, suitable for people 2000 years ago, but not really suitable today.

 

[vossler]

But there’s something different about this debate. The above are all disagreements over exegesis. This is an issue of exegesis versus eisegesis. It seems to be a debate over the very authority of the Word of God and the ability of its authors to convey their message without the help of outside knowledge. Instead of scripture being sufficient in its historical and literary context, we need the outside input of science to reach the correct interpretation. Before we can believe a particular text we need to test it by the 67th book—science.

You've hit the nail on the proverbial head here. Whenever you can include an additional "truth" into the established existing and never changing Truth you've diluted and poisoned the real Truth. This is further magnified when this new 67th book is a book based on ever changing truth.

 

[vossler]

Think of the Bible as allegory and metaphor, suitable for people 2000 years ago, but not really suitable today.

Look, if you wish to post this type of heresy, there are other places at CF that will readily accept this (one of which is in very close proximity to this one), but I ask that you please refrain from doing so here. This type of post will most certainly not be received as fellowship.

 

[shernren]

I'm citing the OP @ Origins Theology. Wanna come along? It'll be in the "Scientific Myth of Creationism" thread.

 

[Calminian]

You've hit the nail on the proverbial head here. Whenever you can include an additional "truth" into the established existing and never changing Truth you've diluted and poisoned the real Truth. This is further magnified when this new 67th book is a book based on ever changing truth.

But it is a perfect example of the kind of stuff that going around. Many in that movement are taught that their beliefs are in harmony with early church beliefs. Of course the ECFs would spin in their graves. Some of them indeed allegorized the creation days, probably due to some misunderstandings of the Hebrew and some jewish teachings, but none of them held to a non-historical account, or local flood or any of the other stuff we see today. None allegorized the genealogies or believed Adam to Terah were myths. In fact they were pretty much all young earthers despite the old earth philosophies that were prevalent in their day. Of those ECFs that believed the days of creation were symbolic, they actually believed they were symbolic of future thousand year periods, not long periods of time in the past. Augustine, the favorite to quote, believed the earth was less than 10,000 years old.

Many biblical christians are concerned about this, but I fear many more see it as no big deal, just a difference of opinion. I believe evolution and naturalism are the biggest front facing the church today. Sadly, when confronted, evolutionists and naturalists simply usher forth all their christian allies. Where's the zeal that should exist over this?

 

[Brennan]

So I'm a 'heretic' now. Yeah I sure feel the fellowship.

 

[Brennan]

But it is a perfect example of the kind of stuff that going around. Many in that movement are taught that their beliefs are in harmony with early church beliefs. Of course the ECFs would spin in their graves. Some of them indeed allegorized the creation days, probably due to some misunderstandings of the Hebrew and some jewish teachings, but none of them held to a non-historical account, or local flood or any of the other stuff we see today. None allegorized the genealogies or believed Adam to Terah were myths. In fact they were pretty much all young earthers despite the old earth philosophies that were prevalent in their day. Of those ECFs that believed the days of creation were symbolic, they actually believed they were symbolic of future thousand year periods, not long periods of time in the past. Augustine, the favorite to quote, believed the earth was less than 10,000 years old.

Well of course, there was no evidence to the contrary at the time.

 

[mark kennedy]

Is this origins debate really no big deal? I generally am pretty tolerant of the various theological views. I find myself respecting premillennialists, preterists, amillenialists, open theists, molinists (well, because I am one), calvinists, arminians, infralapsarians, supralapsarians, presuppositionalists, evidentualists, pre post & mid tribulationists, determinists, compatibilists, multi-determinists, etc., etc.. I love to debate these issues, but in the end I can go to Romans 14 and disagree agreeably. In fact I’m quite fond of many that hold differing views.

I think I can relate to that, I have had a lot of those issues with Christians and it amounts to very little in the end. I actually don't have a problem with Old earth cosmology and get along famously with old earth creationists. The TE mindset reminds me of liberal theology, it has the same ambiquity with regards to essential doctrine, particularly with regards to the Bible as history.

But there’s something different about this debate. The above are all disagreements over exegesis. This is an issue of exegesis versus eisegesis. It seems to be a debate over the very authority of the Word of God and the ability of its authors to convey their message without the help of outside knowledge. Instead of scripture being sufficient in its historical and literary context, we need the outside input of science to reach the correct interpretation. Before we can believe a particular text we need to test it by the 67th book—science.

You have me right up to the word, 'science'. You will find that evolutionists really don't know what the word actually means or why it is defined the way it is in modern times. They don't know how theology was the queen of the sciences for thousands of years, what changed during the Scientific Revolution and why.

The 67th book of the Bible would indeed be the revelation of God in nature, this is both the beginning and an end for evangelicals like myself.

Seems to me that makes this debate very different. I think the term “compromise” is appropriate. This whole idea that it’s just a fun subject, but no big deal seems terribly naive.

Agree? Disagree? What say you?

Darwinism is an attack on the Scriptures right at the foundation, Genesis is the foundation and Genesis 1 is the keystone. Modern secularists are very aware of this and what they cannot ignore like the miracles, they dismiss without a hearing, like special creation.

You are right that this is an issue that we either compromise our convictions or we stand our ground. Personally, I am comfortable with creationism both as a science and a worldview compatable with by religious convictions regarding the Son of God, who loved me, who died for me, who is returning in power and glory and will raise me without blemish or spot.

Genesis 1 is just as important as Revelations 22, they are, in fact, companion revelations.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[vossler]

Many biblical christians are concerned about this, but I fear many more see it as no big deal, just a difference of opinion. I believe evolution and naturalism are the biggest front facing the church today. Sadly, when confronted, evolutionists and naturalists simply usher forth all their christian allies. Where's the zeal that should exist over this?

Without a doubt evolution and naturalism are the biggest concern facing the church. What they've done is allow God's Word to now be a personal interpretation that each of us must come to on our own. This has opened the door and allowed other clear biblical truths to be put into question using the same logic.

As far as the zeal about which you speak, well unfortunately because there isn't much strong biblical teaching taking place in our churches much less our schools, I truly don't see this tide changing until our Lord's return.

 

[Calminian]

So I'm a 'heretic' now. Yeah I sure feel the fellowship.

There's no charge of heresy. One can be a christians and even reject inerrancy. But that doesn't mean the church shouldn't be concerned over the rejection of inerrancy. One can be a christian and reject the virgin birth. This doesn’t mean rejecting the virgin birth is no big deal. I don’t think we need to just throw them out and call them heretics, but we do need to use scripture to correct them (2Tim. 3:15-18). And we shouldn’t just stand by when they say science trumps scripture.

 

[Calminian]

The 67th book of the Bible would indeed be the revelation of God in nature, this is both the beginning and an end for evangelicals like myself.

I'd really like to change your mind on this. Natural revelation is limited and can be inferred without scientific training. The natural can lead us to the existence of the supernatural, but science, strictly speaking, can never lead us to a specific miracle. One can observe the physical evidence of the baskets left over from Christ feeding the five thousand, and never conclude from that alone a miracle took place. One could examine the physical evidence of the wine Jesus created the very next day and never conclude it was just water 24 hours ago. Science therefore would never qualify as a 67th book that all other scripture must be harmonized with. Science is a naturalistic method of investigation that must be limited to the natural realm, it's valuable but not in the area of biblical hermeneutics.

 

[laptoppop]

One of the big problems I see is summed up fairly neatly by "67th book". Many (but importantly not all) TEs seem to put modern scientific theory over the Scriptures as judge and jury. If the Scriptures do not agree, then they are suspect, not the all powerful scientific theory.

Most of the time, God works with us in "normal, rational" ways. Sometimes He calls us to faith outside of our sight. But it is not just sight that is being put up above the specific inspired revelation, it is interpretations of that sight.

I believe we can demonstrate that the evidence left behind (the geologic column) fits a global flood much better than it fits millions of years of evolution. All too often, the reality of the real physical evidence is played down in favor of a simplified textbook presentation which has been simplified in the direction of supporting evolution.

When it comes to specific revelation (the Scriptures) versus general revelation (our perceptions of nature), we must never prefer the general revelation over the specific revelation. We can use the products of our senses/intellects to understand and appreciate the general revelation, and there are times when such a process helps us to grow in our interpretation of the specific revelation. However the basic principle stands clear - the specific revelation is to be preferred over the general.

God told Abraham to sacrifice his son. In obedience to the specific revelation of God, and in opposition to the general revelation, Abraham prepared to act. This is faith.

 

[Calminian]

Without a doubt evolution and naturalism are the biggest concern facing the church. What they've done is allow God's Word to now be a personal interpretation that each of us must come to on our own. This has opened the door and allowed other clear biblical truths to be put into question using the same logic.

This is precisely my concern and why I think it's different than other theological debates.

As far as the zeal about which you speak, well unfortunately because there isn't much strong biblical teaching taking place in our churches much less our schools, I truly don't see this tide changing until our Lord's return.

This is true and I really don't expect much out of liberal churches. I guess I'm expecting more our of YECs though. I do appreciate your zeal. This is much more than a debate about interpretations. It's an subtle attack on the very Word of God. It's hard for me to see it as anything less. If someone can make some points to the contrary I'd like to hear them.

 

[Calminian]

Well of course, there was no evidence to the contrary at the time.

I think this illustrates the problem. Can you define evidence for us? The Bible is a corroborative collection of testimonies about a miracle working God—a God who is able to defy known natural processes. Yet you say all the evidence is against the miracles of Genesis. The argument is circular.

 

[Brennan]

I think this illustrates the problem. Can you define evidence for us? The Bible is a corroborative collection of testimonies about a miracle working God—a God who is able to defy known natural processes. Yet you say all the evidence is against the miracles of Genesis. The argument is circular.

I mean all the Archaelogical, Paleontological and Geophysical evidence. Tree rings, ice cores, carbon dating et al. The world is screaming out to us that it is billions of years old. But hey, there's this book...

And the argument is not circular - it simply follows the evidence. Old Earthism was started by a load of respectable Christians who thought that the world was a few thousand years old, but just couldn't help but notice how...old everything was. At no point did anyone say 'hey let's assume the world is billions of years old and God doesn't exist' - the idea that this is the presupposition of science is pure fantasy.

 

[laptoppop]

Actually, at this point "old earthism" is ingrained into conventional scientific thinking and interpretation such that "young earthism" is basically often considered wacky before it is even presented.

 

[Calminian]

I mean all the Archaelogical, Paleontological and Geophysical evidence. Tree rings, ice cores, carbon dating et al. The world is screaming out to us that it is billions of years old. But hey, there's this book...

And the argument is not circular - it simply follows the evidence. Old Earthism was started by a load of respectable Christians who thought that the world was a few thousand years old, but just couldn't help but notice how...old everything was. At no point did anyone say 'hey let's assume the world is billions of years old and God doesn't exist' - the idea that this is the presupposition of science is pure fantasy.

So you don't believe science operates under the presupposition of methodological naturalism? You believe that science is open to supernatural interventions?

If so, I gave some illustrations earlier. Please tell me how science would detect the age of created wine or created fish and bread that were left over in the baskets. Since there's no presuppostional bias, science should easily be able to detect the interventions of Christ merely by looking at the products of His creation. Walk me though it and tell me exactly how it would work.

 

[Brennan]

So? The evidence shows that the world is old: therefore we think the world is old.

 

[Brennan]

So you don't believe science operates under the presupposition of methodological naturalism? You believe that science is open to supernatural interventions?

If so, I gave some illustrations earlier. Please tell me how science would detect the age of created wine or created fish and bread that were left over in the baskets. Since there's no presuppostional bias, science should easily be able to detect the interventions of Christ merely by looking at the products of His creation. Walk me though it and tell me exactly how it would work.

lol. When I demonstrated earlier how to scientifically demonstrate that a miracle had occurred you just moved the goalposts on me. So how's about we talk about where the goalposts are, and will stay before I bite? What rules would you suggest?

I would suggest that the miracle in question is the transmutation of elements and/or the addition/subtraction of mass, not the age of the wine btw.