- I am curious as to how evolution came to be so offensive to Christians. I mean, sure, it is the antidote of many secularists, an alternative to believing in God, but why do we feel the need to make it an either/or thing? Why do we feel like they’ve nailed down the options when they say “either God created or it was evolution”?
- In many ways, we’ve made evolution our enemy. Instead of spending our energy to fight against things like poverty, violence, or malnutrition, we’ve settled instead to spend our energy combating the (we think) dangerous idea of evolution.
- Why is this?
- My guess is that it causes us to question our interpretive framework for the Bible and what we’ve come to believe over the years. We are fed Christian sayings that sound good like “the Bible is inerrant, the Bible is 100% true, the Bible can answer all of our questions” – but we fail to recognize that these Christian clichés don’t always work. The Bible is not our “life manual”, as I’ve often heard it called, there for us whenever we want to find the answer the question. In fact, if we go into the Bible asking the wrong question, we are bound to mis-interpret it and come away from it believing something quite false!
- The Bible, and specifically Genesis, wasn’t written to answer the question of: how long did it take for the world to be made? This is the wrong question to be asking when reading Genesis because it is a question rooted in modernity. And, in case you were unaware, the ancient Israelites weren’t modernists. Far from it! They did not have the same bent towards science that our post-Enlightenment minds now do. Thus, they wouldn’t have been asking the same kinds of questions that we do. Instead we should be asking questions like what does this tell us about God?, what does this tell us about ourselves?s, why is this important?, what difference would it make if this were not included in the Bible?, how would the original audience have heard this?, what would this have meant to them?, and what in their context is this being written to address? These questions are intended to get at the heart and truth of what is really going on. They don’t come to the text with any presuppositions or bias. They are more open-ended than the questions that arise when we want to know something specific (i.e. what does the Bible say about how long it took to create the world?) – and, as a result, they cause us to read the Bible the way it was meant to be read. Instead of trying to make it say something, trying to read it, these questions allow the Bible to read us.
- You see, the Bible is not a science book. Nor should it ever be treated as such. To do so would make it not only something it is not, but a tool for our selfish purposes. The Bible is an excellent resource for all Christians, but it is not God and it is not the only way we can know God or his truth in our world. What a shame that so many of us have reduced the Bible to what we already believe it is saying! How tragic it is that for many of us our belief in God hinges upon whether the universe was created in six literal days!
- I hope that in reading this, you aren’t thinking to yourself that perhaps I have “fallen away” or that I am compromising Scripture. To think this would be plain arrogance, a prideful boasting not in Christ, but in what you think you know. The error is not in believing one thing or the other, per se, but in making the Bible say something it wasn’t intending to say in the first place. Which is worse: to go against the common Christian grain, or to let the Bible read in the way it was meant to? I think you’ll agree, that it is far better to do the latter. So let us set our minds upon Christ – not in “Christian” ideologies – and search to find the truth, whatever that may be. This involves doing our best to lay down our biases, the various ideas that we have picked up over the years, and simply come to the Bible afresh, ready to embrace different ideas, if for no other reason than to see what they taste like.
- You never know, it might taste better than you think.
- And by the way, I’m not convinced that evolution is true. I am simply convinced that Genesis wasn’t meant to address this specific issue.
Comments
I believe your post started out in an interesting direction, questioning whether evolution and Christianity are compatible and challenging us to major on constructive expressions of our Christian faith.
Rather than continue to develop these themes, however, you proceeded to lecture us on how the "Bible ought to be interpreted." I respect your opinion on how the Bible ought to be interpreted (and may agree with it), but I believe your tone would be improved by indicating a respect for how others approach Scripture. Then we could enter a dialog that may improve how we each understand Scripture.
The question of origins is one that has occupied Christian thinkers for generations, with various interpretations of staged creation and theistic evolution among the ideas put forward.
Thank you for the feedback, Doc. You make a very good point. I'll try to be more mindful of this in the future.
Looks to me like "Doc" is a little scared of finding out his cherished creationism ideas don't stan up under the harsh light of science. That's OK, I don't think God really cares if, in this pre-existant to eternity life, we really understand completely how we came to be here. What is important, in my humble opinion, is that we realize that we are all Sons and Daughters of the one God, and that he is our Father in Heaven. That's the bottom line. People spend altogether too much time arguing theology. In fact, throughout the ages, way too many people have died because of their interpratations of God, of Jesus, of the Kingdon of Heaven. Live a life of service, dedicate your self to the Father's will, and you will find Heaven on earth.
I've been reading a lot lately about how Paul's ideas of principalities and powers have completely vacated our modern minds and we've put in their place science, economy, and people. I think your essay gets at a similar idea. Instead of focusing our efforts to be the Church we ought to be we've got caught up in a largely unfruitful apologetic rabbit-trail. I think what you've said about how to read the Bible correctly is incredibly insightful, and many people in my current evangelical educational context would do well to listen closely. I'm so glad you didn't make this into an Evolution vs Creationism debate.
I agree with you that we should be asking questions like: how did the original audience hear this and what was the original context. But guess what, when you approach the text that way, you are left with a young earth. No one interpreted Genesis as a depiction of evolution until Darwinianism gained support. All the expositors for nearly two thousand years never dreamed the text said anything other than God created the world in six days.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, which was written prior to any evolution debate, states the following:
I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.
They were not motivated by any desire to prove or disprove any scientific theory. They were simply summarizing what Scripture clearly teaches.
Six Days and the Eisegesis Problem
Archaeology and the Bible
The Scientist as Evangelist
Furthermore, my understanding of the inerrancy of Scripture is not some "Christian-cliche." My understanding of Scripture comes from Scripture:
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
2 Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Hi Brandon, how is it going?
First off, you're still treating the text as an answer to a question that original audience is not asking. Given the literary form of the narrative along with the symbolism and repetition therein, it is erroneous to assume that everything should be taken literally on a word by word basis - it is far more likely given these factors that the narrative is a poem of sorts. The narrative isn't written to answer specific questions like "how long did it take to create all of this", but to answer more general questions, specifically ones that collided with the worldview of the original audience - questions like "who made all of this" and, not surprisingly given the oral tradition of the people groups it was written to, it does so in the form of story.
Second, the Bible was not written in a vaccum. It is a collection of writings that were written to very specific audiences for very specific purposes. Of course, at that time, there was no concept of evolution so there would have been no need to make mention of it. As I just noted, the original audience would have questions about who created all that is seen, not the science of the length of time behind it.
Third, as stated in my blog, the Bible is not a science book. Your treatise of it as such would be like taking a poem that talks about how a man's wife loves it when he whispers into her ear and turning that into a scientific treatise on the spoken word in low decibals and how that affects the neurons in the brain - in other words, you're missing the point. Treat the text for the type of literature it is or you'll do damage to the text.
Fourth, while I believe Scripture is inspired by God, I'll point out the logical inconsistency of you quoting the Bible to prove the Bible right - it doesn't work. This is logic is akin to the Book of Mormon having authority based on what it says about itself. If you're going to use a standard you must be able to apply it across the spectrum otherwise you have double standards and are thus an idiot. I will note, however, that both of the sections of Scripture you cited say nothing about "inerrancy" or "infallibility" - nor do they make any mention to the literal interpretation of texts.
Finally, God's revelation of himself is not limited to the Bible. Creation, even as the Bible says, speaks of God's magnificance and power. And believing that God created through evolution does not diminish that power at all.
I'm doing better than I deserve, how about you?
First, why do you assume Genesis was written to answer a specific question the Jews had? Genesis is a revelation from God that was intended to communicate exactly what God wanted to communicate - which is not predicated on any condition of those receiving the revelation.
So you believe Genesis is symbolic and purely poetic?
Do you believe it is symbolic and poetic when it describes all men as descending from Adam or do you believe that is literally true?
There is nothing logically inconsistent with holding God's Word as the highest authority. Trying to prove the Bible is the Word of God by any other means simply defeats the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. The Word of God is the starting point, the axiom of a Christian worldview. Every worldview has a starting point that is assumed, otherwise it's not a starting point.
As for me being an idiot, do you extend that classification to the 121 members of the Westminster Assembly?
I.V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
Other works that claim divine inspiration can be tested for their consistency using the law of contradiction.
You are right, the two passages I quoted do not use the word "inerrant" or "infallible." Instead, they explain that Scripture is not the creation of man, that it is God-breathed. If you are willing to claim that what God says is sometimes false, then I don't think there's any way I can convince you otherwise.
General revelation is innately revealed to all human beings. It is the law of God written on all men's hearts (Rom 2). It's purpose is to leave men without excuse when they rebel against it (Rom 1). It does not contain anything that is not revealed in Scripture.
I'm not bad.
Actually, I don't think that Genesis was written to answer a specific question, as I've stated, rather I think it was intended to be a witness to the truth of God's character and his power. Why else would it mirror some of the various other creation stories of its time but to say, in essence, "You've heard it said, but I say..." As such, then, the various things it tells us about God, and how he differs from the gods being worshiped at the time, are worth looking at. But you err to believe that it is the time frame that matters because it doesn't. That's my point. It is not the time frame that matters at all, but the fact that it was God, and only one at that, that did it all.
Perhaps I should ask you then, what it was in this Narrative that God was trying to communicate. Care to answer?
As far as Genesis being purely symbolic and poetic, its not a question that one can answer. No more than be able to say which parts of a poem are literal or not - notice again that to try and nail down what is "literal" is an erroneous treatment of the Bible. It is the truth, not the literalness, that is intended to be communicated. I can say that I love my wife with all my heart, but to translate this literally one becomes quite confused. Its true, but its not literal.
<< There is nothing logically inconsistent with holding God's Word as the highest authority. Trying to prove the Bible is the Word of God by any other means simply defeats the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. The Word of God is the starting point, the axiom of a Christian worldview. Every worldview has a starting point that is assumed, otherwise it's not a starting point. >>
I'm not saying you can't hold the Bible (which, I'll note, is different from the "Word of God" - a term that is reserved to refer to Jesus) as the highest authority, but it is, in fact, logically inconsistent to point to the Bible as the proof for the authority of the Bible. If the Bible were false (not saying it is), its own claims about itself would be rendered untrustworthy.
As for the members of the Westminster Abby, notice that they don't make any specific claims about what the Bible says when it comes to a specific point of belief. Interesting, then, that you forsake their wisdom and go on to make decisions about what the Bible actually says - matters which have been points of debate for millenia. Notice as well, that those members point to the inward work of the Holy Spirit as the demonstration by which we know that Scripture speaks truth - in other words, the testifiable experience of the Saints throughout church history testify to the truth therein.
<< Instead, they explain that Scripture is not the creation of man, that it is God-breathed. If you are willing to claim that what God says is sometimes false, then I don't think there's any way I can convince you otherwise. >>
This is both a caricature of my position and inaccurate. What does it mean to say that Scripture is God-breathed? And what justification do you have for assuming that it must mean that God dictated the words to the writers? It is increasingly evident that your viewpoints in this regard are more modernistic than they are Biblical.
You're right, general revelation does not contain anything that is revealed in Scripture, and I've never claimed otherwise. My claim is not "God didn't do it", my claim is merely that, in fact, God did do it and he chose to do it, as we are now discovering, most likely through the means of evolution.
If this interrupts the flow of dialogue, then don't bother to address it, but one thing I'm curious about in this discussion is where the two of you have room for the doctrine of sin. Jesse, I'm following you in your argument that truth in the Bible doesn't equal literal. I think we need only look to the prophets for proof of that. However, if the Genesis account of creation is just an allegory that speaks about the character of God (i.e. His desire for fellowship, justice, and his abhorrence for perversion of His good creation) then how are we Christians supposed to understand our own sinful natures. It seems to me that only through Adam's original sin do we end up with the current broken world in which we live. Paul refers to this in 1 Corinthians:
For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
I guess I'm just seeing a really difficult hamartiological problem when we don't read the Creation account--or a the very least the Creation of Man account--literally.
My other major question would be in regards to the Image of God. Only through the account of God's involvement in man's origins do we get a concrete doctrine of dignity, so to speak, in which mankind is noted as something distinct from the rest of Creation. Again, I don't think that a metaphorical interpretation necessarily precludes one from ascertaining the inherent dignity in every person, but I do think that it removes the historical basis in which it is anchored.
Perhaps my desire for a historical basis is modernist in and of itself, but I think that it's more born out of the idea that Jesus illustrates in Matthew. In Chapter 9, Jesus brings a girl back to life, heals the woman with the issue of blood, gives two blind men sight, and removes an oppressive demon. In each case, Jesus says that the miracle ocurred because the person's "faith [had] made [them] well." I think that Jesus was saying that their faith was necessary in some way for the miracle to occur, but at the same time, had their faith been in anything but Jesus, nothing would've happened. Likewise, I believe that it's important for our faith to be in the right object and/or person, and in the case of the Creation account, it seems that certain core doctrines of Sin and Redemption hinge on a somewhat if not entirely literal reading.
Does that make sense?
Yes, what you're saying makes sense, but you're ability to reconcile these doctrines has, up to this point, been pigeon-holed into a specific interpretation of Genesis.
Here's how: whether Adam was a singular, literal person or not is really not the point - the point is that each and every one of us was duped - we've all given into sin. Notice in Paul's teaching that we are not judged for Adam's sin, but for our own. "For all have sinned..." That said, I have no problem saying that it could be either/or. Perhaps Adam (which, keep in mind is simply the Hebrew word for "man") really was a singular person who sinned - I'm fine with that. However, I'm also fine if Adam is a representative of something that happened on a much grander scale - that we gave into our own desires, disobeying God, and thus opened pandora's box - and we lack the ability to stop giving in to said desires.
But, this is not necessarily the point of what I've been saying. I'm not saying that none of it is literal, I'm just saying that it doesn't have to be literal in order for it to be true.
So we can easily say, for example, that Adam is the proverbial man, our common "ancestor" who sinned - as did his children, as did their children, as do we. How does this fit with the "image of God"? Simple. At some point in the evolutionary process God "breathed is Spirit" into his creation thus endowing them and all of their subsequent offspring with his "image".
Now, obviously this requires that we hold our previously conceived interpretations loosely, but this is not something that we should resist unnecessarily. We should hold our interpretations loosely - new information is not bad information, but it should be weighed appropriately - especially when the literary genre of the text does not provide sufficient reason to hold to a literal interpretation.
Hope this helps clarify any questions about my position.
whether Adam was a singular, literal person or not is really not the point
It seems to have been important to the Apostles. Paul specifically mentions our descent from Adam in his Gospel proclamation in the Areopagus:
Acts 17:26 And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth..."
and it is clearly very important in Romans 5:
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
--
Notice in Paul's teaching that we are not judged for Adam's sin
Paul does teaches that we are judged for Adam's sin.
Notice that the apostles aren't talking about Adam the way you are. Never do they say "Adam really did exist as a single person in history..." They say, "through Adam we are all sinners" - there's a difference.
Notice again that I'm not saying Adam couldn't have been a single, historical figure - he very well may have been - but Scripture is not contingent upon this point just as it is not contingent upon a 6-day creation.
As far as being judged for Adam's sin - sorry, you're wrong. We are not judged or condemned for Adam's sin. We are judged for our own sin. See verse 12 again: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned..." Adam may have started the snowball, but we are each guilty for our own contribution to the snowball.
Never do they say "Adam really did exist as a single person in history..."
How do you interpret And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth..."?
Yes, we are condemned because we all sinned. And yes, we are also condemned because Adam sinned. 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. Our nature is corrupted, making us guilty, but Adam's guilt is also imputed to all because he is the federal head of all natural men.
I don't interpret it the same way you do.
And, no, we are not condemned because Adam sinned just as not everyone is saved because of Jesus death on the cross (something you're interpretation of that verse would require you to conclude). We are each condemned or saved based on whether we engage in the appropriate activities that lead to either. Adam and Jesus are simply the prototypes for us.
What do you mean by prototype?
The first, the model.
So Jesus is just our example/model for salvation?
No, Jesus is our example/model for life.
Ok, so we are justified by following Christ's example/model in life?
We are justified by Christ himself. But by embracing the type of life he came to model, we find that which he calls "the abundant life".
That's not what this passage is talking about. It's talking about justification. Christ is not held up as a "prototype" in Romans 5.
So you believe in universalism?
First, let's acknowledge that your interpretation fails to resolve the supposed universalism of the verse. The passage is not talking about Adam and Christ as prototypes/examples.
In Romans 5, Paul is explaining the federal headship of Adam, and ultimately of Christ. 5:1 says we are justified by faith through Christ. V2 Through Him we have obtained access by faith. V14 Adam was a type of Christ, who was to come. He was a type in that he was the federal head (legal head) of all those who are in him, just as Christ is. Paul goes to great lengths to establish the parallels between the two representative heads.
He concludes (therefore) that as one trespass led to condemnation for all men (who are in Adam), so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men (who are in Christ). Adam's guilt is imputed to his posterity. Christ's righteousness is imputed to His.
John Gill notes:
It is apparent, that the apostle is here comparing the first and the second Adam together, as heads and representatives of their respective offspring, and the effects of sin, to the condemnation of those that sprang from the one, with the grace of God to the justification of such that belong to the other, and not the number of persons concerned in these things. His plain meaning is, that, as the first Adam conveyed sin, condemnation, and death, to all his posterity; so the second Adam communicates grace, righteousness, and life, to all his posterity;
Douglas Moo:
"...Paul wants to show, not how Christ has made available righteousness and life for all, but how Christ has secured the benefits of that righteousness for all who belong to him. In this last phrase, we touch on what is the most likely explanation of Paul's language in this verse. Throughout the passage, Paul's concern to maintain parallelism between Adam and Christ has led him to choose terms that will clearly express this. In vv. 15 and 19, he uses "the many"; here he uses "all people." But in each case, Paul's point is not so much that the groups affected by Christ and Adam, respectively, are coextensive, but that Christ affects those who are his just as certainly as Adam does those who are his. When we ask who belongs to, or in "in," Adam and Christ, respectively, Paul makes his answer clear; every person, without exception, is "in Adam) (cf. vv 12d-14); but only those who "receive the gift" (v. 17; "those who believe," according to Rom. 1:16-5:11) are "in Christ." That "all" does not always mean every single human being" is clear from many passages, it often being clearly limited in context (cf., eg., Rom. 8:32; 12:17, 18; 14:2; 16:19), so this suggestion has no linguistic barrier.
In the present verse, the scope of "all people" in the two parts of the verse is distinguished in the context, Paul making it clear, both by his silence and by the logic of vv12-14, that there's no limitation whatsoever on the number of those whoa re involved in Adam's sin, while the deliberately worded v. 17, along with the persistent stress on faith as the means of achieving righteousness in 1:16-4:25, makes it equally clear that only certain people drive the benefits of Christ's act of righteousness."
Universalism is the only possible interpretation if we are going to treat condemnation the way you do. If Adam and Christ are the representative heads as you say, then we participate in what each offers only through free will. So if, as you say, we are all condemned not only for our own sin, but for Adam's as well, then we must necessarily say the same is true for Christ - we are made alive, we are saved, not because of our choosing to participate in it, but because he is the representative head and that life just happened to pass down to us - regardless of our actions.
This all makes much more sense when we acknowledge that either is only a head to the extent that people participate with them. So far, we've all chosen to participate with Adam, not by some magical dust that we are all born with, but by our own real actions and attitudes. The same is true for Christ.
Further, you're failing to acknowledge something - none of us are sinless. It is because of our actions, our choosing to participate in sin, that is the reason for our condemnation. Not merely that Adam sinned so we're all screwed. If that were the case, you have to answer for all kinds of things, not to mention those babies and children who either died before ever hearing the Gospel story or having opportunity to participate in the free gift of salvation. Are they judged and subsequently condemned for Adam's sin as well?
I have no problem saying that, theoretically, someone could actually live a sinless life - but I'm willing to bet everything I have that you won't be able to find one.
the same is true for Christ - we are made alive, we are saved, not because of our choosing to participate in it, but because he is the representative head and that life just happened to pass down to us - regardless of our actions.
Amen! Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
not to mention those babies and children who either died before ever hearing the Gospel story or having opportunity to participate in the free gift of salvation.
Romans 1 should disabuse you of the false notion that damnation depends upon hearing the Gospel first.
Are they judged and subsequently condemned for Adam's sin as well?
Yes.
And I'm not really sure what your last sentence has to do with any of this. Man's nature is born depraved, as Scripture clearly teaches. I don't deny that. Only Christ lived a sinless life. It's not theoretically possible for anyone else to do so.
We've reached an impasse. You think that Christ forces life upon us apart from our own willing participation whereas I believe that we must choose to participate in it. Notice I didn't say we must earn it, simply that we must choose that salvation. God forces himself upon no one.
Romans 1 says nothing to babies and children who have not had the opportunity to even observe the world around them and thus find God. Nice interpretive gymnastics on that one!
As for your response about those little ones who have never had the opportunity to hear of Christ - and many of them never even the opportunity to see the light of day - I'm astonished at your response. I'm not sure I've met someone so off-base theologically.
However, I'm sure you're blind to your inability to see the blatant contradiction. So on one hand, the salvation that comes through Christ is forced upon all (i.e. completely divorced from any actions we take to receive it) and on the other those who have never heard - well, they're guilty because someone they've never met sinned a long time ago? Why is salvation not forced upon them as well?
Oh, and in response to the last part. Scripture doesn't teach that man's nature is depraved. That came from Augustine, my friend. Scripture teaches we've all brought ourselves under God's wrath due to our own sinful actions.
I'll point again to Paul's own words "for all have sinned..." not "for all are depraved", not "for Adam sinned" - no, for all have sinned. Our guilt is the result of our own sin.
Thanks for your response Jesse,
Why else would it mirror some of the various other creation stories of its time but to say, in essence, "You've heard it said, but I say..."
You lost me here. Where is there any reference in Genesis to any other creation accounts? If you are relying on information outside of the text in order to properly interpret the text, then I do not think you are faithfully expositing Scripture. And if time frame does not matter, then why was such care given to laying out the time frame in the text? You have adopted an extrabiblical assumption and have used it to discard Scripture's clear intention.
What was it in this narrative that God was trying to communicate
How He created the world.
As for the Word of God not referring to Scripture:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=22
There is nothing inconsistent about holding God's Word as the highest authority by which to judge all things, including itself. You may disagree with that stance, but it's not inconsistent. Circular, yes. Inconsistent, no.
As for the members of the Westminster Abby, notice that they don't make any specific claims about what the Bible says when it comes to a specific point of belief.
You lost me again. I'm not sure what you mean. Can you please explain?
in other words, the testifiable experience of the Saints throughout church history testify to the truth therein.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that WCF says we know it is the Word of God because of Church tradition? Please clarify.
In regards to inspiration, I believe God-breathed means that God insured that the exact words He wanted written were written. What do you think it means to say that Scripture is God breathed? What is your interpretation of the 2 Peter passage?
You're right, general revelation does not contain anything that is revealed in Scripture
Not sure if that's a typo. What I originally said is that general revelation does NOT reveal anything that is NOT in Scripture, meaning there is not additional information in general revelation that is not contained in special revelation.
<< You lost me here. Where is there any reference in Genesis to any other creation accounts? If you are relying on information outside of the text in order to properly interpret the text, then I do not think you are faithfully expositing Scripture. >>
You're joking right? Exegesis is the process of properly determining the original meaning of the text as the original audience heard it - this requires that we look for indicators outside of the text in order to properly establish historical context. Without historical context, there is much in the text that we are unable to understand precisely because the Biblical account was not written in a vacuum but in real times, to real people, with real history, real language, real experiences.
Quite simply, if you think that proper exegesis can be done by only looking at the Bible and not the context surrounding its writing then you can only come away with a skewed view. Sorry, but reader-response is not a proper interpretive method when it comes to Scripture.
<< And if time frame does not matter, then why was such care given to laying out the time frame in the text? >>
Because even while the time frame may not be the point of the story, it provides structure to the story and demonstrates the truth therein. Quit ignoring the literary genre - it matters!
<< How He created the world. >>
Apparently not. He made no mention of molecules, atoms, gravity, etc., etc., etc., - it appears, then, that the "how" is not as important as the "who" and the "why".
<< There is nothing inconsistent about holding God's Word as the highest authority by which to judge all things, including itself. You may disagree with that stance, but it's not inconsistent. Circular, yes. Inconsistent, no. >>
Fine, its circular - the point is moot.
<< As for the members of the Westminster Abby, notice that they don't make any specific claims about what the Bible says when it comes to a specific point of belief.
You lost me again. I'm not sure what you mean. Can you please explain? >>
Sure. The members saw fit to make general claims about the Bible and the truth thereof - something I agree with. The problem comes when people like yourself come along and attempt to focus on one specific thing the Bible is saying, take a narrow interpretation, and claim that because the Bible is true so is your interpretation - but that's not the way things work. The Bible is true, but your interpretation of it may not be. To claim otherwise, then, is arrogant and foolish.
<< in other words, the testifiable experience of the Saints throughout church history testify to the truth therein.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that WCF says we know it is the Word of God because of Church tradition? Please clarify. >>
No, we know it is true because it has been tested and has proven thus. If it leads us into a deeper relationship with Christ - as has been proven by the Saints throughout history - then we can trust it. Indeed it is useful for instruction - this has also been proven through experience.
<< In regards to inspiration, I believe God-breathed means that God insured that the exact words He wanted written were written. >>
Why, though? What, within the text, has cause you to believe that "God insured that the exact words He wanted written were written"? From where did you gain this definition of "inspired"?
<< You're right, general revelation does not contain anything that is revealed in Scripture
Not sure if that's a typo. What I originally said is that general revelation does NOT reveal anything that is NOT in Scripture, meaning there is not additional information in general revelation that is not contained in special revelation. >>
Its not a typo. I agree. I just reject your interpretation of both. Your big idea (general revelation does not contradict special revelation) is true and good. Its when you get down to then defining what that must mean in specific circumstances where you get yourself into trouble.
Jesse, I appreciate the iron sharpening here.
You're joking right?
No. I'm not. Scripture is sufficient. If you are arguing that the proper interpretation of a passage relies on historical studies that were not available for vast amounts of people throughout time, then you are arguing that there was no way for these people to have understood God's revelation. Improper hermeneutic methods like yours lead to heresies like the New Perspectives on Paul.
I agree, the literary genre does matter. I should be mad at you for ignoring the genre, so calm down. It is historical.
The only reason you don't think the "how" matters is because the "how" disagrees with your understanding of the world. Furthermore, if you say that Genesis was clearly written to explain "why" and not "how" please show me which passage in Genesis explains "why". I can point to numerous passages that explain "how".
The members saw fit to make general claims about the Bible and the truth thereof - something I agree with. The problem comes when people like yourself come along and attempt to focus on one specific thing the Bible is saying
Perhaps you should actually read the Westminster Confession of Faith before you make claims about what they did and didn't do. WCF is a 33 chapter document, with subpoints, that lays out the summation of the Bible's teaching in detail.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
Furthermore, just because they lay out their interpretation of Scripture doesn't mean they say "because the Bible is true so is their interpretation." Straw man.
WCF I.X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
From where did you gain this definition of "inspired"?
Well, for starters, from the texts I quoted. If you disagree with my understanding, please explain your interpretation of those texts. I think it is very clear. And also from the rest of the Bible, which affirms this understanding of inspiration. One example from Warfield:
Gal iii. 8, "the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed" (Gen. xii. 1-3); Rom. ix. 17, "The Scripture saith unto Pharoah, Even for this purpose have I raised thee up" (Ex. ix. 16). It was not, however, the Scripture (which did not exist at the time) that, foreseeing God's purposes of grace in the future, spoke these precious words to Abraham, but God Himself in His own person; it was not the not yet existent Scripture that made this announcement to Pharoah, but God Himself through the mouth of His prophet Moses. These acts could be attributed to "Scripture" only as a result of such a habitual identification, in the mind of the writer, of the text of Scripture with God as speaking, that it became natural to use the term "Scripture says," when what was really intended was "God, as recorded in Scripture, said."
--
Your big idea (general revelation does not contradict special revelation)
That's not my big idea. What I said was that the content of general revelation is nothing in addition to what is contained in special revelation. I'm not talking about contradicting, I'm talking about content. Everything that has been revealed generally has been revealed in Scripture.
<< Scripture is sufficient. If you are arguing that the proper interpretation of a passage relies on historical studies that were not available for vast amounts of people throughout time, then you are arguing that there was no way for these people to have understood God's revelation. Improper hermeneutic methods like yours lead to heresies like the New Perspectives on Paul. >>
That's the beauty of Scripture, God's revelation can be understood on the surface and as you dig down - one does not negate the other. But if you're going to dig down, you'll have to do more than just scratch the surface harder. These hermeneutic methods are the ones employed by the brightest minds in the world both now and throughout history - any scholar with half a brain understands the importance of understanding historical context.
How, pray tell, would I be able to understand the imagery employed in Daniel without knowing the political situation of the time? How could I know about the brutality of the persecution of the early church without the various historical documents? And what of the fall of Jerusalem that was foretold? How might I understand Jesus' own statements without also realizing that they are LOADED politically.?
It is in light of our ability to answer all of these kinds of questions that the Bible actually has substance to it. Absent from historical context it is nothing.
<< I agree, the literary genre does matter. I should be mad at you for ignoring the genre, so calm down. It is historical. >>
Historical in what sense? Historical in the sense that it was written in history? Historical in the sense that it tells a story to a historical people? Historical in the sense that it describes actual events - which begs the question of how seeing as how the writer/writers of Genesis actually weren't there? You have many questions to answer, my friend. Oh, and you completely ignore literary form - a critical part in understanding literary genre.
<< Perhaps you should actually read the Westminster Confession of Faith before you make claims about what they did and didn't do >>
Fair enough. I was only making reference to the part you quoted. Regardless, however, I have no problem disagreeing with them if I feel they erred at some point.
<< Well, for starters, from the texts I quoted >>
Funny, the only texts you quoted said something about Scripture being "inspired" without defining what that means, and then something about it being useful for instruction - so, that still leaves you empty-handed as to how you came up with the conclusion that inspired = dictated.
<< If you disagree with my understanding, please explain your interpretation of those texts >>
The burden of proof is on you to provide a source for your definition.
<< And also from the rest of the Bible, which affirms this understanding of inspiration. One example from Warfield >>
Oh the irony! "The Bible affirms this - see, listen to what this guy (a non-Bible-writer says" - Hilarious. But even that quote doesn't affirm your stance. There are specific points in Scripture where the writers say "And God says..." - this wouldn't apply to the entirety of Scripture.
<< What I said was that the content of general revelation is nothing in addition to what is contained in special revelation >>
Again, I agree. You simply think there is something in the content which I do not.
<< Everything that has been revealed generally has been revealed in Scripture. >>
Agreed. Fortunately for us, the fact that God created everything is both evident in the utter complexity of our universe as well as Scripture telling us so.
Historical in the sense that it describes actual events - which begs the question of how seeing as how the writer/writers of Genesis actually weren't there?
You continue to amaze me with your responses. Go back and look at the 2 Peter passage regarding the prophetic Word.
The burden of proof is on you to provide a source for your definition.
I did, and you disagreed. 2 Peter says that the authors of Scripture are not writing from their own interpretation, but they are being carried along by the Holy Spirit. I believe this means that the Holy Spirit insured that the words that were recorded were God-breathed. This is a clear understanding of this clear passage. If you disagree, please say why, don't just say I have to give you an answer you like.
this wouldn't apply to the entirety of Scripture.
If it is your belief that the inspired authors saw parts of Scripture as God speaking and infallible, but not other parts, please show me where they made this division. Every mention of Scripture in Scripture refers to it as a whole. Christ said the Scriptures cannot be broken. He didn't say the good parts of Scripture cannot be broken.
Fortunately for us, the fact that God created everything is both evident in the utter complexity of our universe as well as Scripture telling us so.
The teleological argument for intelligent design does not lead us to God. We know God created the universe because He has innately revealed himself to every man (Romans 1), and because Scripture says so.
Jesse, I'm sorry, but you assume a large amount when you start throwing around statements such as "the Bible is not a science book" and when you claim that Genesis was more of a poetic narrative. The first question would be: Who do you believe the author to be? If you believe as most scholars believe, that Moses was the author while on the Mount with God, then God would have revealed the story to him as God was revealing to him the law, the requirements for the temple, etc.
Read the story of Noah and pull out a sheet of graph paper. Tell me again this was a poetic narrative... because when I drop any and all assumptions and just draw out exactly what God described, it sure does look like a huge giant "ark" (or box as the original meaning suggests).
Read through Exodus, and Numbers. When God commands the camp to set up, pull out graph paper & draw out exactly what God commands... you see structure, organization, planning, and perfection - precision. Read God's instructions for designing the temple (the tent of meeting) and pull out the graph paper - it is specific. It is precise.
Your assumption is that we as a collective Christian bodies are fools who do not read the Bible but rather only read the concordance & take on faith whatever we're told from a pulpit or from a quaint coffee-table bible study book. My question to you is, really, how diligently have YOU studied these books, because although it is a narrative, it sure does go into a whole slew of detail that I would have left out if I were just trying to pass on a story. It sure does get into a lot of scientific measurement and details that make it tie together in a splendid and rich way as you really begin to study and digest it.
I agree that we should not try to make the Bible "say something that it does not say". Context is important. The big picture is important. But you are, without meaning to, doing that very thing - throwing your intellectual leanings into scripture without digging in to see what's actually there. Just be careful... what you're moving towards is a worldview that says the Bible is a suggestive book of principles - not a divinely inspired book of history, prophecy, and laws and testimonies. You're getting dangerously close to the worldview that throws out any and all scriptures that they disagree with or find unpopular... at what point do you decide what is trustworthy and what is unnecessary. I think you have good intentions - you just need to keep the main thing the main thing - which ironically is your point in writing this: Why do we argue theology so much when we should be acting - serving, caring, & providing for those in need... instead, we philosophize & criticize the way we each study and apply scripture.
So all in all, just be careful with what you throw around - I think you know that you are in a way presenting yourself as a teacher - and if you know the word well at all, you know God takes that very seriously and that we are held accountable for what we teach...
Hey Smalltown,
Thanks for the feedback. To clarify (I apologize for not being clear on this the first time) the part that I find primarily poetic in nature and not necessarily meant to be read as science is Genesis 1-3. With that said, then, what are your thoughts on that?
Thanks!
Jesse
Jesse - Maybe you could definitively outline for us which exact portions of the Bible are meant to be literal and which ones are as you say, "poetic?" Your last post indicates only Genesis 1-3. Why does that small portion qualify and not, say the tower of Babel, or the parting of the Red Sea? The resurrection? When Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life - no one comes to the Father but by me. Was he serious about that? Is there really only one way to the Father? Why in the world should I believe in and put my trust in a God who starts the most foundational portion of his message - the first book of his history (the Bible) - in "poetry?"
Websters provides some pretty clear statements about what "science" is and where the notion of science, or "scientia" comes from. Why is it that the Bible cannot help us "to know" things, and further, to know the truth about things we observe in this physical world?
Hi Steve,
First, thanks for reading. It is nice to know that this thing still gets read!
Second, I think I know what you might be trying to do and I struggle with my response. On the one hand, I do have in my mind an idea of which things in the Bible are meant to be read literally and which are not. On the other hand, it is not my place to tell you which passages those are - its not anybody's place really. That is, first of all, between you and God. Second, it is between you and your intellect - by that, I mean you should make decisions based on what you believe to be the most convincing evidence - anything other would be disobedience to Christ. Third, it is between you and your community; the people who you rub shoulders with on a regular basis. After balancing the three, then you can make your own decision and chances are we will disagree on some points.
That said, the Bible really is fraught with songs, poems, visions, allegory, parable, hyperbole, etc. Not everything is meant to be taken literally (to clarify, since some want to split hairs here, "literally" here is being used to mean "as it reads" not "as it was meant to be read") and that's okay. We need to shed our modernistic, facts-only based mindsets if we want to understand the Bible correctly.
I'll give two, albeit brief, examples: Jesus said that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds (Mark 4:31). Now, either Jesus is using hyperbole to make a point, or he is simply mistaken - the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds. The second is when Paul says he does not allow a woman to have authority over a man. Now, I know some have maintained that women should never be in authority over a man, but most will agree that Paul is addressing a context issue here and in order to understand him correctly, we need to appeal to context. Why do we assume that Genesis HAS to be otherwise? Why do we think that the writing of Genesis does not have its own context?
An interesting question that can be asked is this: how might we feel about the Genesis passage if we had no concept of evolution and/or if it were 200 years from now and evolution were as commonly held a belief as gravity is now? We have to realize that there are things in OUR OWN context that color how we see texts as well - sometimes that is good and sometimes it is bad.
Hope this helps. I look forward to continued interaction.