Evangelicals spend a lot of time fighting about Genesis and the proper interpretation thereof. Catholics spend a lot less time on it for reasons which are not fully clear to me. My area of scholarship is religion, law, and politics, so I am far from expert in this controversy as either a theologian or a scientist.
What I am curious about and would like to see discussion of here at this blog is why this issue commands so much attention relative to other matters. Let me explain what I mean. I became a Christian because I became convinced of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. To me, his resurrection is the point upon which a person must become convinced. Nothing else is comparable.
The resurrection of Jesus is where the whole thing rests, isn’t it? If he rose, then we need to follow him. If he did not, then we are back to just choosing our faith on the basis of preference or a mystical experience.
How does the Genesis battle get in front of that? Am I missing something? I am completely open to the possibility that I am.
(In bringing this up I am not jumping on the Darwin train. I think reasonable people of all faiths or none should probably have strong reservations about buying that package, especially in its widest-reaching forms.)
August 25th, 2010 | 10:48 am | #1
Hi Hunter,
“What I am curious about and would like to see discussion of here at this blog is why this issue commands so much attention relative to other matters.”
Steve Drake: Here are my thoughts on it. Christianity is a system of thought. The doctrine of creation is key to that system, and key to our Systematic Theology just like soteriology, hamartiology, Christology, eschatology, ecclesiology, etc.
Your question, ‘if He(Christ) rose, then we need to follow him’ presupposes something doesn’t it? How does one ‘know’ that Christ arose? Let me stop here, and see if you might comment on how ‘you’ personally ‘know’ that Christ arose? Thanks.
August 25th, 2010 | 10:57 am | #2
I think Steve Drake has put his finger on something here.
Most evangelicals I know (I mean the ones I know personally, in local churches) hold to a literal, 6-day, Young-Earth view of Genesis. They think of this as the most obvious–indeed, the only possible–interpretation of Genesis.
If this interpretation is called into question, they think that the entire Bible is called into question, including the Gospels.
Some evangelical teachers on this subject (Ken Ham and Henry Morris leap immediately into mind) bring out this connection explicitly.
Catholics tend not to be too concerned about this because they tend to read the opening of Genesis as a different sort of literature as the Gospels.
August 25th, 2010 | 10:59 am | #3
I became convinced that Christ rose on the basis of the historical accounts in the gospels. Gary Habermas has argued that you wouldn’t even have to believe the scriptures were divinely inspired to believe Christ rose from the dead.
I’m not taking on that point of view and neither does he, but I think it holds up.
August 25th, 2010 | 11:12 am | #4
I think it’s more than just calling the whole Bible into question. It’s about one’s epistemology. One’s presuppositions for knowing anything about anything at all. Let’s think in philosophical terms, can we? Can our discussion not center around systems of thought, philosophically?
So then a question: How does accepting historical accounts for the veracity of a matter stand up in light of epistemology?
August 25th, 2010 | 11:26 am | #5
People like “control” – they want, in particular our western, American culture, knowledge, understanding and above all, certainty. I think they like to control God – control him by their theology.
Because, lets face it, if your eternal soul is dependent upon being right, it’s pretty important, well, to be right. So people want to tie it all down to the last gnat’s behind.
Calvin spent decades writing and rewriting his institutes. His followers then have spent centuries arguing over what he said and why Calvinism is superior to all other theological thoughts (which makes them not that much different than any other sect). Why centuries of study and argument? Because we want control, certainty, knowledge.
YEC is nothing more or less than people trying to impose certainty on God, for one’s personal comfort in being sure one is right. Because, lets all agree, if you actually think you have an eternal soul, well, getting right is pretty important.
August 25th, 2010 | 11:33 am | #6
I can see where this thread is headed brothers. If we don’t get back to the questions above that Hunter addressed and my questions about epistemology, then Hunter, I’m out of here.
August 25th, 2010 | 11:55 am | #7
The current issues are as follows (as I understand it):
1. Authority
How do you understand the relationship between seemingly competing authorities like scripture and science? That was part of the debate here sparked by Christopher Benson’s posts. This is in part a battle over how sola scriptura functions as a theological position.
2. Inerrancy
Invariably questions about interpretation and authority move toward questions of inerrancy. In particular, issues like if you don’t think Adam and Eve are historical persons, then you don’t think the Bible is inerrant because Paul and others seemed to presume their historicity.
3. Hermeneutics
Closely related to the first two issues, is the question of how one interprets various passages in scripture. Here, it seems to me, the biggest issue is the relationship between theological systems and biblical interpretation. How much does one’s interpretation of a text inform the theological system out of which one operates vs. the theological system informing the interpretation of a biblical text?
For example, the same individuals who claim Clark Pinnock is wrong to read “God repented” literally will also claim it is wrong to read Genesis 1 and 2 as poetry. Theological systems, it seems to me, impact these interpretive moves.
4. Doctrinal
Here the issue of the historicity of Adam and Eve has become paramount in relation to the doctrine of original sin. Without commenting on the issue of historicity, one can hold to a rigorous doctrine of original sin without holding to historicity of Adam and Eve. You simply begin with creation ex nihilo as Athanasius does, and go from there. However, that is part of the issue.
August 25th, 2010 | 11:55 am | #8
Back in my Protestant days, I was inclined (sometimes) to agree with YEC out of fear of a slippery slope in Scriptural interpretation: if we allow a non-literal Genesis 1, we might end up with a non-literal resurrection. What held me back was a sense that Genesis 1 was a different type of literature than the gospels, and although the slope might be slippery for some, I (like you) was fully convinced of the resurrection. Rather than beginning with an assumption that the Scriptures were inerrant, and believing in the resurrection because the Bible said so, I believed the Bible because I first believed in Christ and his resurrection.
Now that I’m a Catholic, any fear of an interpretive slippery slope has pretty much been eliminated. The Church has drawn clear lines around the essentials of the faith, and we can
August 25th, 2010 | 11:59 am | #9
Not quite sure I understand your concern Steve – if what we are looking at is what is knowledge, how do we get it, what do we know, then it seems that is what we are discussing.
Re my post at 5 – Darwinism is really the same thing – an attempt to control our world, to be certain, to impose our theological framework over reality.
August 25th, 2010 | 12:00 pm | #10
Back in my Protestant days, I was inclined (sometimes) to agree with YEC out of fear of a slippery slope in Scriptural interpretation: if we allow a non-literal Genesis 1, we might end up with a non-literal resurrection. What held me back was a sense that Genesis 1 was a different type of literature than the gospels, and although the slope might be slippery for some, I (like you) was fully convinced of the resurrection. Rather than beginning with an assumption that the Scriptures were inerrant, and believing in the resurrection because the Bible said so, I believed the Bible because I first believed in Christ and his resurrection.
Now that I’m a Catholic, any fear of an interpretive slippery slope has pretty much been eliminated. The Church has drawn clear lines around the essentials of the faith, and we can debate the secondary issues without fear of accidentally leaving the bounds of orthodoxy. But for a Protestant, it’s much harder to relegate any biblical issue to “secondary” status.
August 25th, 2010 | 12:17 pm | #11
Steve, can you be more specific about that question? Instead of leading me somewhere, I’d rather you just made the point and let me grapple with it. Like I say, I’m interesting in talking about this and thinking further. I would think that accepting historical accounts would be a reliable way of gaining knowledge. That is the mechanism by which we know anything about our past, for example. Surely, we all do it and find it to be a successful way of learning.
August 25th, 2010 | 12:18 pm | #12
Protestantism is more or less a product of the Enlightenment and Modernism. That effects the questions that are asked of a text. Plus the schismatic nature of Protestantism means you are more in a mode of “proving” my team is right. Roman Catholicism has a continuity beyond the Enlightenment/Modernist experience so it more readily accepts alternative approaches to interpretation that often have their roots or precursors in the ancient church. Or so it seems to me.
August 25th, 2010 | 12:23 pm | #13
As an answer to the original post, I’d go with a synthesis of comments #1 and #5. The basic ideas:
(1) All these things powerfully motivate a person towards securing certainty in the truth of Christianity: fears of hell, the comfort found in biblical promises, and the devastating intolerability of being mistaken about that around which one has organized one’s life and values.
(2) Since Christianity is a system of thought, its central theses (e.g., the resurrection) are interwoven with and supported by various other less central theses (e.g., the creation story, the inerrancy of scripture, the fall of Adam, etc.), which are themselves interwoven with each other.
(3) Because of the way its theses are interwoven, certainty in the truth of Christianity tends to stand or fall with certainty in its supporting theses. (For the reflective and critical mind, it’s very difficult to maintain certainty in the resurrection merely through the historical arguments of Gary Habermas–especially if one find the other tenets of Christianity highly implausible, or if one also recognizes the challenges to the historical arguments.)
One final thought: it is comforting to believe in YEC for the very reason that flies in the face of modern science. For, if YEC is true, then modern science is fundamentally mistaken about so much. And if modern science is mistaken about so much, then modern science is far less venerable, and therefore far easier to dismiss in general as any kind of threat to one’s strongly desired certainty in the truth Christianity.
August 25th, 2010 | 12:33 pm | #14
Hunter,
My understanding of your original question is ‘why the origins issue commands so much time relative to other issues’.
Your post actually used the word ‘Genesis’, but by that I take it you are addressing the question of origins. If I’m not specifying this correctly, and putting words in your mouth, then please correct me.
I’m sure you would say that ‘origins’ is important, and we should be spending a lot of time on it, but again, maybe I’m reading into your words.
So as Christians then, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ here, my question has to do with how we come to knowledge. This is no less an important question for non-Christians as it is for Christians. One’s epistemology is central to all of us, and must be answered with logical and cogent reasonings.
If as all of us here are Christians, our epistemology rests finally on the Word of God revealed in Scripture, is that a fair assumption? Or is that not true of everyone here posting to your blog?
August 25th, 2010 | 12:44 pm | #15
“If as all of us here are Christians, our epistemology rests finally on the Word of God revealed in Scripture, is that a fair assumption? Or is that not true of everyone here posting to your blog?”
Well, in my understanding of “epistemology,” it does not rest on the Word revealed in Scripture. The school of thought to which I belong holds that our epistemology rests first of all on sensory experiences. “There is nothing in the intellect not first in the senses,” except the mechanisms of intellect itself.
So I’m not understanding the thrust of the question. What does that have to do with Genesis, or origins?
I would still stick with the idea, in response to the original question, that evangelicals focus on this issue because many of them hold to a literalistic view of the entire Bible. If creation didn’t take 6 24-hour days, then maybe Jesus didn’t rise, either (as one might say).
August 25th, 2010 | 12:46 pm | #16
Steve, you are right that I am referring to the debate over origins. With regard to the question about epistemology, that would be part of the discussion. Do people think of the whole of scripture as basically self-authenticating? Or do they come to be convinced of the value of scripture because of the historic event of the resurrection of Christ, a person to whom the scripture is tied because he clearly sees himself as part of that story?
Craig, with regard to your remarks, I think that between Habermas and N.T. Wrights The Resurrection of the Son of God, there is a pretty strong case to be made for the historic resurrection.
August 25th, 2010 | 12:47 pm | #17
I “think” what Steve is alluding to is scripture as special revelation and thus “the” authority. If I am correct, strictly speaking, he is asking about sources of knowledge, not the actual process of coming to know. That is, he is in the realm of competing authorities (those deriving from natural revelation vs. special revelation). That’s my guess.
August 25th, 2010 | 1:20 pm | #18
Hmmmm. A robust epistemology centered on the risen Christ.
Has anyone ever done that sort of thing?
August 25th, 2010 | 1:52 pm | #19
Guys,
Yes, what is ‘the final’ authority, as Dale says. What is your ‘final’ authority as a Christian. There has to be ‘something’ that is final, right? The ‘ultimate’ resting point for everything else.
So if most of us agree that Scripture is the ‘final’ authority, thus one’s basis for how we ‘finally’ know anything, then the dialog really centers around one’s interpretation of that ‘final’ authority. Isn’t this really where we disagree, and why we’re spending so much time on it? What am I missing here?
August 25th, 2010 | 2:06 pm | #20
David Paul, I don’t know!
August 25th, 2010 | 2:16 pm | #21
Hi Craig,
“Well, in my understanding of “epistemology,” it does not rest on the Word revealed in Scripture. The school of thought to which I belong holds that our epistemology rests first of all on sensory experiences.”
Steve Drake: If first of all your epistemology rests on sensory experiences, what is it that tells you your sensory experiences are valid?
August 25th, 2010 | 2:27 pm | #22
Hunter,
I too share your “approach” (can it be called that?) to the Christian faith. I too find my faith forming its Christian identity in the resurrection of Jesus, not starting with a hammered out interpretation of the Genesis account. One reason (though not the only one) why the Genesis debate overshadows the resurrection in providing a foundation for faith is that it is rooted in what I call a ‘house of cards’ theology. This means that if you question Adam living for 900 years or that the earth is 6000 years old you cannot believe in the resurrection. I have heard over and over in these threads that if the Bible is shown to have an error than nothing from it can be trusted. But as you said, quite rightly I might add, one does not need to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture to believe Jesus rose from the dead. Not believing in inerrancy will result in a host of theological problems, but it does not nullify Christian faith.
This may be lead back to a way of doing epistemology. For us, we are ‘foundationalists’ in that we build our Christian beliefs off of the resurrection. The others are ‘coherentists’ who seek consistency in their web of beliefs. If one belief is not cohering, then all of it is affected. That may not be right, but it is how I see it.
August 25th, 2010 | 2:28 pm | #23
@#1 – “Christianity is a system of thought.” I beg to differ.
Christianity is, first, last, and only, a relationship – a way of living, reconciled to God and neighbor through our relationship to God as He is fully expressed in the person of Jesus.
Calvinism is a system of thought.
August 25th, 2010 | 2:40 pm | #24
Hi Don in Phoenix,
Since you quoted my statement above, I’ll respond as best I can. In terms of philosophy, Christianity ‘is’ a system of thought. All religions, philosophies, cults, etc. try to answer the basic philosophical questions of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. You are right in that Christianity is ultimately a relationship with the risen Jesus Christ, but it is also much more than that in that it answers the above philosophical questions. By saying this, I am not downplaying that ultimately one has to decide on what he or she will do with Jesus, but in terms of how we know that Christianity is true truth, this system of thought we call ‘Christianity’ must stand up in the marketplace of ideas.
August 25th, 2010 | 3:07 pm | #25
Hi Hunter,
“Do people think of the whole of scripture as basically self-authenticating? Or do they come to be convinced of the value of scripture because of the historic event of the resurrection of Christ, a person to whom the scripture is tied because he clearly sees himself as part of that story?”
Steve Drake: Your question above summarizes quite well our dialog, does it not? If we appeal to man’s autonomous reason for authenticating the resurrection, are we not then asking him to decide viz-a-viz ‘himself’ whether there is sufficient evidence of that belief? Or is the argument really not about his ‘epistemology’, and how he can ‘from himself’ decide if the facts concerning the resurrection are sufficient to compel his belief?
August 25th, 2010 | 3:34 pm | #26
I think perhaps the issue becomes one of epistemology only under a certain epistemology, i.e. biblical positivism. If one can only affirm something if it appears in scripture, then there are no other sources of knowledge, and thus you should discount anything science says and take everything in scripture at face value. But the upshot of this is that we should take the passage in Joshua about the sun standing still as literally true, with the sun moving around the earth as it phenomenally appears to us. The fact that such a view is ludicrous should tell us something about biblical positivism as an epistemology.
On virtually any mainstream epistemology accepted by any Christian, there are sources of information other than the Bible, and some of those may limit what interpretations we might take on the Bible even if we assume full inerrancy of the scriptures. I don’t deny inerrancy by taking the language of that Joshua passage phenomenally. I don’t deny inerrancy by allowing for rounded numbers, such as the measurements in Chronicles that we leave us calculating pi to be 3.
So why is it any different to let a scientific discovery influence which interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis are most likely? In principle, it shouldn’t be, and thus epistemology isn’t the issue. Our understanding of (1) which interpretations of the text are possible, (2) which interpretations of the text are most likely, (3) which understandings of how events transpired are possible given the information science clearly tells us, and (4) which understandings of how events transpired are most likely given the information science clearly tells us.
I happen to think (1) allows for quite a bit more room than the six-dayers think, even if they are right about (2). Even if you took exactly that view, you might think (3) is much more limited than six-dayers allow for, and thus the most likely interpretation of the passage does not at all fit with the information we get from the world through the senses God gave us. If that’s right, then it doesn’t matter what your epistemology is as long as you’re not a biblical positivist. You might then reject six-day interpretations.
August 25th, 2010 | 3:51 pm | #27
Hunter:
If someone has, we ought to find out. If no one has, someone might oughta.
But if anyone is going to do this, they would do well to be instructed by the first chapter of Colossians, which lays out a pretty comprehensive framework for the Christian “system of thinking”.
Of course, if the first chapter of Colossians is itself subject to our epistemology, then we can go ahead and throw the whole shootin’ match out the window.
August 25th, 2010 | 4:03 pm | #28
Steve, here’s something to consider. When Paul goes to the Areopagus, he uses the resurrection as proof (his choice of word there) of who God is and what he is doing.
August 25th, 2010 | 4:08 pm | #29
Dear Hunter Baker: Yes, I agree that the resurrection of Jesus is a historic fact. I was referring to the possible response of an evangelical regarding Genesis: “If THIS is not a historic account (Genesis), then THIS isn’t either (Gospels).” I think that’s why the Genesis debates are so heated within evangelicalism.
Steve Drake, you wrote, “If first of all your epistemology rests on sensory experiences, what is it that tells you your sensory experiences are valid?” This is a good epistemological question, and refers back to the historic debate between rationalism and empiricism. I would argue, as do people such as Etienne Gilson (not to mention Aristotle and Aquinas) that our sensory experiences are accepted as a principle of knowledge itself, and therefore they need no other validation.
But the main point of this post is in the first paragraph. The epistemological discussions are leaving me sort of muddled as to the main point of this thread.
August 25th, 2010 | 4:11 pm | #30
Evangelicals spend a lot of time fighting about Genesis and the proper interpretation thereof.
I confess that I don’t really understand how epistemology gets at the question you are asking so forgive me if it seems this is going off on a separate tangent.
The reason the interpretation of the early chapters in Genesis are important is because they have direct bearing on what comes in the New Testament. The Bible is a coherent narrative—what happens at the beginning (Genesis) affects the latter middle (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John).
For example, you say “resurrection is the point upon which a person must become convinced.” I agree that the resurrection is important. But why is it important? Lazarus was also raised from the dead but we didn’t start a religion around him. ; )
The reason the resurrection is important is because of how it relates to the crucifixion and why Christ died. And we can’t understand that unless we understand Christ is the “second Adam.”
If Adam is not a historical person, then it doesn’t really matter if Jesus is historical either. A metaphorical atonement would work just find for a metaphorical Fall. So whether Adam was a real, historical person is deeply important.
The question, of course, is whether you have to take a “literal” reading of Genesis 1 to get a historical Adam. I don’t think you do. But I also don’t think you can get there with the current understanding of evolution (at least as applied to man).
By the way, I know a lot of Catholics tend to think the “church has that stuff figured out already.” But I don’t think that is the case. The Catholic Church requires believing in a historical Adam. But there is no way to get there other than through a special act of creation. So Catholics are in the same camp as other “creationists” in the eyes of most supporters of evolution.
August 25th, 2010 | 4:31 pm | #31
Joe, those are excellent comments and very much the kind of thing I was hoping to see here.
August 25th, 2010 | 4:50 pm | #32
Hunter,
You are of course referring to Acts 17:22-34 (Paul before the Areopagus). I agree with you that Paul in the marketplace (Acts 17:17) was apologetically proclaiming the kerygma, which centered on Jesus and the resurrection, but before the Areopagus notice how he starts:
verse 22: “For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in in temples made by hands; neither is He served by human hands, as thought He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things;…
His approach was to speak in terms of basic philosophical perspectives and assumptions. The monism, determinism, materialism, or philosophy of history, held by the Athenian philosophers, could intellectually find grounds for disputing the ‘facts’ of the resurrection.
It seems to be that it would have been futile given the cultural context of Paul’s address there, to argue about the facts of the resurrection without challenging their ‘philosophy of fact’.
In other words, Paul is taking ‘revelational authority’ as his starting point and controlling factor in all reasoning. From this, the resurrection will make sense.
August 25th, 2010 | 5:00 pm | #33
Brother Craig,
“I would argue, as do people such as Etienne Gilson (not to mention Aristotle and Aquinas) that our sensory experiences are accepted as a principle of knowledge itself, and therefore they need no other validation.”
Steve Drake: Our sensory experiences as a principle of knowledge need no validation? What? One takes that as a ‘given’, but offers no proof of why I should trust ‘your’ experiences over ‘mine’ or someone else’s?
August 25th, 2010 | 6:04 pm | #34
Dear Joe Carter: You wrote, “The Catholic Church requires believing in a historical Adam. But there is no way to get there other than through a special act of creation.”
I am not sure why you say this. I understand the special act of creation of the human soul, the nature created in God’s image. But why couldn’t the first human qua human be the result of evolution (physically)?
August 25th, 2010 | 6:07 pm | #35
Dear Steve Drake: I do trust your sense experiences, with the exception of possible perceptual problems. For example, if you tell me you see your computer on your desk, I believe you. Epistemologically speaking, your seeing your computer gives you trustworthy knowledge of it. I believe if I were in the room with you, I would see it, too.
Does anyone seriously doubt this? (Besides Descartes.)
August 25th, 2010 | 6:29 pm | #36
Craig,
What I’m trying to say brother, is that sense experiences do not give you a true basis for knowledge, in the ultimate sense. Sure, you can see my computer if you were here with me, and I could see yours if there with you, but to base our ultimate and final knowledge on sense experiences will ultimately lead to frustration and no ‘true’ knowledge of anything at all.
The question that is still unanswered is: why you or I should trust our sensory experiences? What is the epistemological basis for trusting one’s experience?
August 25th, 2010 | 6:34 pm | #37
How does one know that his sensory experience actually corresponds to reality?
August 25th, 2010 | 6:38 pm | #38
Hi Jeff Doles,
How ‘does’ one know that his/her sensory experience corresponds to reality? That’s my question. Do you have an answer?
August 25th, 2010 | 6:39 pm | #39
Sorry; not catching your drift. If you are just saying we cannot physically perceive God, I agree. However, from my sensory experiences of the universe, I can infer God’s existence; this is the foundation for Aquinas’s “five ways.”
The epistemological foundation for trusting our senses is two-fold: first of all, by enumerative induction I can say my senses have been right so far, in the countless times I have trusted them. Secondly, since trusting sense experience is in fact rooted in induction, you could argue it is a given. No amount of argument could convince someone to see the color green. In this sense, sensory perception is like a logical law; A = A, let us say. If someone wants to argue that, how do you start? It is a given, either accepted or not.
Likewise with the general reliability of the senses.
And I am still unable to catch how any of this relates to Genesis.
August 25th, 2010 | 6:42 pm | #40
Dear Jeff Doles: One good answer to your question, I think, is “enumerative induction.” After a while, you simply learn that your senses can be trusted to give reliable information.
You can go on to something more ultimate, I suppose, like “God is good and He wouldn’t deceive us by giving us faulty senses.” However, I don’t think you actually need that to make the previous epistemological point, that the senses are trustworthy.
August 25th, 2010 | 6:43 pm | #41
Dear Hunter Baker: I have a question for you: Is any of this going in a way which furthers your original discussion?
August 25th, 2010 | 6:51 pm | #42
Dear Craig,
you said:”…by enumerative induction I can say my senses have been right so far, in the countless times I have trusted them. Secondly, since trusting sense experience is in fact rooted in induction, you could argue it is a given. No amount of argument could convince someone to see the color green.”
Steve Drake: How do you ‘know’ that ‘induction’ is valid? How are you able to predict that what happens today and in the past based on your sensory experiences will happen in the future? What is your epistemological basis for this assumption? You are assuming or presupposing ‘something’, and this is what I’m driving at?
August 25th, 2010 | 7:02 pm | #43
Dear Craig,
The original question posed by Hunter was ‘why origins matters and why we as evangelicals spend so much time debating it, especially as it relates to Genesis’. Is this not correct? I’m paraphrasing of course.
My initial question and post relates to ‘knowledge’, and what we as Christians presuppose as our original, ultimate reference point for knowledge, or epistemology. If the debate is over two sources of knowledge, or two competing sources of knowledge, both equal in terms of ‘ultimate’ knowledge, then my questions have been answered, for from several posts not all of us agree that the revelational Word of God as revealed in Scripture is the ‘ultimate’ source of knowledge. This then is a different argument.
But as to why we spend so much time debating Genesis, I think the question of one’s ‘epistemology’ does bear validity.
August 25th, 2010 | 7:31 pm | #44
Craig, I’ve found many of these comments useful and especially enjoyed Joe’s. What is happening in the conversation that to you seems unedifying or excessively muddled?
August 25th, 2010 | 7:39 pm | #45
Dear Hunter Baker: I’ll respond to you first, since your question is a bit easier: I thought your question was basically “Why do evangelicals place so much emphasis on a literal interpretation of Genesis?” It seems that from there we wandered rather quickly into a discussion of empiricism vs. rationalism, the trustworthiness of the senses, and so on. That’s why I thought the discussion was a bit muddled.
However, if no one else minds, I won’t either.
August 25th, 2010 | 7:52 pm | #46
Dear Steve Drake: You wrote, “How do you ‘know’ that ‘induction’ is valid? How are you able to predict that what happens today and in the past based on your sensory experiences will happen in the future? What is your epistemological basis for this assumption? You are assuming or presupposing ‘something’, and this is what I’m driving at?”
Well, the nature of a “given” is that it does not require validation. A stupid but simple example: If you see a truck coming down the road toward you, you don’t require me or God or the Bible or anything else to convince you to trust your senses. The same is true in the myriad circumstances of our everyday life, to such an extent that (by enumerative induction) we accept our sense perceptions as a “principle of knowledge” in the same way we accept self-evident logical laws. The difference is that the logical law is instantly self-evident (it is a priori in nature), while our acceptance of our sense experiences is based on our life’s experiences (it is a posteriori in nature).
According to this empiricist view, we can also come to know universal truths, including some truths about the Lord, by “abstracting” out of the knowledge we have gained via our particularized sense experiences. I have seen many “cats”; therefore, I know what “a cat” is. As Aristotle put it, all generalized premises in deductive arguments are derived from particularized inductive knowledge.
If you can’t trust your wood, you wouldn’t be able to trust your house. If you can’t trust your senses, you shouldn’t trust rational deliberation either. (Of course, many Christians don’t.)
And so I’m left wondering what epistemology you are driving at. The Word of God? Does that mean I can’t believe that my desk is brown unless I can find that in the Bible?
August 25th, 2010 | 7:55 pm | #47
Craig, you are appealing to your sensory experience to prove your sensory experience is a reliable source of knowledge about reality. Sounds to me like you’re arguing in a circle. How do you know that your sensory experience is reliable in the first place?
Earlier, you said, “‘There is nothing in the intellect not first in the senses,’ except the mechanisms of intellect itself.” You have place a lot of dependency on sensory experience, but you cannot prove it to be a reliable indicator of reality except by assuming in your premise what you wish to prove in your conclusion.
As a fallback position, you have, “God is good and He wouldn’t deceive us by giving us faulty senses.” The truth of that statement is not something you can come to by the senses. And it is not a mechanism of the intellect itself. So to make that statement as an argument, you have to violate your earlier statement, and assume something that is neither sensory knowledge nor intellectual mechanism.
August 25th, 2010 | 8:00 pm | #48
1. Contrary to the Roman Catholic Church, nany American Protestant sects do not accept Creation to be the Word of God equal to the Bible. Consequently, they place Nature outside The Truth, unlike The Westminster Presbyterian Church (US):
“…the doctrine of sola scriptura is not a denial of natural revelation. The Bible itself teaches that there are things that man can learn about God and himself from nature (cf. Ps. 19; Rom. 1:20ff.). We should note, however, that: (1) Natural revelation was never intended to be used independently of direct revelation. Before the fall God spoke directly to Adam regarding the tree of good and evil. (2) When mankind fell in Adam, both the earth and the human race were affected by sin. Sin and the curse have rendered natural revelation unreliable as a source for ethics. (3) Scripture teaches that although natural revelation is enough to render the human race guilty and without excuse (Rom. 1:18), it is not sufficient to teach man about salvation, Christ and many other crucial doctrines. (4) Further, any doctrines or ethics that could be determined from natural revelation could not contradict and would have to be judged by the perspicuous and sufficient Holy Scriptures.”
2. There is some sizable portion of Christians for whom faith can only exist if God, Creation, and Scripture is simple and very personal: that is, in order to love God, he must be fatherly and human; to understand God, he must speak plainly and literally; to believe God, he must be visible and direct, and to obey God, they must not question the theology of their church — hence their instinctive reaction to theological challenges. For people like Ken Ham, their fear – and perhaps they have a good, personal reason – is that any theological ‘accommodation’ would destroy their personal faith in God.
If such people really are incapable of supporting a faith that is both stronger and more flexible, then arguments will never win them over: they would rather be wrong than lost. Certainly an understandable motivation – perhaps even commendable – but they err by assuming that most Christians have such brittle faith and thus need protection from Evolution, Science, etc.
August 25th, 2010 | 8:23 pm | #49
Dear Jeff: I didn’t exactly say that sense experience proves sense experience is valid. I argued that sense experience is itself a principle of knowledge and therefore does not really need to be validated. Of course, it is validated, all the time, every day.
Let me turn the question around for everyone: Every second of every minute of every waking day, you trust the evidence of your senses. You trusted your senses long before you knew anything specifically “religious.” Why?
August 25th, 2010 | 8:28 pm | #50
Regarding the quote on “natural revelation was never intended to be used independently of direct revelation”: Christ is the Creator. Therefore, natural revelation can be thought of as a different type of revelation, but still coming directly from God; and not only that, but even Christocentric in nature. (No pun intended.)
As for the reliability of the natural revelation and the natural reason which comprehends it, that could be another argument. However, since there already seem to be about three different arguments going on already in this thread….. :)
August 25th, 2010 | 8:47 pm | #51
Dear Hunter,
No, you are not wrong. The resurrection comes first and everything else makes sense in light of that.
Your comments about the areopagus were very good.
I know that Jesus died and was resurrected. I also know that the mountains were in his mind and he spoke them into being.
I also know that he created Adam. But I don’t have to say it was a “special” act of creation in order to preserve any of the rest of my theology–because people like David don’t exactly call their own formation in their mother’s wombs “mundane” (Ps 139). I’ll take a cue from David, thanks.
The “special” vs. “non-special” thing is a distinction utterly alien to scripture. But, I guess it’s useful if you have some epistemology that you need to duct-tape together.
August 25th, 2010 | 9:42 pm | #52
Craig Payne I understand the special act of creation of the human soul, the nature created in God’s image. But why couldn’t the first human qua human be the result of evolution (physically)?
The current theory is that homo sapiens diverged from H. heidelbergensis between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago in Africa. Now if God created the human soul in a male H. heidelbergensis but did not change him physically, then Adam is not part of our species.
Somewhere along the line of his descendents, these ensouled H. heidelbergensis would have had to evolve into homo sapiens. That would be a bit hard to square with biblical anthropology.
But if God waited until homo sapiens became a distinct species before creating the human soul in one his creatures, then there were a number of soul-less men and woman running around that weren’t allowed into Eden. That not out of the realm of possibility, but it also does not seem to align with biblical anthropology.
Of course I could be missing something. What do you think is the most plausible way to reconcile it?
August 25th, 2010 | 11:11 pm | #53
Well, you might think this is stretching a bit, but: Genetically, homo sapiens becomes homo sapiens in the womb. If humans are ensouled at conception, then every homo sapiens would be a human being. There would be no “non-souled” humans running around.
Of course, this raises the vision of Junior being human, but Mom and Dad not quite making the cut. So my proposed solution probably raises its own set of problems.
August 25th, 2010 | 11:18 pm | #54
Genetically, homo sapiens becomes homo sapiens in the womb.
Actually, the genetic changes that mark the shift in species don’t occur in a single individual. They happen throughout the species in a period of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. Once species gradually becomes another species. That is another reason that it is hard to square with the idea of a single, first ensouled person.
August 25th, 2010 | 11:23 pm | #55
@Steve, @Hunter,
You might look at Oliver O’Donovan’s Resurrection and Moral Order for a truly “Resurrection-based” ethics that takes seriously the epistemic aspect of the discipline. It gets to the heart of a lot of the issues being discussed here.
–Matt
August 26th, 2010 | 2:20 am | #56
Hunter Baker: You state, that people of all faiths, should have “serious reservations”, about Darwinism.
The fact is, there is no intrinsic incompatibility, between, evolutioary biology, and the Christian faith. Any perceived incongruence, is based on a literal interpretation of the bible. In other words, a misreading of the bible.
To deny evolutionary biology, will have the unintended consequence, of making Christianity, appear, at least, to be intellectually untenable.
August 26th, 2010 | 9:06 am | #57
Bret Lythgoe: “The fact is, there is no intrinsic incompatibility, between, evolutioary biology, and the Christian faith. Any perceived incongruence, is based on a literal interpretation of the bible. In other words, a misreading of the bible.”
Is believing in a literal Adam and Eve and believing that they were cast out of the Garden of Eden a misreading of the Bible?
August 26th, 2010 | 9:28 am | #58
Truth unites and divides: No. It’s possible to believe in Adam and Eve, and evolution. I know that some believe that the two, cannot possibly be reconciled, but I think that that’s because of their questionable presuppositions.
Clearly, the notion that the earth, is only 6,000 years old, is ridiculous, beyond any measure. Also, I think that it’s beyond reasonable dispute, that there were various intermediate species, that existed, and are now extinct, between humans and chimps. the fossil evidence, clearly supports the noton, that, there were distinct species, not fully human, but not fully of the lower primates.
So why have this silly battle? the important thing is that God chose to bring about life, through the evolutionary process, and the conflict is of our own making. Atheistic materialists, such as Dawkins, have contributed to this fight, but so has his strange bedfellows: the fundamentalists, apparently, like yourself.
August 26th, 2010 | 9:35 am | #59
Bret Lythgoe: “Truth unites and divides: No. It’s possible to believe in Adam and Eve, and evolution.”
There are theistic evolutionists who deny a literal Adam and Eve.
“Atheistic materialists, such as Dawkins, have contributed to this fight, but so has his strange bedfellows: the fundamentalists, apparently, like yourself.”
Bret, what is your definition of a “fundamentalist”?
August 26th, 2010 | 9:48 am | #60
Brett, I was just at pains to keep the conversation clear of the suspicion that my purpose was to draw us all into Darwinism. But I do have reservations about it, as do the majority of Americans. And, of course, it is the strong form which is most objectionable. The one which claims that we KNOW the world is purposeless and accidental in its operation.
August 26th, 2010 | 11:16 am | #61
Craig,
Craig said:”Let me turn the question around for everyone: Every second of every minute of every waking day, you trust the evidence of your senses. You trusted your senses long before you knew anything specifically “religious.” Why?”
Yes, brother, the ‘why’ is my question to you? What gives ‘you’ the epistemological right to ‘trust’ your senses? Everyone trusts their senses, but just because we do does not answer the ‘why’ of why this should be so. You are presupposing something, and I’m trying to ask you what that something is. As Jeff Doles indicated above, to say that everyone trusts their senses, and that’s why our senses should be trusted is circular reasoning. It’s arbitrary. It does not answer the epistemological question.
August 26th, 2010 | 12:58 pm | #62
Steve Drake, you wrote, “to say that everyone trusts their senses, and that’s why our senses should be trusted is circular reasoning.”
Yes, this is why I specifically denied this. Two or three times now. All I did was ask why everyone else trusted their senses so completely–every single person on this blog.
Our senses should be trusted because they are a basic principle of knowledge. Before our existence (including any rational judgments or inferences regarding existence) there is the foundational quiddity, the essence, of material identity. This is what our senses identify. It is pre-thinking, even pre-human-existence if we think of human existence as a series of judgments on that-which-is. It is the direct, given impact of that-which-is upon our senses. Our senses identify that-which-is. From that we can infer our way to That-Which-Is, the great I Am. But I don’t believe that’s where we start. We start with the senses.
You also wrote, “What gives ‘you’ the epistemological right to ‘trust’ your senses? Everyone trusts their senses, but just because we do does not answer the ‘why’ of why this should be so. You are presupposing something, and I’m trying to ask you what that something is.”
Since you obviously don’t think I’ve answered this question, and I think I have (patiently, I might add), here’s my deal: Go back to Post 21 and read all the way to here again. If you still feel the urge to ask the same question again, go back to Post 21 and read up to here again. And so on.
By the way, I will personally guarantee that your senses will receive the words on the screen in exactly the same way every time. You can trust your senses, you know. :)
August 26th, 2010 | 1:01 pm | #63
And I know I said I would be reassured on this score, but I still am grasping desperately for the connection of this discussion with “Genesis and Jesus”–which actually did, once upon a time, look like an interesting topic.
August 26th, 2010 | 1:13 pm | #64
Our senses can be fooled. And there is no way of knowing by our senses, whether sensory experience actually relates at all to reality. To say that sensory experience is a principle of knowledge and does not need validation is simply further begging of the question:
“Please accept that sensory experience is a principle of knowledge, and please accept that it needs no validation, so that I may conclude that knowledge starts with the senses.”
August 26th, 2010 | 2:06 pm | #65
Don’t you need your senses to read the Bible? Wouldn’t you have to trust your eyes to say you read the Genesis account correctly? Or your ears if you heard it orally? Or your fingers if you read it through an embossed language?
August 26th, 2010 | 2:13 pm | #66
I had the same thought as Adam.
August 26th, 2010 | 2:45 pm | #67
Nice touch. So if not for the senses, you can’t really be sure of what God’s Word says. You can’t even trust the oral communication of it, since that comes through the ears. And all we’re left with is the immediate, individual, unmediated, and uncommunicable internal experience.
August 26th, 2010 | 3:08 pm | #68
I feel like I’m beatin’ a dead horse here. No one is saying we don’t use or trust our senses to gain knowledge, but to say they need no validation is simply to ignore that philosophers have tried to deal with this problem for eons. You assume you can trust your senses, and they need no validation as a given, without giving any reason ‘why’.
Craig, you ask me to go back and read your posts starting from #21. I ask whether you have read any basic philosophy?
August 26th, 2010 | 3:25 pm | #69
If books are the source of knowledge, the beginning place of how we know anything, then the sensory experience of seeing, or feeling, the words on the page might be a sufficient answer.
But it is not really the book itself that we are talking about, is it? Rather, it is the content of the book that we are after. The book merely relays knowledge that has already been acquired. But the real question is, Where does that knowledge come from?
So, for exampe ~ and here is, perhaps, where we emerge from this rabbit trail and get back on-topic ~ how did the author of Genesis know “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”? Was this the result of sensory experience? Traditionally, Christians have taken that as revelation knowledge ~ IOW, if it is true, how else would we come by that knowledge? Or how did Paul come by the knowledge that “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (and all that implies) or “The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”? Was it something he worked out through his five senses? I don’t think so.
August 26th, 2010 | 3:36 pm | #70
Sensory experience seems to validate the resurrection in John 20.
August 26th, 2010 | 3:45 pm | #71
“Craig, you ask me to go back and read your posts starting from #21. I ask whether you have read any basic philosophy?”
Yes. :)
August 26th, 2010 | 3:47 pm | #72
Dear Jeff: I agree that Genesis 1:1 is revelation knowledge–knowledge of the Creator.
Before that knowledge came, however, the author had to know what the phrase “the heavens and the earth” meant. The initial impact of these realities came to him through his senses.
August 26th, 2010 | 3:49 pm | #73
But what is the significance of the resurrection, and where does the knowledge of its significance come from?
August 26th, 2010 | 4:04 pm | #74
Craig,
He could not know, by his sense, the the most important thing about the heavens and the earth: Where did they come from? But he received knowledge that God created them, and that knowledge was not something he experienced through his senses. That revelation knowledge could also confirm to him that the heavens and the earth really do exist, because God created them, and that his sensory experience was valid.
His sensory experience could not give him the knowledge that his sensory experience was valid (that would be circular reasoning). But because of the revelation that God created the heavens and the earth and that this creation is orderly, now there is a basis, at least from the Christian point of view, to accept the validity of sensory experience.
August 26th, 2010 | 4:21 pm | #75
Dear Craig,
You’ve read some philosophy. So whose philosophical construct do you find yourself most agreeing with?
My point above, that philosophers have tried to answer the question of why we should trust our senses to be valid, has been debated for centuries with no consensus.
If we simply disagree here, and I think we do, (since you have said you trust your senses first), then I think one sets oneself up to be the sole determinate of what he or she will accept as truth. In this you have essentially said that your reason and senses will determine what you want to believe about Scripture (read Genesis and Jesus here) so that ‘you’ are then the ‘final’ arbiter yourself of what you will or will not believe.
August 26th, 2010 | 4:40 pm | #76
Paul tells us that there are some things that cannot be known or understood by the “natural” man (Greek, psychikos) ~ that is, by human reasoning and the senses. They must be revealed by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:10-15). If, as I believe, the Scriptures are given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it may well be (and I believe it is so) that we cannot really understand them apart from the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, we may end up with the wisdom of the world, which is foolishness to God (and the wisdom of God seems like foolishness to the world; see 1 Corinthians 1:18ff).
August 26th, 2010 | 5:22 pm | #77
Usually I don’t bail on a spirited discussion, but at this point I think I will. If any other Thomists are reading in on this, you might step up to the plate. (Steve Drake, this answers one of your questions regarding which “philosophical construct” I hold; I consider myself a Thomist. That might be a little odd on the Evangel blog, but I’m not sure about that.) Farewell, friends and compatriots.
August 26th, 2010 | 7:53 pm | #78
Craig Payne,
I feel your pain. Perhaps this will comfort you:
“It was the very life of the Thomist teaching that Reason can be trusted: it was the very life of Lutheran teaching that Reason is utterly untrustworthy.”
- G. K. Chesterton
August 26th, 2010 | 10:22 pm | #79
Hunter,
You said, Evangelicals spend a lot of time fighting about Genesis and the proper interpretation thereof.
Whom do evangelicals fight with? I think this is an important question because I happen to also think that the answer to your question will require taking into account social factors.
You ask, How does the Genesis battle get in front of [the resurrection]?
And this is an historical question. There are classic texts which deal with both the history and sociology of the “the Genesis battle.” Let me know if you’d like suggestions.
August 27th, 2010 | 2:22 am | #80
Truth unites and devides: My view of a “fundamentalist”, is someone who, interpretes the bible, literally, and seems hostile, to scientific understandings of life’s origins, especially, where humans fir into the picture. Does it ever occur to you, that you may be misreading the bible? And if so, are you not, ironically, doing what you claim the evolutionists are doing?
If you’re not a fundamentalist, how would you characterize your position? My point, is not to offend you, but to look for clarification.
Hunter Baker: you make some good points. But the “majority of Americans, also don’t know where Iraq, or Afganistian, are on a map, and at least some , believe in witchcraft.
But you are right, that the strong version, who’s advocates claim that evolution “proves”, or show the improbability of God, or that there’s no purpose, in the world, MUST be completely rejected, by ALL Theists.
August 27th, 2010 | 8:59 am | #81
Bret Lythgoe,
According to your view I’m not a fundamentalist. When Jesus says “Eat my body” and “Drink my blood” I do not think that the disciples literally ate and drank Jesus’s blood like cannibals and vampires.
With regards to hostility, you seem particularly hostile to those who disagree with Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution? Why are you so hostile?
“Does it ever occur to you, that you may be misreading the bible?”
Sure. Let me ask you the same question: Has it ever occurred to you that you have misread the Bible?
My position is that I am a Bible-believing follower of Christ. What is your position?
Furthermore, has it ever occurred to you that Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution is false? And that Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution is a lie? Bret, has it ever occurred to you that some evolutionary scientists have lied? Bret, has it ever occurred to you that there have been hoaxes foisted on the public to promote and advance evolutionary propaganda? Bret, has it ever occurred to you that those who swallow neo-Darwinian macro-evolution may be the gullible ones?
August 27th, 2010 | 9:19 am | #82
Jeremy Pierce
“I think perhaps the issue becomes one of epistemology only under a certain epistemology, i.e. biblical positivism. If one can only affirm something if it appears in scripture, then there are no other sources of knowledge, and thus you should discount anything science says and take everything in scripture at face value. But the upshot of this is that we should take the passage in Joshua about the sun standing still as literally true, with the sun moving around the earth as it phenomenally appears to us. The fact that such a view is ludicrous should tell us something about biblical positivism as an epistemology.”
i) Actually, that wouldn’t be taking the passage literally. That would be drawing an inference which goes beyond appearances, since the appearance of relative motion from the viewpoint of an earthbound observer doesn’t entail an absolute frame of reference one way of the other. It’s consistent with the sun moving around the earth, the earth moving around the sun, or both bodies moving in tandem.
ii) Moreover, I don’t think there’s any evidence that the Hebrews took the same interest in theoretical astronomy that the Greeks did, so I don’t think there’s any expectation that Josh 10 was intended to reflect a theory of celestial motions.
iii) In addition, phenomenal appearances are not the only relevant exegetical consideration. There’s also the question of genre, as Robert Hubbard explains in his recent commentary on Joshua (297f.).
“On virtually any mainstream epistemology accepted by any Christian, there are sources of information other than the Bible, and some of those may limit what interpretations we might take on the Bible even if we assume full inerrancy of the scriptures. I don’t deny inerrancy by taking the language of that Joshua passage phenomenally. I don’t deny inerrancy by allowing for rounded numbers, such as the measurements in Chronicles that we leave us calculating pi to be 3.”
I agree, although I don’t see the relevance of pi. How does that really affect our interpretation of the basin in Chronicles? It’s not as if the Chronicler was striving for modern scientific precision, and, of course, the basin could only approximate that ratio given the primitive technology of the day.
“So why is it any different to let a scientific discovery influence which interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis are most likely? In principle, it shouldn’t be, and thus epistemology isn’t the issue. Our understanding of (1) which interpretations of the text are possible, (2) which interpretations of the text are most likely, (3) which understandings of how events transpired are possible given the information science clearly tells us, and (4) which understandings of how events transpired are most likely given the information science clearly tells us.”
It’s different because it’s blatantly anachronistic. As such, it violates the grammatico-historical method. It’s one thing to interpret the text in light of the common knowledge of the day. Of empirical data that was available to a prescientific observer. Quite another to interpret the text in light of modern scientific theories.
“I happen to think (1) allows for quite a bit more room than the six-dayers think, even if they are right about (2). Even if you took exactly that view, you might think (3) is much more limited than six-dayers allow for, and thus the most likely interpretation of the passage does not at all fit with the information we get from the world through the senses God gave us. If that’s right, then it doesn’t matter what your epistemology is as long as you’re not a biblical positivist. You might then reject six-day interpretations.”
But the relevant “senses” would be unaided senses. What an ancient Hebrew could observe. What was public evidence for a prescientific observer.
To interpret the text in light of modern cosmology is to interpolate a meaning which the narrator could not have meant, or the implied reader begin to grasp.
August 27th, 2010 | 9:48 am | #83
Truth unites and Devides: your response, clearly demonstrates, why trying to find common ground, with those, like yourself, concerning evolution, is unlikely to succeed. I will keep trying.
If you think that evolution, is based on “lies”, well, all I can say is, to be most charitable, that you’re woefully unfamilar with the scientific evidence.
There’s no hostility on my part.
You seem to be the type of person who cannot tolerate ambiguity. You want everything to be black and white. Sorry, the world is more complicated than that.
By the way, if evolution is true, and all the evidence indicates that it is, my guess is, God would prefer that you accept reality, and not question others beliefs.
August 27th, 2010 | 9:58 am | #84
truth unites and divides; Also, your first statement, is clearly, and profoundly, offensive to Catholics. I think you should apologize, for such an outrageous statement.
Certainly, I’ve misread the Bible. Who hasn’t? We’re only human.
you apparently accept the notion, that the scientific community, is involved in deception, on a wide, and profound, level. With all due respect, this is irresponsible, and more than a little unhinged.
August 27th, 2010 | 10:13 am | #85
Bret Lythgoe: “There’s no hostility on my part.
You seem to be the type of person who cannot tolerate ambiguity.”
There clearly is hostility on your part. Your very next sentence is hostile. When there’s ambiguity, I tolerate ambiguity.
“You want everything to be black and white.”
That’s a hostile imputation.
Please respond to the inquiries: “Has it ever occurred to you that Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution is false? And that Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution is a lie? Bret, has it ever occurred to you that some evolutionary scientists have lied? Bret, has it ever occurred to you that there have been hoaxes foisted on the public to promote and advance evolutionary propaganda? Bret, has it ever occurred to you that those who swallow neo-Darwinian macro-evolution may be the gullible ones?”
“By the way, if evolution is true, and all the evidence indicates that it is, my guess is, God would prefer that you accept reality, and not question others beliefs.”
Here’s one for you, Bret:
By the way, if evolution is false, and there’s plenty of evidence showing that it is, my guess is, God would prefer that you accept that reality, and not question others’ beliefs.
August 27th, 2010 | 10:42 am | #86
Bret Lythgoe: “My view of a “fundamentalist”, is someone who, interpretes the bible, literally”
Me: “According to your view I’m not a fundamentalist. When Jesus says “Eat my body” and “Drink my blood” I do not think that the disciples literally ate and drank Jesus’s blood like cannibals and vampires.”
Bret Lythgoe: “Also, your first statement, is clearly, and profoundly, offensive to Catholics. I think you should apologize, for such an outrageous statement.”
Bret,
#1. My response is merely showing you that I’m not a “fundamentalist” since I don’t interpret all passages literally.
#2. Why should Catholics be offended?
#3. Are you Catholic?
August 27th, 2010 | 10:43 am | #87
Joe, your #52: what would a souless man/woman be like? One speculation is that the ‘great leap forward’ (around 70,000 years ago) in technology coincided with the development of language that was fully under the volition of the speaker. Animals make meaningful noises in response to stimuli. Humans are able to – as the Bible puts it – name the animals; to understand and discuss in abstract terms the nature of things.
If, as appears possible, the Lake Toba extinction event around that time reduced the entire breeding population to a thousand couples, a single couple with voluntary language could easily come to dominate the entire population, both factually and genetically.
I’ve written more about this on my blog: http://joyfulpapist.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/adam-eve-and-evolution/
August 27th, 2010 | 11:27 am | #88
[...] – Hunter Baker wants to know why so many people have made different interpretations of Genesis a primary issue of debate. [...]
August 27th, 2010 | 11:33 am | #89
I have considered myself an “evangelical” for almost 30 years, and have never experiened this “battle” over Genesis. I didn’t even know there was a fight!
August 27th, 2010 | 12:47 pm | #90
Dear Joyful Papist: You asked, “Joe, your #52: what would a souless man/woman be like?”
My answer: Dead.
Anything that has life and animation has some sort of soul. These folks would simply not have the specific rational intellective soul, created in God’s image and causing us to be eternal creatures.
Everything that lives, according to New Testament Greek, has psuche / anima / soul. Not everything has pneuma, the spiritual life God shares with humans.
August 27th, 2010 | 4:53 pm | #91
*I have not read anything previous to this comment*
Hunter – Guys like Marcus Borg argue against the historical resurrection of Christ. They say that an historical resurrection is not necessary for us to learn things from Christ. He says the resurrection is *true* without it being TRUE.
The Biologos guys want to argue the same thing about Adam.
Here’s where traditional Protestants would argue with Catholics. The Bible shows us that our Justification was bought at the death and resurrection of Jesus. Our Sanctification is worked out day by day. Our justification is based in an historical act. Paul, in Romans 5 shows us clearly that he believes Adam to be an historical person, as he believes Jesus to be, as he believes his death and resurrection. The Content of our faith is not just how *true* (read: Fuzzy feelings, things to model your life after, etc) the words of scripture are, but really TRUE – as in things that actually happened.
And anyone who would try to argue that this must mean I cannot take any interest in literary devices or genre is too busy arguing on silly secondary issues to deal with the main theological thrust of the argument. Our faith is not based on how *true* scripture is. It just isn’t. It’s based on how TRUE-ly God has revealed himself to us.
August 27th, 2010 | 5:19 pm | #92
*I have now read all of the preceding comments and I continue to have a growing respect for Joe Carter*
Brett L.
TUAD’s comment was not out of line. Simple Church history shows us that the early Christians were regularly called cannibals because of these “hard” sayings of Jesus.
And in any case, I’m sure Catholics can affirm transubstantiation and yet are still capable of differentiating that from full-blow cannibalism. I’m sure this isn’t offensive. Because if it is, then the very term “cannibalism” must be offensive.
August 27th, 2010 | 8:01 pm | #93
TUAD,
Why Catholics would be offended:
When Jesus says “Eat my body” and “Drink my blood” I do not think that the disciples literally ate and drank Jesus’s blood like cannibals and vampires.
You implied that Catholics who partake of the Eucharist are the equivalent – in intention, if not deed – to vampires and cannibals. That’s hardly different than implying that Christian men who love Jesus and want to share their life with him are gay.
August 28th, 2010 | 12:18 am | #94
Craig, was what I was saying unclear? I meant immortal soul, of course. I apolgise if you didn’t understand that.
August 28th, 2010 | 2:16 am | #95
Truth unites and divides: Your statement was meant to be offensive, and you know it. why not be honest. Your point, that you don’t interpret the bible, always, in a literal way, could have been made differently, unless, it’s the ONLY case where you DON’T interpret the bible literally?
August 28th, 2010 | 2:22 am | #96
Zack Skrip: his statement was meant to be offensive, surely the comparision to “vampires” and “cannibals” was not not an endorsement?
It was meant to imply that the Catholic belief, that Christ is literally in the the wafers and wine, as equivalant to being a vampire, and/or cannibal. Why not word it differently. you don’t give him enough credit: his intent, was to be offensive, and he succeeded.
August 28th, 2010 | 2:30 am | #97
Truth unites and divides: The evidence for evolution, is clear, and abundant. All of modern biology, rests on the neodarwinian evolutionary basis, because of the empirical evidence. Maybe I’m wrong, but I get the impression that you don’t really understand it.
So do you really believe that 99% of biologists are either deluded, or part of a conspiracy?
August 28th, 2010 | 2:31 am | #98
TUAD: I stand by my statement that you should apologize for your statement, and the fact that you won’t, speaks volumes.
August 29th, 2010 | 11:42 am | #99
Came back here to find Bret Lythgoe ranting.
The fact that you’re ranting speaks volumes.
Instead, answer the questions I posed to you earlier.
August 29th, 2010 | 11:45 am | #100
Bret Lythgoe: “There’s no hostility on my part.”
Sure there is. Who are you kidding? Yourself?
August 29th, 2010 | 6:19 pm | #101
TUAD: You made a statement, clearly comparing the Catholic belief in transubstantiation, to being either a cannibal or a vampire. What was your point?
I think you’ll say, as you’ve said before, that you were pointing to an example, of where you don’t interpret the Bible literally. Fine. Why not just say that you don’t believe that that particular passage, should, in your view, be interpreted metaphorically? Why ADD the clearly offensive “vampire” and “cannibal” comparision? You have every right to disagree with the Catholic doctrine, obviously, but why would you deliberately try to offend?
August 29th, 2010 | 8:10 pm | #102
Bret Lythgoe,
Answer the earlier questions.
August 29th, 2010 | 8:29 pm | #103
TUAD: Just like you, I’ll answer the questions that I choose.
YOU need to apologize.
August 29th, 2010 | 10:58 pm | #104
Bret Lythgoe,
You need to apologize for demanding an apology.
August 29th, 2010 | 11:08 pm | #105
TUAD: I’m not the one comparing a particular religious belief to the action of “vampires” and “cannibals”.
I think the issue is this. you believe that you possess the absolute Truth, with God completely on your side. Therefore, I think you feel justified in denouncing anyone, or anything, that does not comform to your conception of the “Truth”.
This has also turned rather amusing. Are you the type of Christian, who believes, that the only criterion, for being saved, is belief, in Jesus Christ, and it doesn’t matter what your moral behavior is?
If so, it might explain your rather uncharitable view, toward those of differing views.
August 29th, 2010 | 11:46 pm | #106
“If so, it might explain your rather uncharitable view, toward those of differing views.”
This kind of self-talk is good for you, Bret.
August 30th, 2010 | 1:07 am | #107
TUAD: Obviously, I dealing with someone who’s emotionally, and mentally immature. It’s really too bad. Good luck in your life,TUAD.
August 30th, 2010 | 3:36 am | #108
Bret Lythgoe: “Are you the type of Christian, who believes, that the only criterion, for being saved, is belief, in Jesus Christ, and it doesn’t matter what your moral behavior is?
If so, it might explain your rather uncharitable view, toward those of differing views.”
You should think about how your own words apply to you.
August 30th, 2010 | 11:28 am | #109
“Here’s where traditional Protestants would argue with Catholics.”
Traditional Protestants?! What’s next, square circles?!
September 8th, 2010 | 6:37 am | #110
[...] few weeks ago, Hunter asked why evangelicals seem obsessed with the proper interpretation of Genesis when, ahem, we are evangelicals. Which means we’re centered on the gospel, the good news [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact