# Church membership for one who adheres to theistic evolution...



## MMasztal

I'd appreciate thoughts on accepting one who adheres to theistic evolution and Genesis as allegory instead of history.

Should this individual be accepted for membership with his current beliefs?

Thanks.


----------



## Edward

MMasztal said:


> I'd appreciate thoughts on accepting one who adheres to theistic evolution and Genesis as allegory instead of history.
> 
> Should this individual be accepted for membership with his current beliefs?
> 
> Thanks.



What do the ARP membership standards say?

---------

After doing a bit of research, it appears that the question can be narrowed. 

Is such belief consistent with an affirmative answer to your question 3:

"Do you believe the Scripture of the Old and New Testaments to be the written Word of God, the only perfect rule of faith and practice?"

This should probably be read in connection with the Synod's pronouncements on Scripture:

http://www.arpchurch.org/Site/Scripture.html

Finally, the decision belongs to the Session of the church involved, subject to correction by higher courts,. Looking a the standards, I'd say it is not consistent with the vows, but then again I'm not an elder nor am I ARP, so my conclusion doesn't really matter.


----------



## au5t1n

I think a member should be admitted on a credible profession of faith. The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds might be used to ensure that faith is the true faith. Said member must agree to subject himself/herself to the teaching and discipline of the church, and the church should teach the historical reading of Genesis.


----------



## sastark

MMasztal said:


> I'd appreciate thoughts on accepting one who adheres to theistic evolution and Genesis as allegory instead of history.
> 
> Should this individual be accepted for membership with his current beliefs?
> 
> Thanks.



One of the questions for membership in the ARP Form of Government is:

_Do you accept the doctrines and principles of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, so far as you understand them, as agreeable to and founded on the Word of God?_

Theistic Evolution is not compatible with the doctrines and principles of the ARP Church, so my answer is, no, this person should not be accepted for membership with their current beliefs.


----------



## MMasztal

Edward said:


> MMasztal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd appreciate thoughts on accepting one who adheres to theistic evolution and Genesis as allegory instead of history.
> 
> Should this individual be accepted for membership with his current beliefs?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, the decision belongs to the Session of the church involved, subject to correction by higher courts,. Looking a the standards, I'd say it is not consistent with the vows, but then again I'm not an elder nor am I ARP, so my conclusion doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the input. I'm not looking for advice, just thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Bookmeister

If Genesis is allegory then there is no actual fall, if there is no actual fall there is no need for an actual savior, the conclusion I draw is there is then no actual faith. This would seem to exclude them from holding membership in confessionally reformed churches.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Is the person open to teaching? How is the session aware of the person's beliefs?


----------



## Marrow Man

I would pose the question Seth mentioned to this person. Then ask him how his beliefs on the first 11 chapters of Genesis squares with that statement. Also ask him of his final authority on such matters. The answers he gives will show where his thinking lies. You will either be giving him enough rope to hang himself, or (better) cause him to rethink his position in light of Scripture.

The final decision does lie with the Session. If he gives a credible profession of faith (but perhaps ask him about Romans 5:12ff and if Adam is a real person and how this pertains to Christ and whether He is a real person) then perhaps (but I would be very reluctant), but he would certainly be barred from membership or teaching responsibilities.


----------



## au5t1n

Bookmeister said:


> If Genesis is allegory then there is no actual fall, if there is no actual fall there is no need for an actual savior, the conclusion I draw is there is then no actual faith. This would seem to exclude them from holding membership in confessionally reformed churches.


Hmm...That _is_ a good point.


----------



## Edward

MMasztal said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MMasztal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd appreciate thoughts on accepting one who adheres to theistic evolution and Genesis as allegory instead of history.
> 
> Should this individual be accepted for membership with his current beliefs?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, the decision belongs to the Session of the church involved, subject to correction by higher courts,. Looking a the standards, I'd say it is not consistent with the vows, but then again I'm not an elder nor am I ARP, so my conclusion doesn't really matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the input. I'm not looking for advice, just thoughts on the matter.
Click to expand...


I almost always have an opinion that I'm willing to share, so since I've acknowledged my lack of standing:

Given the wording of the membership vow, and the various statements of the Synod at the link, I do think there is a serious issue there. I'm not sure that it would be as big an issue with the PCA, since the membership questions are not as specific.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Bookmeister said:


> If Genesis is allegory then there is no actual fall, if there is no actual fall there is no need for an actual savior, the conclusion I draw is there is then no actual faith. This would seem to exclude them from holding membership in confessionally reformed churches.



While I do not hold to an allegorical interpretation for Genesis, I do not see that it necessarily follows that a person that believes Genesis is allegorical would by force believe there was no actual fall. Hypothetically speaking, they could hold that while it is an allegory, the allegory points to a real event that is not communicated specifically. If someone holds to theistic evolution, they might hold to an allegorical view for specific sections (even if that is difficult to explain what sections might be allegory and what would not ... that adds no actual force to the contrary argument as even scripture says not all parts are equally clear).

If that were the case, that a specific fall was held, which then requires a savior, then is a convoluted theology enough reason to withhold the LS from a person? (Ultimately, if a member comes to such a position over time, and it is sufficient to withhold membership, then it would follow that a member that comes to such a conclusion should be suspended from the table at the very least, and excommunicated if they persist.)

I guess I'm saying that if someone holds to proposition A (theistic evolution, allegorical Genesis) does it _necessarily_ follow that they would not hold to proposition B, an actual fall? I don't think the two are inseparable ... I'm presuming you do hold them inseparable, and I'd like to understand why.


----------



## au5t1n

Ultimately, I don't think many theistic evolutionists would even want to be in a confessionally Reformed church for very long, given that theistic evolution usually comes with other views that would make the person squirm sitting under solid Biblical preaching.


----------



## jogri17

In the ARP no. In other denominations like the OPC and PCA it is permitted I believe. Though I would like someone to defend a covenant of works and theistic evolution in the course of one sermon.


----------



## au5t1n

jogri17 said:


> In the ARP no. In other denominations like the OPC and PCA it is permitted I believe. Though I would like someone to defend a covenant of works and theistic evolution in the course of one sermon.


Well, the person would not be _preaching_ in the OPC or PCA - just a member. Elders, unlike members, are required to adhere to the confessional standards (you know, more or less  )


----------



## jogri17

austinww said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the ARP no. In other denominations like the OPC and PCA it is permitted I believe. Though I would like someone to defend a covenant of works and theistic evolution in the course of one sermon.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the person would not be _preaching_ in the OPC or PCA - just a member. Elders, unlike members, are required to adhere to the confessional standards (you know, more or less  )
Click to expand...


well there are pastors who say its not anti-confessional however we all know thats just theire rationalizing of bad doctrine.


----------



## au5t1n

jogri17 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the ARP no. In other denominations like the OPC and PCA it is permitted I believe. Though I would like someone to defend a covenant of works and theistic evolution in the course of one sermon.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the person would not be _preaching_ in the OPC or PCA - just a member. Elders, unlike members, are required to adhere to the confessional standards (you know, more or less  )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well there are pastors who say its not anti-confessional however we all know thats just theire rationalizing of bad doctrine.
Click to expand...

Granted.

-----Added 10/3/2009 at 12:03:14 EST-----

I think theistic evolution has been banned as an exception by the PCA GA, though. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## kevin.carroll

sastark said:


> Theistic Evolution is not compatible with the doctrines and principles of the ARP Church, so my answer is, no, this person should not be accepted for membership with their current beliefs.



Two words: Erskine College.


----------



## Brian Withnell

austinww said:


> Ultimately, I don't think many theistic evolutionists would even want to be in a confessionally Reformed church for very long, given that theistic evolution usually comes with other views that would make the person squirm sitting under solid Biblical preaching.



There have been cases where individuals did hold to such beliefs in reformed churches. One of the cases I think came up in the OPC years ago ... a man held to the position, and was an elder in a church. I'm going to have to see if I can find the documents though, I just don't remember the details.

My recollection was that he was deposed. But again, I can't seem to find the documents.


----------



## au5t1n

Brian Withnell said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, I don't think many theistic evolutionists would even want to be in a confessionally Reformed church for very long, given that theistic evolution usually comes with other views that would make the person squirm sitting under solid Biblical preaching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been cases where individuals did hold to such beliefs in reformed churches. One of the cases I think came up in the OPC years ago ... a man held to the position, and was an elder in a church. I'm going to have to see if I can find the documents though, I just don't remember the details.
> 
> My recollection was that he was deposed. But again, I can't seem to find the documents.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised the OPC allowed that. But I did say "many" not "any."

-----Added 10/3/2009 at 12:30:48 EST-----

Ahh, you edited after I wrote my post. Nevermind about the OPC allowing it. Obviously, if he was deposed - they didn't!


----------



## Brian Withnell

austinww said:


> Ahh, you edited after I wrote my post. Nevermind about the OPC allowing it. Obviously, if he was deposed - they didn't!



Yes, I had been doing searches for the original documents while I had started the post, could not find them, and thought I'd put the result I remembered in the post, realized I had not. I'm getting old!


----------



## au5t1n

Brian Withnell said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, you edited after I wrote my post. Nevermind about the OPC allowing it. Obviously, if he was deposed - they didn't!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I had been doing searches for the original documents while I had started the post, could not find them, and thought I'd put the result I remembered in the post, realized I had not. I'm getting old!
Click to expand...

haha. I think something similar happened in the PCA, where a presbytery or two had allowed theistic evolution as an exception, and upon appeal the GA said, "Um...not gonna happen." Mind you, I don't know where I read that, so I can't provide a reference either.


----------



## sastark

kevin.carroll said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theistic Evolution is not compatible with the doctrines and principles of the ARP Church, so my answer is, no, this person should not be accepted for membership with their current beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two words: Erskine College.
Click to expand...


That was a cheap shot.


----------



## MMasztal

Brian Withnell said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, you edited after I wrote my post. Nevermind about the OPC allowing it. Obviously, if he was deposed - they didn't!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I had been doing searches for the original documents while I had started the post, could not find them, and thought I'd put the result I remembered in the post, realized I had not. I'm getting old!
Click to expand...


I spent most of my Christian life in the OPC. I think they allow for progressive creationism or day-age creationism.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Seth, I don't want to take it off topic any more than this, but that thinking is absolutely allowed at Erskine (which, for others reading, is the flagship college of the ARP).


----------



## Scott1

> Presbyterian Church in America
> Book of Church Order
> 
> Chapter 57-5
> 
> 1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of
> God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save
> in His sovereign mercy?
> 
> 2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God,
> and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him
> alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
> 
> 3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon
> the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as
> becomes the followers of Christ?
> 
> 4. Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and
> work to the best of your ability?
> 
> 5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline
> of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?



In the PCA, comprehensive knowledge of Scripture, far less agreement with everything in it is not required for membership. (It is for officers)

A teachable attitude toward and promise to learn the church's doctrine is ("promise to study its purity and peace").

So, it would be possible for someone with wrong ideas about many things to be recognized as a member.

My understanding is that some of the reformed denominations require for membership understanding and subscribing to it. In that case, it would not seem they could take the vows.


----------



## toddpedlar

sastark said:


> kevin.carroll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theistic Evolution is not compatible with the doctrines and principles of the ARP Church, so my answer is, no, this person should not be accepted for membership with their current beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two words: Erskine College.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a cheap shot.
Click to expand...


It could have been worded more tactfully but the fact remains that what you see happening at Erskine College is the direct result of theistic evolution being promoted in the college of the church. Lacking some tact? Sure. Cheap shot? Not a fair accusation. Truth? Yes. This is the true situation at Erskine and a dreadful shame for the denominational college of a confessional denomination.


----------



## Caroline

As I understand it, BB Warfield was a theistic evolutionist. Certainly, CS Lewis was. I believe that Machen also had leanings that way. 

I don't particularly care one way or the other about the doctrine involved, but I think it is a harsh charge to say that one who believes theistic evolution does not believe that God created the world or that there was a literal fall. That's like saying that someone doesn't believe in Christ because they don't think he really was literally a Lamb.

Merely because something is 'allegorical' doesn't mean it isn't very true--in the allegorical sense.


----------



## au5t1n

Caroline said:


> As I understand it, BB Warfield was a theistic evolutionist. Certainly, CS Lewis was. I believe that Machen also had leanings that way.
> 
> I don't particularly care one way or the other about the doctrine involved, but I think it is a harsh charge to say that one who believes theistic evolution does not believe that God created the world or that there was a literal fall. That's like saying that someone doesn't believe in Christ because they don't think he really was literally a Lamb.
> 
> Merely because something is 'allegorical' doesn't mean it isn't very true--in the allegorical sense.


As an interesting aside, Lewis eventually changed his mind on that.


----------



## lynnie

Caroline is correct about BBW.

I had just posted this recently in another thread, but its worth repeating just so you know how some Reformed look at it....

Evolution

_An example of mediate creation in Warfield’s thought would be the creation of Adam. His body could have been created by a long evolutionary process as postulated by Darwin, et al. However, the creation of his spirit, by divine in-breathing, was a supernatural act of creation. He gives the formation of the God-man Jesus Christ as another example. And as a "creationist" rather than a "traducianist" he also saw the ongoing formation of human beings as acts of mediate creation. 

Warfield believed that there was nothing in the first chapters of Genesis that could not be properly interpreted in a way consistent with the evolutionary development of the present world. The only caveat he allowed was that the creation of Eve (Out of Adam’s rib by a special act of God) was hard to reconcile with an evolutionary interpretation of man’s development. But he obviously did not consider this a serious enough objection to cause him to reconsider evolution as a viable interpretation of the Genesis creation account. _

Personally I find this doctrine horrifying, to say that Adam nursed at the breast of Mommy primate, and death had been going on for millions of years, but they will say "death" is talking about spiritual death. But you can't fight BB Warfield fans, and you sure can't toss him out as not Reformed.

I do think this is a terrible deception, but it is all over the Reformed community.


----------



## au5t1n

lynnie said:


> Caroline is correct about BBW.
> 
> I had just posted this recently in another thread, but its worth repeating just so you know how some Reformed look at it....
> 
> Evolution
> 
> _An example of mediate creation in Warfield’s thought would be the creation of Adam. His body could have been created by a long evolutionary process as postulated by Darwin, et al. However, the creation of his spirit, by divine in-breathing, was a supernatural act of creation. He gives the formation of the God-man Jesus Christ as another example. And as a "creationist" rather than a "traducianist" he also saw the ongoing formation of human beings as acts of mediate creation.
> 
> Warfield believed that there was nothing in the first chapters of Genesis that could not be properly interpreted in a way consistent with the evolutionary development of the present world. The only caveat he allowed was that the creation of Eve (Out of Adam’s rib by a special act of God) was hard to reconcile with an evolutionary interpretation of man’s development. But he obviously did not consider this a serious enough objection to cause him to reconsider evolution as a viable interpretation of the Genesis creation account. _
> 
> Personally I find this doctrine horrifying, to say that Adam nursed at the breast of Mommy primate, and death had been going on for millions of years, but they will say "death" is talking about spiritual death. But you can't fight BB Warfield fans, and you sure can't toss him out as not Reformed.
> 
> I do think this is a terrible deception, but it is all over the Reformed community.


What people who believe in this don't stop to consider is that it means God created death _from the very beginning_ and even _used it to create_. That is not the God we serve.


----------



## Caroline

austinww said:


> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Caroline is correct about BBW.
> 
> I had just posted this recently in another thread, but its worth repeating just so you know how some Reformed look at it....
> 
> Evolution
> 
> _An example of mediate creation in Warfield’s thought would be the creation of Adam. His body could have been created by a long evolutionary process as postulated by Darwin, et al. However, the creation of his spirit, by divine in-breathing, was a supernatural act of creation. He gives the formation of the God-man Jesus Christ as another example. And as a "creationist" rather than a "traducianist" he also saw the ongoing formation of human beings as acts of mediate creation.
> 
> Warfield believed that there was nothing in the first chapters of Genesis that could not be properly interpreted in a way consistent with the evolutionary development of the present world. The only caveat he allowed was that the creation of Eve (Out of Adam’s rib by a special act of God) was hard to reconcile with an evolutionary interpretation of man’s development. But he obviously did not consider this a serious enough objection to cause him to reconsider evolution as a viable interpretation of the Genesis creation account. _
> 
> Personally I find this doctrine horrifying, to say that Adam nursed at the breast of Mommy primate, and death had been going on for millions of years, but they will say "death" is talking about spiritual death. But you can't fight BB Warfield fans, and you sure can't toss him out as not Reformed.
> 
> I do think this is a terrible deception, but it is all over the Reformed community.
> 
> 
> 
> What people who believe in this don't stop to consider is that it means God created death _from the very beginning_ and even _used it to create_. That is not the God we serve.
Click to expand...


I understand (and also the previous poster who said that it seemed repulsive to think of Adam having a primate mother), but to be fair, many people are not Calvinists because they think the doctrine of election is repulsive. "I can't believe that God would pass over some", "it is disturbing to think that God would harden pharoah's heart", etc.

God is whoever He is, whether we like Him or not. If He created in six days and that is unappealing to some, then that is not an argument for theistic evolution. But it is also not an argument for six-day creation to say that theistic evolution gives one the heebie-jeebies, so to speak.

In regard to membership, I think the Apostles Creed is a good guideline. If people are in error in their theology ... well, they can be taught better, but that usually takes time.


----------



## au5t1n

Caroline said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Caroline is correct about BBW.
> 
> I had just posted this recently in another thread, but its worth repeating just so you know how some Reformed look at it....
> 
> Evolution
> 
> _An example of mediate creation in Warfield’s thought would be the creation of Adam. His body could have been created by a long evolutionary process as postulated by Darwin, et al. However, the creation of his spirit, by divine in-breathing, was a supernatural act of creation. He gives the formation of the God-man Jesus Christ as another example. And as a "creationist" rather than a "traducianist" he also saw the ongoing formation of human beings as acts of mediate creation.
> 
> Warfield believed that there was nothing in the first chapters of Genesis that could not be properly interpreted in a way consistent with the evolutionary development of the present world. The only caveat he allowed was that the creation of Eve (Out of Adam’s rib by a special act of God) was hard to reconcile with an evolutionary interpretation of man’s development. But he obviously did not consider this a serious enough objection to cause him to reconsider evolution as a viable interpretation of the Genesis creation account. _
> 
> Personally I find this doctrine horrifying, to say that Adam nursed at the breast of Mommy primate, and death had been going on for millions of years, but they will say "death" is talking about spiritual death. But you can't fight BB Warfield fans, and you sure can't toss him out as not Reformed.
> 
> I do think this is a terrible deception, but it is all over the Reformed community.
> 
> 
> 
> What people who believe in this don't stop to consider is that it means God created death _from the very beginning_ and even _used it to create_. That is not the God we serve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand (and also the previous poster who said that it seemed repulsive to think of Adam having a primate mother), but to be fair, many people are not Calvinists because they think the doctrine of election is repulsive. "I can't believe that God would pass over some", "it is disturbing to think that God would harden pharoah's heart", etc.
> 
> God is whoever He is, whether we like Him or not. If He created in six days and that is unappealing to some, then that is not an argument for theistic evolution. But it is also not an argument for six-day creation to say that theistic evolution gives one the heebie-jeebies, so to speak.
> 
> In regard to membership, I think the Apostles Creed is a good guideline. If people are in error in their theology ... well, they can be taught better, but that usually takes time.
Click to expand...

I agree, that is what I meant in my first post on this thread. In this last post, I was only commenting on the implications of theistic evolution, which many don't stop to consider.


----------



## Brian Withnell

[WIKI][WIKI][WIKI][WIKI][WIKI][/WIKI][/WIKI][/WIKI][/WIKI][/WIKI]


MMasztal said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, you edited after I wrote my post. Nevermind about the OPC allowing it. Obviously, if he was deposed - they didn't!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I had been doing searches for the original documents while I had started the post, could not find them, and thought I'd put the result I remembered in the post, realized I had not. I'm getting old!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I spent most of my Christian life in the OPC. I think they allow for progressive creationism or day-age creationism.
Click to expand...


I'm sure they allow day-age and find that it need not be stated as an exception. I'm near sure they also allow the framework as in concert with the confession. While some interpretations might fall outside the bounds, it appears the GA Report of
the Committee to Study the Views of Creation did not discount views that held to other than 6 literal 24 hour days.

Note: This is NOT intended to start a creation debate, but only state what it appears the OPC is willing to accept for officers.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Caroline said:


> God is whoever He is, whether we like Him or not. If He created in six days and that is unappealing to some, then that is not an argument for theistic evolution. *But it is also not an argument for six-day creation to say that theistic evolution gives one the heebie-jeebies, so to speak.*[emphasis added]




I heartily approve of the statement. What God did is what he did. If what he did "fits" better with an evolution theory (which is wrong no matter what) we should not interpret scripture just to eliminate one of the supports for evolution. Those that even mention that it "fits" with a young earth and therefore contradicts evolution ought to search their heart diligently to see if they are trying to interpret the Bible for what it says, or are bringing their world view to the Bible and looking for support. While a young earth is possible, looking to the Bible and reading the Bible to support that view is wrong even if the view is right.

The ARP should judge what they make requirements for their membership; it is up to the ARP; it is not something in which anyone else has a say. My only problem with vows that require full knowledge subscription is that it may take years for a person who recently has been seized by grace to understand the doctrines, and so it would be years before they were able to partake in the LS. I don't believe that a positive good. The grace offered in the supper is real, and while not salvific in any sense, it works to the ongoing sanctification of our lives.

There is a find line between fencing the table to keep out those that do not rightly discern the body and blood, and keeping out those that in their struggle with sin need the grace offered therein. I pray for the elders of my church regularly that they make neither error.


----------



## kevin.carroll

sastark said:


> That was a cheap shot.



I fail to see how it was a cheap shot. Has not the Administration and Faculty of Erskine embraced evolution over the Bible in direct defiance of the General Synod?


----------



## Skyler

MMasztal said:


> I'd appreciate thoughts on accepting one who adheres to theistic evolution and Genesis as allegory instead of history.
> 
> Should this individual be accepted for membership with his current beliefs?
> 
> Thanks.



This is where being a Baptist comes in handy. You can hold him in the baptistry until he changes his views. 

I would analyze the rest of his theology; if that's the _only_ point of difference(unlikely), then I suppose it'd be up to the church leadership. Though I wouldn't hesitate to [good-naturedly] pester him about it at every opportunity.


----------



## Archlute

I have met some Reformed ministers who don't like this statement, but Warfield was wrong.


----------



## Zenas

They might have faith, but they have irrational and illogical faith. Holding that Genesis is an allegory removes all basis for believing the rest of the Bible. One might, against all reason, still believe it though.

Another problem arises in that holding to a non-literal interpretation brings one into contradiction with inspired, New Testament Scripture. Consider Paul in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians,



> 2 Cor 11:3
> 
> But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.



Here, Paul references the temptation of Eve as a historical event. I don't see a reason for reading what he's saying as an allegory.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him. 

I believe that theistic evolution is opposed to the bible because it requires death as a natural part of designed life for it to be true. The bible is clear that man dies because of his sin.


----------



## LeeJUk

Yes they should be accepted. No where in scripture does it require we interpret genesis in any way to be a christian or to be fully part of a local church, to say you cannot get church membership is like saying your a second class christian, even though they may be perfectly orthodox everywhere else and is in my opinion disgusting if they got rejected and going beyond what is written and be one of the greatest examples of legalism ive ever heard of.


----------



## Jon Peters

It depends. We all hold theological positions that contradict the Bible's teaching. We will have perfect theology once we are glorified; until then we will be inconsistent.

With that said, one would need to flesh out this person's position to see to what extent their reading of Genesis affects thier understanding of the gospel and the nature of God.


----------



## Archlute

Lee, 

What would you say of the individual who insists that his Christian profession should be accepted for granting him membership in the local church, and yet who uses the same approach to affirm the validity of modern homosexual relationships? There are those who say there are different ways to interpret the passages on sexual ethics as well, and yet no orthodox Christian would feel compelled to grant them their case.


----------



## Montanablue

DD2009 said:


> That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him.
> 
> I believe that theistic evolution is opposed to the bible because it requires death as a natural part of designed life for it to be true. The bible is clear that man dies because of his sin.



Where? Do you have a page number? 

I read the book pretty closely and I think I would have remembered that, but perhaps I missed it.


----------



## Tripel

DD2009 said:


> That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him.



Are you sure about this? Can you please quote him directly?

I read the book 6 months ago, and I do not recall Keller saying that. I know that he quotes Francis Collins a good bit in his chapter on scientific objections to Christianity, but I don't think Keller specifically states what he personally believes.


----------



## LeeJUk

Jon Peters said:


> It depends. We all whole theological positions that contradict the Bible's teaching. We will have perfect theology once we are glorified; until then we will be inconsistent.
> 
> With that said, one would need to flesh out this person's position to see to what extent their reading of Genesis affects thier understanding of the gospel and the nature of God.



Theres a very big difference between the homosexual argument and the arguments over genesis so please don't compare the 2.

We're talking about a true believer not trying to liberalize scripture here, who for very good reasons, has come to the conclusion that the bible is true, but genesis can be interpreted metaphorically and we've got people proposing he doesn't get full membership to a local church. If he's a born again believer and is protestant in every way, then why shouldn't he be allowed full heatedly, unless you want to depart from sola scriptura and use church tradition as your authority.


----------



## Jon Peters

Archlute said:


> Lee,
> 
> What would you say of the individual who insists that his Christian profession should be accepted for granting him membership in the local church, and yet who uses the same approach to affirm the validity of modern homosexual relationships? There are those who say there are different ways to interpret the passages on sexual ethics as well, and yet no orthodox Christian would feel compelled to grant them their case.



Of course I can't answer for Lee, but I think my answer would be: It depends. It depends on how their opinion on homosexuality affects their view of the gospel. I know orthodox, conservative, Reformed Christians who take a very different view of homosexuality than many on this board. 

Frankly, I would be more concerned about someone who rejected the historicity of Adam and the fall (if that was in fact what their allegorical method of interpreting Genesis was doing) than someone who supported the civil right of a homosexual to be married or some similar arrangement.


----------



## Archlute

LeeJUk said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends. We all whole theological positions that contradict the Bible's teaching. We will have perfect theology once we are glorified; until then we will be inconsistent.
> 
> With that said, one would need to flesh out this person's position to see to what extent their reading of Genesis affects thier understanding of the gospel and the nature of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theres a very big difference between the homosexual argument and the arguments over genesis so please don't compare the 2.
> 
> We're talking about a true believer not trying to liberalize scripture here, who for very good reasons, has come to the conclusion that the bible is true, but genesis can be interpreted metaphorically and we've got people proposing he doesn't get full membership to a local church. If he's a born again believer and is protestant in every way, then why shouldn't he be allowed full heatedly, unless you want to depart from sola scriptura and use church tradition as your authority.
Click to expand...


That's where you problem lies then, Lee. If you understand anything about the history of interpretation of Genesis' opening chapters in modern times, and the various underlying agendas, you would be able to affirm that it is indeed a liberalizing of Scripture. They are very much the same spirit, if not the same issue. 

In particular, it is a desire to change the interpretation of the opening chapters to find favor with peers in the secular academy, which is not any different than Christians attempting to liberalize sexuality issues in order to find favor with their socially liberal friends/institutions. Both originate from social pressure, and not competent exegesis. It has nothing to do with church tradition.

-----Added 10/5/2009 at 06:02:02 EST-----



Jon Peters said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lee,
> 
> What would you say of the individual who insists that his Christian profession should be accepted for granting him membership in the local church, and yet who uses the same approach to affirm the validity of modern homosexual relationships? There are those who say there are different ways to interpret the passages on sexual ethics as well, and yet no orthodox Christian would feel compelled to grant them their case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I can't answer for Lee, but I think my answer would be: It depends. It depends on how their opinion on homosexuality affects their view of the gospel. I know orthodox, conservative, Reformed Christians who take a very different view of homosexuality than many on this board.
> 
> Frankly, I would be more concerned about someone who rejected the historicity of Adam and the fall (if that was in fact what their allegorical method of interpreting Genesis was doing) than someone who supported the civil right of a homosexual to be married or some similar arrangement.
Click to expand...


Jon, 

Why do you think it should matter if it affects their view of the gospel or not? We don't evaluate active sins by virtue of their relationship to other issues. Encouraging someone to continue in, or continue promoting, a sinful lifestyle by that criteria is exceedingly unwise. I would say that you don't really know any _orthodox, conservative_ Reformed folk who hold your view. They may attend orthodox, conservative Reformed congregations (maybe), but by definition they cannot be orthodox, nor conservative if they support homosexual unions of any sort.


----------



## JennyG

Just as regards the OP question, many true Christians especially in the heyday of evolution have believed some version of it perforce - sometimes trusting on in an utter absence of light - see _Green Eye of the Storm_ by John Rendle Short.
I often thank God for letting me be alive at the right time to see Darwin's hegemony finally on the skids!
It is bliss to be on a site where people can actually see that the Gospel no longer makes any logical sense if you try to weld it onto an evolutionary world-view.
It's late here in Scotland, but I just wanted to say that...


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Montanablue said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him.
> 
> I believe that theistic evolution is opposed to the bible because it requires death as a natural part of designed life for it to be true. The bible is clear that man dies because of his sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where? Do you have a page number?
> 
> I read the book pretty closely and I think I would have remembered that, but perhaps I missed it.
Click to expand...




Tripel said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about this? Can you please quote him directly?
> 
> I read the book 6 months ago, and I do not recall Keller saying that. I know that he quotes Francis Collins a good bit in his chapter on scientific objections to Christianity, but I don't think Keller specifically states what he personally believes.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure. I'll recheck the book when I get home and reference where he writes that.


----------



## MMasztal

DD2009 said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him.
> 
> I believe that theistic evolution is opposed to the bible because it requires death as a natural part of designed life for it to be true. The bible is clear that man dies because of his sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where? Do you have a page number?
> 
> I read the book pretty closely and I think I would have remembered that, but perhaps I missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure about this? Can you please quote him directly?
> 
> I read the book 6 months ago, and I do not recall Keller saying that. I know that he quotes Francis Collins a good bit in his chapter on scientific objections to Christianity, but I don't think Keller specifically states what he personally believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure. I'll recheck the book when I get home and reference where he writes that.
Click to expand...


Here's an interview with Keller where he addressed this issue.

Interview with Timothy Keller | Uncommon Descent


----------



## Osage Bluestem

DD2009 said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him.
> 
> I believe that theistic evolution is opposed to the bible because it requires death as a natural part of designed life for it to be true. The bible is clear that man dies because of his sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where? Do you have a page number?
> 
> I read the book pretty closely and I think I would have remembered that, but perhaps I missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure about this? Can you please quote him directly?
> 
> I read the book 6 months ago, and I do not recall Keller saying that. I know that he quotes Francis Collins a good bit in his chapter on scientific objections to Christianity, but I don't think Keller specifically states what he personally believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure. I'll recheck the book when I get home and reference where he writes that.
Click to expand...


Ok, I'm home from work now . 

It's on page 93 and 94 of the book The Reason for God by Tim Keller (Hardcover).

On 93: "I personally take the view that Genesis 1 and 2 relate to each other the way Judges 4 and 5 and Exodus 15 and 15 do. In each couplet one chapter describes a historical event and the other is a song or poem about the theological meaning of the event." --Tim Keller

On Page 94: "For the record I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as All-encompassing Theory". --Tim Keller.

In other words, he said he believes in theistic evolution.


----------



## MMasztal

DD2009 said:


> On 93: "I personally take the view that Genesis 1 and 2 relate to each other the way Judges 4 and 5 and Exodus 15 and 15 do. In each couplet one chapter describes a historical event and the other is a song or poem about the theological meaning of the event." --Tim Keller
> 
> On Page 94: "For the record I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as All-encompassing Theory". --Tim Keller.
> 
> In other words, he said he believes in theistic evolution.



When I hear this type (Keller's) of reasoning, I have to ask, "Then why didn't God just say so? Would it make him any less God? Were it not for the evolution zeitgeist, would a believer inevitably exegete Gen 1 and 2 in a couplet fashion?"

Evolution has many bullet holes in their theories. Unfortunately,much of the likely clergy lacks a strong science background to identify and refute the evolution canard.


----------



## Archlute

And you don't even need a background in science to discredit any attemps at comparing Gen. 1/2 with either Exodus 14/15 or Judges 4/5. The latter two groups are clearly marked off in the narrative as being songs of praise given by God's people to celebrate His victory over their enemies. Genesis 2 has no such relationship with Genesis 1. It is not a song, it is not marked off in form, style, or with narrative pointers as being any sort of metaphorical reinterpretation of the earlier chapter.

Take time to read the interview with Keller that was linked above. He comes out of the gate sounding confused before he even really gets going.


----------



## au5t1n

MMasztal said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where? Do you have a page number?
> 
> I read the book pretty closely and I think I would have remembered that, but perhaps I missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about this? Can you please quote him directly?
> 
> I read the book 6 months ago, and I do not recall Keller saying that. I know that he quotes Francis Collins a good bit in his chapter on scientific objections to Christianity, but I don't think Keller specifically states what he personally believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure. I'll recheck the book when I get home and reference where he writes that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's an interview with Keller where he addressed this issue.
> 
> Interview with Timothy Keller | Uncommon Descent
Click to expand...

That interview is just bizarre. I would hate to be so confused. Poor guy.


----------



## JennyG

> When I hear this type (Keller's) of reasoning, I have to ask, "Then why didn't God just say so? Would it make him any less God? Were it not for the evolution zeitgeist, would a believer inevitably exegete Gen 1 and 2 in a couplet fashion?"


That's exactly the thought which to me has always seemed a light cutting through all the confusion.
If God had created via evolution (which beyond all doubt he could have done if he had so pleased) then _*WHY WOULD HE SAY DIFFERENT?*_
Seriously - is there a good answre to that point of Michael's?


----------



## Tripel

DD2009 said:


> On 93: "I personally take the view that Genesis 1 and 2 relate to each other the way Judges 4 and 5 and Exodus 15 and 15 do. In each couplet one chapter describes a historical event and the other is a song or poem about the theological meaning of the event." --Tim Keller
> 
> On Page 94: "For the record I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as All-encompassing Theory". --Tim Keller.
> 
> In other words, he said he believes in theistic evolution.



I disagree with your "in other words" summary. Theistic evolution is quite a leap from "I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection". In that interview linked above, Keller clearly states the problems he has with the theistic evolution theory. He said he believes in an Adam and Eve. He believes in a real, historic fall.

-----Added 10/6/2009 at 10:02:22 EST-----



Archlute said:


> Take time to read the interview with Keller that was linked above. He comes out of the gate sounding confused before he even really gets going.



Sounding confused? I don't think he sounded confused. He admitted that all of the various interpretations are confusing, but I had no problem following what he was saying. I think he said it well, and for the most part, I agree with him.



austinww said:


> That interview is just bizarre. I would hate to be so confused. Poor guy.



Was that comment really necessary? How wonderful that you have it all figured out. 
I, on the other hand, admire that someone as well-respected as Keller can admit that he doesn't have all the answers.


----------



## lynnie

Natural selection IS evolution. He just thinks it was not 100% statistical chance, but God helped roll the dice.

He is a great preacher with some marvelous (biblical!) tapes available but he is not a creationist. My pastor got saved in his church and I am in his presbytery, and its generally known.

Of course they all believe in a real Adam and Eve and a historic fall, yes indeed. At some point in the process God took a primate and breathed into that evolved primate a human soul. But he had a primate Momma and Daddy; he nursed at the breast of a creature born to creatures who all died. Death means spiritual death. 

That Adam disobeyed and fell as the first man, yeah, they DO believe that. But this is not classic creationism, not at all. 

BB Warfield was a genius and considered one of the greatest Reformed theologians ever by many. Hodge also was duped by Darwin. It is not uncommon at all to hold to theistic evolution.

We are (if unregenerate) born living but dead, often to parents who are alive but in death. Until we are born again by the holy spirit we are truly dead. We live as creatures who are truly dead until God breathes life into us. Life is from the Holy Spirit. So extrapolate that back to Adam as a monkey and it all works. At least it works for some......


----------



## Tripel

lynnie said:


> Of course they all believe in a real Adam and Eve and a historic fall, yes indeed.



No "they all" don't. That is one of Keller's gripes with theistic evolution.



> At some point in the process God took a primate and breathed into that evolved primate a human soul.



Did Keller say he believes that? Perhaps you can provide a quote.
I certainly do not believe mankind evolved from apes.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Tripel said:


> Did Keller say he believes that? Perhaps you can provide a quote.
> I certainly do not believe mankind evolved from apes.



On page 94 of The Reason for God he is clear that he believes in "Natural Selection" that was guided by God. Natural selection is a way to say evolution without having to use to word, it sounds less controversial.

Do you own the book? Read pages 93 and 94 in detail. He leaves no doubt.


----------



## Tripel

DD2009 said:


> On page 94 of The Reason for God he is clear that he believes in "Natural Selection" that was guided by God. Natural selection is a way to say evolution without having to use to word, it sounds less controversial.
> 
> Do you own the book? Read pages 93 and 94 in detail. He leaves no doubt.



Yes, I own the book. Yes, I read 93-94. Though I don't know how you can say he leaves no doubt. He is purposefully vague in how he describes what he actually believes. Why? Because he is admittedly uncertain of how exactly God created the earth. He says he believes that there was "some kind of process of natural selection." That doesn't sound definitive to me. 
What I don't understand is why some of you have to take that statement, and run with it to suggest he is a theistic evolutionist who believes man evolved from apes.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Tripel said:


> Yes, I own the book. Yes, I read 93-94. Though I don't know how you can say he leaves no doubt. He is purposefully vague in how he describes what he actually believes. Why? Because he is admittedly uncertain of how exactly God created the earth. He says he believes that there was "some kind of process of natural selection." That doesn't sound definitive to me.
> What I don't understand is why some of you have to take that statement, and run with it to suggest he is a theistic evolutionist who believes man evolved from apes.



Because in the book he was talking about evolution when he said that. So the statement in context with the "For the record" attached to it is quite clear to me.

He also siad that the thought Genesis 2 is a poem. What else could he be other than a Theistic Evolutionist?


----------



## lynnie

Tripel, I was quoting BB Warfield, sorry for any confusion.

To repeat from my quote above:

_An example of mediate creation in Warfield’s thought would be the creation of Adam. His body could have been created by a long evolutionary process as postulated by Darwin, et al. However, the creation of his spirit, by divine in-breathing, was a supernatural act of creation. _

My son who went to Eastern College ( yeah, I know, it was close by so have mercy on us) said the theistic evolution profs saw the development of man like the development of the nation of Israel...a slow and drawn out process with a deliberate plan and end result. Not immediate creation, but instead an evolving creation from Abraham through the 12 tribes through to Caanan land. Same with Adam.

I bet ya'll learned something new today, ha.


----------



## Tripel

DD2009 said:


> He also siad that the thought Genesis 2 is a poem. What else could he be other than a Theistic Evolutionist?



You seem to be suggesting there are only two camps: 1) Those who believe in a strict 24-hour day interpretation of creation, and 2) evolutionists.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Tripel said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He also siad that the thought Genesis 2 is a poem. What else could he be other than a Theistic Evolutionist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be suggesting there are only two camps: 1) Those who believe in a strict 24-hour day interpretation of creation, and 2) evolutionists.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying that. However, I do believe if you say you believe in natural selection you are affirming an evolutionary process.


----------



## JennyG

> You seem to be suggesting there are only two camps: 1) Those who believe in a strict 24-hour day interpretation of creation, and 2) evolutionists.


..........or to put it another way, those who believe what the Bible actually says, and those who don't!!!
(sorry, I couldn't resist)


----------



## Montanablue

JennyG said:


> You seem to be suggesting there are only two camps: 1) Those who believe in a strict 24-hour day interpretation of creation, and 2) evolutionists.
> 
> 
> 
> ..........or to put it another way, those who believe what the Bible actually says, and those who don't!!!
> (sorry, I couldn't resist)
Click to expand...



Eh, that seems a little simplistic. Certainly there are many people who are not evolutionists who are also not certain that Genesis refers to 24 hour days. 

(For the record, I do think that Genesis is referring to 24 hour days - although I've never learnt Hebrew, so I can't read it for myself. I know many Christians who have spent a great deal of time studying this who are of Keller's opinion though. And they are certainly not theistic evolutionists)


----------



## Osage Bluestem

I may get laughed at by some for this because it sounds so simple, but, I believe that Genesis is literal because God spoke to Moses face to face. If there is any argument for the dictation method of inspiration in any of the books of the the bible it is in those Moses wrote.

That is how he knew what happened so many years before he was born in so great detail. It wasn't because he referenced a recorded history or because he relayed stories told to him by elders around a fire. He was told these things by God.

Exodus 33:11 KJV
[11] And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.


----------



## Zenas

No laugh, I think that's a a strong argument from the text. 

Keller is likely a long-day creationist who believes in _a_ evolutionary process, which doesn't necessarily imply he believes in _the_ evolutionary process espoused by Darwinians. There are learned men who hold to this view and I do believe they are in error. I think that there are ramifications with the rest of Scripture where if you are to hold to an orthodox Reformed understanding, you have to speak out of both sides of your mouth. 

As I said before, one may believe in something other than literal creationism, but I think that they do so by sacrificing a rational and logical systemic faith.


----------



## JennyG

Montanablue said:


> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be suggesting there are only two camps: 1) Those who believe in a strict 24-hour day interpretation of creation, and 2) evolutionists.
> 
> 
> 
> ..........or to put it another way, those who believe what the Bible actually says, and those who don't!!!
> (sorry, I couldn't resist)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, that seems a little simplistic.
Click to expand...

you think???.... weeeell, maybe just a little!



> (For the record, I do think that Genesis is referring to 24 hour days - although I've never learnt Hebrew, so I can't read it for myself. I know many Christians who have spent a great deal of time studying this who are of Keller's opinion though. And they are certainly not theistic evolutionists)


but here I seriously think it's good just to forget textual or technical issues for a moment - step back and apply the old "what would a martian say" test.
If you, or anyone, came fresh to the first chapter of the Bible - as in, with no preconceptions of any sort - what would you think it meant?
And one more way of looking at it - assuming for the sake of argument that God did indeed create the Heavens and the Earth in 6 literal days, -
I know many people really and truly think the text doesn't make that clear.
But can anyone envisage how on earth it could have been expressed differently so as to MAKE it clear?
I'm not really expecting any suggestions...but I think it's a helpful way of looking at it


----------



## Archlute

I think it would be helpful for those defending Keller to try and explain exactly what is meant by a process of natural selection that does not also involve evolution and death before the fall. You won't be able to, and any attempt to say "we just don't know enough to say" is nothing less than fence sitting.


----------



## lynnie

Arch- John 5:24 _"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life._

Only the elect have life, everybody else is in death. Death entering the world through Adam refers to spiritual death. All the death for millions of years is not the death the bible talking about regarding Adam and sin and death.

I don't believe this, but the Reformed have entire long involved essays with Hebrew and Greek and what death means, it is really complicated, and I doubt most of us here could even begin to debate them. If any of them got on this thread you have no idea what a challenge their arguements would be.


----------



## Montanablue

JennyG said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..........or to put it another way, those who believe what the Bible actually says, and those who don't!!!
> (sorry, I couldn't resist)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, that seems a little simplistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you think???.... weeeell, maybe just a little!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (For the record, I do think that Genesis is referring to 24 hour days - although I've never learnt Hebrew, so I can't read it for myself. I know many Christians who have spent a great deal of time studying this who are of Keller's opinion though. And they are certainly not theistic evolutionists)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but here I seriously think it's good just to forget textual or technical issues for a moment - step back and apply the old "what would a martian say" test.
> If you, or anyone, came fresh to the first chapter of the Bible - as in, with no preconceptions of any sort - what would you think it meant?
> And one more way of looking at it - assuming for the sake of argument that God did indeed create the Heavens and the Earth in 6 literal days, -
> I know many people really and truly think the text doesn't make that clear.
> But can anyone envisage how on earth it could have been expressed differently so as to MAKE it clear?
> I'm not really expecting any suggestions...but I think it's a helpful way of looking at it
Click to expand...



Well, here's my issue. If I was new to the text and hadn't been brought up to believe in 7 day creation, I actually don't think that 7 day creation is what I would neccessarily see there. Gensis 1 and 2 is a weird weird section of text, and although I do believe in 7 day creation myself, I can absoutely understand why others have different readings. If I was able to read Hebrew and more throughly investigate for myself, I might think differently too. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not "defending Keller." I happen to think he's wrong - just like I think he's wrong about infant baptism! I just think that this is not as simple an issue as some seem to think.


----------



## Archlute

lynnie said:


> Arch- John 5:24 _"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life._
> 
> Only the elect have life, everybody else is in death. Death entering the world through Adam refers to spiritual death. All the death for millions of years is not the death the bible talking about regarding Adam and sin and death.
> 
> I don't believe this, but the Reformed have entire long involved essays with Hebrew and Greek and what death means, it is really complicated, and I doubt most of us here could even begin to debate them. If any of them got on this thread you have no idea what a challenge their arguements would be.



Lynnie, 

Their arguments would not be that much of a challenge. You only have to say one thing - "a priori". The reason essays like that are so long and complex is often due the attempt to set the stage through stacked word studies, angling the theological discussion, and subtly working in one's philosophical presuppositions in order to assert that which they had desired to prove before they began. Anyone can write complex and technically thick essays, but it doesn't mean that they are exegetically factual or truthful. Why do you think some of Kline's works are so convoluted? (cheap shot noted, although the point still stands)

The problem with scholars knowing their Hebrew, Greek, theology, etc, etc, is that it means the sinful heart can seek to baffle the uninitiated through the sophistry of technical jargon. You should read some of the essays liberal feminists have written. They are equally impressive, and yet obviously wrong.

Don't let yourself be intimidated.


----------



## Tripel

Archlute said:


> ...try and explain exactly what is meant by a process of natural selection that does not also involve evolution and death before the fall.



I can't do that. Of course it involves evolution and death before the fall. 

But belief in a creation process that "involves" evolution is quite different than the theistic evolution that Keller argues against. 

And Keller has said he believes there was death before the fall, as do I (not that my opinion matters)



> ...any attempt to say "we just don't know enough to say" is nothing less than fence sitting.



I disagree. Sometimes we simply don't know enough. We aren't required to have all the answers, and I don't see how you can say Keller is fence sitting. 
I don't know exactly how our world came to be, but I know that God created it and God's creation has clues that it came to be in a way that is quite different than a strict 24-hour day interpretation of Gen 1.


----------



## Archlute

Kathleen,

I think the reason most would come to the seven, twenty-four hour day conclusion if all they had to compare was Scripture with Scripture is the passage in the Decalogue that equates the seven days known by the Israelites with the seven days of creation in Exodus 20:11. I know that ministers will try and argue that this is just God's accommodating the "pre-modern" view of creation, but doesn't that seem also to imply that they are reading their modernist views into the text where they are not explicit?

-----Added 10/6/2009 at 04:05:48 EST-----



Tripel said:


> But belief in a creation process that "involves" evolution is quite different than the theistic evolution that Keller argues against.



That is where men like you and Keller go offtrack. You cannot logically say what you have said if you think clearly about it. Creation is a direct act, while evolutions is a development. Either Adam and Eve evolved, or they were created, and if they were evolved they had to come from a lower life form (how else does evolution work? did they devolve from a higher life form?), which means that there were no humans to rule the animals for millions of years (day six?), and then God had this great idea that he would pull a man out of an ape, and, and, and....

Do you see how stupid that sounds? But more importantly - where do you see it in either the Old or New Testament discussions of creation? It's not there, and it doesn't take Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek to figure it out.


----------



## Tripel

Archlute said:


> That is where men like you and Keller go offtrack. You cannot logically say what you have said if you think clearly about it. Creation is a direct act, while evolutions is a development. Either Adam and Eve evolved, or they were created, and if they were evolved they had to come from a lower life form (how else does evolution work? did they devolve from a higher life form?), which means that there were no humans to rule the animals for millions of years (day six?), and then God had this great idea that he would pull a man out of an ape, and, and, and....
> 
> Do you see how stupid that sounds? But more importantly - where do you see it in either the Old or New Testament discussions of creation? It's not there, and it doesn't take Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek to figure it out.



Adam and Eve were created. I don't believe they "evolved", and I don't think Keller does either. And yes, I think it's likely that there were no humans to rule the animals for millions of years. 

But I don't understand what is so "stupid" about that.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Tripel said:


> And Keller has said he believes there was death before the fall, as do I (not that my opinion matters)



What is your scriptural support for this?


----------



## JennyG

Kathleen, hi again!


> Well, here's my issue. If I was new to the text and hadn't been brought up to believe in 7 day creation, I actually don't think that 7 day creation is what I would neccessarily see there.


No kidding? that's really interesting! I most definitely _wasn't_ brought up to believe that, (it was actually quite an intellectual white-knuckle ride getting there) - but I just can't see it like you do.
But ok, that's step one.
Step two, how would it have had to be written so that you _would_ see 6 day creation there?


----------



## lynnie

_The problem with scholars knowing their Hebrew, Greek, theology, etc, etc, is that it means the sinful heart can seek to baffle the uninitiated through the sophistry of technical jargon. You should read some of the essays liberal feminists have written. They are equally impressive, and yet obviously wrong.

Don't let yourself be intimidated. _

Good point, but the minute they start I give up. I guess you are smarter than me, or less imtimidated ....or maybe dumber to even try to debate???


----------



## JennyG

....or 7 day, however it's counted


----------



## Tripel

Scottish Lass said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Keller has said he believes there was death before the fall, as do I (not that my opinion matters)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your scriptural support for this?
Click to expand...


I don't have any, other than some of the names Adam gives the animals suggest they are animals of prey. 

I also don't have scriptural support that the earth revolves around the sun.


----------



## Michael Doyle

Tripel said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On 93: "I personally take the view that Genesis 1 and 2 relate to each other the way Judges 4 and 5 and Exodus 15 and 15 do. In each couplet one chapter describes a historical event and the other is a song or poem about the theological meaning of the event." --Tim Keller
> 
> On Page 94: "For the record I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as All-encompassing Theory". --Tim Keller.
> 
> In other words, he said he believes in theistic evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with your "in other words" summary. Theistic evolution is quite a leap from "I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection". In that interview linked above, Keller clearly states the problems he has with the theistic evolution theory. He said he believes in an Adam and Eve. He believes in a real, historic fall.
> 
> -----Added 10/6/2009 at 10:02:22 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take time to read the interview with Keller that was linked above. He comes out of the gate sounding confused before he even really gets going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounding confused? I don't think he sounded confused. He admitted that all of the various interpretations are confusing, but I had no problem following what he was saying. I think he said it well, and for the most part, I agree with him.
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> That interview is just bizarre. I would hate to be so confused. Poor guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was that comment really necessary? How wonderful that you have it all figured out.
> I, on the other hand, admire that someone as well-respected as Keller can admit that he doesn't have all the answers.
Click to expand...


Daniel, your commentary, though understandable in that you admire Keller, is a little frustrating in that Kellers position is anything but the norm. It is fine to defend Keller, but I see valid assertions made using his own statements in context. Maybe you could cut some slack to those who think differently from you.


----------



## lynnie

Jenny your Martian would say the earth has four corners. It isn't so simple. There is poetry, metaphore, historical narrative. I happen to think Keller is wrong but it is complex theology.

I happen to believe in geocentricity (the earth is at the center of the solar system and the sun with planets and all the stars rotate around the earth daily). They are not as far away as you think and the subject of the speed of light decreasing parabolically in measuremts since 1600 is fascinating. There is an entire group of Reformed physicists and astronomers with the material on this ( Gerhardus Bouw is the most famous). The models both work perfectly ( geo and heliocentric) so it can't be proven either way, although the Michaelson Morley experiments conclusively proved the earth does not move unless you want to swallow Einsteins junk that light measures the same if you are moving or not.


I am saying all this to say that any young earther creationist who turns around and believes in heliocentrism is guilty of the same liberties that the old agers and theistic evolutionists hold to. The exact same. You can twist and turn and come up with all the reasons why the sun does not rise and set nor why it did not stand still and what the ancients didn't know that we know now, but it is all the same logic- or illogic. You must not condemn Keller or any evolutionist unless you are prepared to embrace geocentricity in my opinion, or you become a hypocrite. That's how I see it, no offense intended. But if you can turn some narrative into poetry or ancient scientific mistakes, then the evolutionists have the same right to do so.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Tripel said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Keller has said he believes there was death before the fall, as do I (not that my opinion matters)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your scriptural support for this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any, other than some of the names Adam gives the animals suggest they are animals of prey.
> 
> I also don't have scriptural support that the earth revolves around the sun.
Click to expand...


What is prey now, was not _necessarily _prey before the fall, right? 

On your second point, nice try, but that's not what anyone's positing.


----------



## JennyG

lynnie said:


> Jenny your Martian would say the earth has four corners. It isn't so simple. There is poetry, metaphore, historical narrative. I happen to think Keller is wrong but it is complex theology.
> 
> I happen to believe in geocentricity (the earth is at the center of the solar system and the sun with planets and all the stars rotate around the earth daily). They are not as far away as you think and the subject of the speed of light decreasing parabolically in measuremts since 1600 is fascinating. There is an entire group of Reformed physicists and astronomers with the material on this ( Gerhardus Bouw is the most famous). The models both work perfectly ( geo and heliocentric) so it can't be proven either way, although the Michaelson Morley experiments conclusively proved the earth does not move unless you want to swallow Einsteins junk that light measures the same if you are moving or not.
> 
> 
> I am saying all this to say that any young earther creationist who turns around and believes in heliocentrism is guilty of the same liberties that the old agers and theistic evolutionists hold to. The exact same. You can twist and turn and come up with all the reasons why the sun does not rise and set nor why it did not stand still and what the ancients didn't know that we know now, but it is all the same logic- or illogic. You must not condemn Keller or any evolutionist unless you are prepared to embrace geocentricity in my opinion, or you become a hypocrite. That's how I see it, no offense intended. But if you can turn some narrative into poetry or ancient scientific mistakes, then the evolutionists have the same right to do so.


Lynnie, thanks for this reply. It blew me away. Forgive my slowness...
Are you serious about geocentricity? you aren't just using it for a reductio argument?
I am absolutely fascinated, because I have just started reading and thinking about this. I see what follows - yes, it is the same, (though I think you also have to be prepared not to be too hard on sincere believers who happen to have been evolutionarily brainwashed from earliest youth) . 
Would you care to start up a thread on geocentricity?? I was considering doing so myself, just to get some input! (sorry, off topic)


----------



## Jon Peters

Archlute said:


> Jon,
> 
> Why do you think it should matter if it affects their view of the gospel or not? We don't evaluate active sins by virtue of their relationship to other issues. Encouraging someone to continue in, or continue promoting, a sinful lifestyle by that criteria is exceedingly unwise. I would say that you don't really know any _orthodox, conservative_ Reformed folk who hold your view. They may attend orthodox, conservative Reformed congregations (maybe), but by definition they cannot be orthodox, nor conservative if they support homosexual unions of any sort.



So Adam, it's not possible to hold an abberant view of homosexuality while still being Reformed and conservative (at lease theologically)? I guess that means when we're saved we are automatically granted, with our faith, a perfectly correct view of homosexuality. No need to work through that one I guess. No room for sanctification there.

My premise is that no one is perfect in their belief system. All of us hold things that are inconsistant, sometimes radically so, from our otherwise sound Reformed views. I don't know your views of homosexuality. I do know that there are some very nuanced views out there that many here, perhaps you, would disagree with. That does not make those views sinful or wrong. Perhaps they are both. Perhaps not. 

I continue to maintain that homosexuality is singled out by many as a sin above others. If one does not toe the line in their view then they must be cast aside or not admitted into a church. 

You are simply wrong in your final assertion.


----------



## Archlute

Tripel said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Keller has said he believes there was death before the fall, as do I (not that my opinion matters)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your scriptural support for this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any, other than some of the names Adam gives the animals suggest they are animals of prey.
Click to expand...


Daniel, 

The Hebrew (and the Septuagint's translation of those terms) of Gen. 2:19-20 have nothing specifically to do with prey. They merely distinguish between animals to be used in a domesticated manner, and those that live in the field. 

Both terms are used in a post fall context to describe carnivorous animals, as well as sheep and livestock, but it would be exegetically unsound to necessitate the reading of a word in one place always to apply to the word in another. That is a word study fallacy. By the biblical account, post-fall (and then post-flood) creation differs substantially from the pre-fall state. 

This is why it's a lame attempt to prove pre-fall death by the invokation of Psalm 104. It's often asserted that it is a psalm about creation, and therefore proves death before the fall, but it is ignored that David was writing his observations regarding creation in a post-fall setting. Of course he saw lions tear their prey - he killed one who went after his sheep 

-----Added 10/6/2009 at 05:09:27 EST-----



Jon Peters said:


> So Adam, it's not possible to hold an abberant view of homosexuality while still being Reformed and conservative (at lease theologically)?



No. Theology includes ethics.


----------



## Jon Peters

Archlute said:


> Anyone can write complex and technically thick essays, but it doesn't mean that they are exegetically factual or truthful. Why do you think some of Kline's works are so convoluted? (cheap shot noted, although the point still stands)



The point doesn't stand. Long and complicated and be just as correct as short and simple. Your knock at Kline is simply an unsupported assertion. The definition of a cheap shot.

You sound as though someone cannot honestly work through the text of Genesis and arrive at anything other than what you believe. That is simply arrogant.


----------



## Tripel

Archlute said:


> This is why it's a lame attempt to prove pre-fall death by the invokation of Psalm 104.



I'm not trying to prove pre-fall death with that passage. That passage doesn't prove anything, like you said. I admitted that I don't have Scriptural support for my belief in pre-fall death, which Anna requested. But I don't think I need it. I stated that I also believe the earth revolves around the sun, even though there isn't Scriptural support. I know Anna doesn't think it's a valid argument, but I do. I base my belief of pre-fall death on what I see in creation. I see an earth that is billions of years old. I see animals who are uniquely designed for devouring other life, like venomous snakes, spiders, anteaters, etc.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Tripel said:


> I base my belief of pre-fall death on what I see in creation. I see an earth that is billions of years old. I see animals who are uniquely designed for devouring other life, like venomous snakes, spiders, anteaters, etc.



Don't your first two sentences contradict each other? Your first sentence would have you as a geocentrist, for example. Your second sentence has you incorporating things beyond scripture that are far from proven (the carbon-dated pine cone, for example). Since we are predators at the top of the food chain, so to speak, does your last sentence include humans? Why?


----------



## Archlute

Jon Peters said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can write complex and technically thick essays, but it doesn't mean that they are exegetically factual or truthful. Why do you think some of Kline's works are so convoluted? (cheap shot noted, although the point still stands)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point doesn't stand. Long and complicated and be just as correct as short and simple. Your knock at Kline is simply an unsupported assertion. The definition of a cheap shot.
> 
> You sound as though someone cannot honestly work through the text of Genesis and arrive at anything other than what you believe. That is simply arrogant.
Click to expand...


Jon, 

You're just finding things to fight against. I've worked through the Hebrew of the entire first 11 chapters of Genesis in detail. I have also read Kline in detail, and therefore find it no unsupported assertion. It may have been unkind, but not unsupported. Are you a supporter of Lee and Misty Irons per chance? That is an honest question. 

Btw, are you going to challenge my point about your attempt to separate ethics from theology? If not, then you should retract your assertion that it is wrong to make the statement that one cannot hold aberrant views of homosexual unions and still be considered a theologically orthodox and conservative Reformed Christian.


----------



## Tripel

Scottish Lass said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I base my belief of pre-fall death on what I see in creation. I see an earth that is billions of years old. I see animals who are uniquely designed for devouring other life, like venomous snakes, spiders, anteaters, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't your first two sentences contradict each other? Your first sentence would have you as a geocentrist, for example. Your second sentence has you incorporating things beyond scripture that are far from proven (the carbon-dated pine cone, for example). Since we are predators at the top of the food chain, so to speak, does your last sentence include humans? Why?
Click to expand...


Anna,
You lost me. How is it that I'm a geocentrist? And please also explain your comment on humans being the top of the food chain. I don't see what that has to do with what I said.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Tripel said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I base my belief of pre-fall death on what I see in creation. I see an earth that is billions of years old. I see animals who are uniquely designed for devouring other life, like venomous snakes, spiders, anteaters, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't your first two sentences contradict each other? Your first sentence would have you as a geocentrist, for example. Your second sentence has you incorporating things beyond scripture that are far from proven (the carbon-dated pine cone, for example). Since we are predators at the top of the food chain, so to speak, does your last sentence include humans? Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anna,
> You lost me. How is it that I'm a geocentrist? And please also explain your comment on humans being the top of the food chain. I don't see what that has to do with what I said.
Click to expand...


We see the sun rise and set. It appears to the naked eye ("what I see in creation") that the sun moves, not the earth. We devour other life; are we uniquely designed to do so? Why?


----------



## lynnie

Jenny yes I am serious.

I was first introduced to this maybe 20 years ago before the internet age, but this seems to be a site to get you started.

Geocentricity

I only  had books and videos. The thing I liked best was an appendix in a British book by Malcolm Bowden called True Science Agrees with the Bible. Much of the technical material is far over my head.

The most important thing to know, which even my daughter's secular text book states, is that both models work. ( in the geo one, the other planets orbit the sun which goes around the earth). They both accurately predict the retrograde motion of planets, eclipses, etc. It is not necessary to science to have heliocentrism, but that model is simpler and also lends itslef more easily to the big bang cloud of dust condensing into swirling balls that become planets. ( until you talk about the moons of planets that orbit with an opposite spin, and then they come up with strange theories that will never fit the swirling condensing model.)

The main geocentric discussions center on the Michaelson Morley experiments, which tried to measure the speed of the earth hurling towards a star part of the year and then hurling away from the star the opposite part of the year. They were well done and no one argues with the technique but they yield a zero value, that the earth is not moving.

Eiensteins "genius" was that the speed of every other wave on the electromagnetic spectum can be measured by adding and subtracting velocities as you move towards and away from the source ( radio, radar, TV waves, etc),but visible light, this one little slice of the spectrum, does not behave like the rest. It measures the same if you move towards or away from a source...no adding or subtracting velocities. 

This is from the Time Magazine Person of the Century Cover Story ( Einstein)

TIME 100: Person of the Century - A Brief History of Relativity

_ You would expect light to travel at a fixed speed through the ether. So if you were traveling in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion through the ether. 

The most careful and accurate of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887. They compared the speed of light in two beams at right angles to each other. As the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun, they reasoned, it will move through the ether, and the speed of light in these two beams should diverge. But Michelson and Morley found no daily or yearly differences between the two beams of light. It was as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were moving. ( lynnie edit- it was as if the earth stood still)

But it was a young clerk named Albert Einstein, working in the Swiss Patent Office in Bern, who cut through the ether and solved the speed-of-light problem once and for all. In June 1905 he wrote one of three papers that would establish him as one of the world's leading scientists — and in the process start two conceptual revolutions that changed our understanding of time, space and reality. 

In that 1905 paper, Einstein pointed out that because you could not detect whether or not you were moving through the ether, the whole notion of an ether was redundant. Instead, Einstein started from the postulate that the laws of science should appear the same to all freely moving observers. In particular, observers should all measure the same speed for light, no matter how they were moving. _

Let me say that I am not an expert on these matters and don't have time to debate them here, but all the material is out there for anybody who cares to study it- focault pendulums, sattellites, the supposed clock that was slower on a plane, all of it. The geocentrists blow holes in all the heliocentric junk that was fed to you in highschool.

Another big deal for geocentrists is the Sagnac effect, I am sure it is discussed on that site. 

This tends to be very hard at first to believe, as people think science has proved heliocentricity and the theory of relativity. That is not true, any more than science has proved the earth is billions of years old or that evolution is true. I happen to think that every young earth creationist needs to investigate this subject, and decide how they can toss aside biblical references to the sun rising, setting, and standing still, while demanding literalism from the evolutionists and old earthers on Adam and the days of creation. I see no difference. After I spent time reading materials on this I was relieved to see that there is solid science behind it, and my faith in geocentricity is every bit as scientifically solid as my young earth views.


----------



## Tripel

Scottish Lass said:


> We see the sun rise and set. It appears to the naked eye ("what I see in creation") that the sun moves, not the earth. We devour other life; are we uniquely designed to do so? Why?



Ah, I see. When I said "what I see in creation" I wasn't talking about the naked eye. I'm talking about what I can deduce through scientific discovery.

As to humans, I'd say we were uniquely designed to rule over all other life. But I'm still not certain where you're going with that. I mentioned things like venomous snakes and spiders because it is not clear to me why they would be created like that if there were no death. Were spiders catching leaves in their webs? What was the purpose of a spider or snake's poisonous bite?


----------



## Peairtach

Turning Genesis into metaphor and theistic evolution are all grist to Satan's mill. 

Thus can liberalism seep and then flood into the good ship Evangelicalism.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Tripel said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see the sun rise and set. It appears to the naked eye ("what I see in creation") that the sun moves, not the earth. We devour other life; are we uniquely designed to do so? Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I see. When I said "what I see in creation" I wasn't talking about the naked eye. I'm talking about what I can deduce through scientific discovery.
> 
> As to humans, I'd say we were uniquely designed to rule over all other life. But I'm still not certain where you're going with that. I mentioned things like venomous snakes and spiders because it is not clear to me why they would be created like that if there were no death. Were spiders catching leaves in their webs? What was the purpose of a spider or snake's poisonous bite?
Click to expand...


But obviously we can't accurately deduce the age of the earth through scientific discovery---the age changes all the time, according to those on the old-earth side. Evidence at Mt. St. Helens makes it clear that what others would say takes millions of years can be done in hours or days. 

You're assuming that nothing about those animals changed after the fall. We didn't eat meat before the fall, but through God's providence and plan, now we do.


----------



## Peairtach

Tripel said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see the sun rise and set. It appears to the naked eye ("what I see in creation") that the sun moves, not the earth. We devour other life; are we uniquely designed to do so? Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I see. When I said "what I see in creation" I wasn't talking about the naked eye. I'm talking about what I can deduce through scientific discovery.
> 
> As to humans, I'd say we were uniquely designed to rule over all other life. But I'm still not certain where you're going with that. I mentioned things like venomous snakes and spiders because it is not clear to me why they would be created like that if there were no death. Were spiders catching leaves in their webs? What was the purpose of a spider or snake's poisonous bite?
Click to expand...


Well a possibility is that the creation was changed/spoiled/cursed after Adam's Fall. What about the multitudinous illnesses that afflict Mankind? Were they around before the Fall or carrying out the current havoc that they wreak among Mankind? Or under God's curse did they change/evolve?

It would have been wrong for God to leave sinful Man, as head of the creation, in a perfect world.

There are a number of indications in the Bible that God subjected the creation to the curse _after_ the Fall, which would be both logical and moral. 

According to the Bible the Earth was made for Man, not Man for the Earth. Why should Man enjoy the felicity he had on Earth before the Fall?


----------



## Montanablue

JennyG said:


> Kathleen, hi again!
> 
> 
> 
> Well, here's my issue. If I was new to the text and hadn't been brought up to believe in 7 day creation, I actually don't think that 7 day creation is what I would neccessarily see there.
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding? that's really interesting! I most definitely _wasn't_ brought up to believe that, (it was actually quite an intellectual white-knuckle ride getting there) - but I just can't see it like you do.
> But ok, that's step one.
> Step two, how would it have had to be written so that you _would_ see 6 day creation there?
Click to expand...


Well, I do see 6 day creation, but I think as a newcomer, the confusion would be the different accounts in Genesis 1 and 2. I still find having the two accounts difficult.


----------



## beej6

Back to the OP...

The answer to this question depends on the strictness of the membership vows and on the Session/Consistory. However, I believe in a more 'liberal' vow - that any Christian should be able to swear to our vows. Is it better, as it were, to leave a brother or sister unconnected to the Body of Christ if he or she is willing to be taught and submit to his or her elders? Were not we all in that place at one time or another, where we held to errors?

Even Chuck Smith could be a member at a confessionally Reformed church - though I doubt he'd be willing to submit to the oversight and discipline of our elders (smile). For the peace and purity of the church, of course, it may not be a good idea to admit someone who is simply there to accuse us of cultism.


----------



## Brian Withnell

lynnie said:


> After I spent time reading materials on this I was relieved to see that there is solid science behind it, and my faith in geocentricity is every bit as scientifically solid as my young earth views.



My main problem with geocentric view of the solar system is that it makes rocket launches to other planets totally impractical. The paths of the planets "around the earth" including the distances from the earth (measurable with simple geometry that we use in surveying a field, but on a larger scale) become almost absurd to describe. It isn't that they aren't set, but that it is complex beyond comprehension. Put a heliocentric view of the solar system into play, and we can predict the path of a comet we have no knowledge of prior to seeing it. Make the earth the center, and then do the same _without first doing the predictive path using a heliocentric view_ is impossible. What is worse, is that if you start with a geocentric solar system, figure out what it would take to send a space probe to a moon that we observe (see it with a telescope, and almost our naked eye) around Jupiter. Do the calculations with _no predictive heliocentric look first_--I don't know anyone with the math to do it as the calculations are more complex than anyone I know can imagine. Ask a college physics student to do the same with a heliocentric solar system and he should finish in a matter of a couple of hours, and be near perfect.

The other problem I have with geocentric is you might as well be flat earth as well. There are references to "the four corners of the earth" that literally taken would support a flat earth. We have seen the earth from space, and it is not flat. We have traversed it and found it to be nearly spherical. If we accept that what we have seen and measured in terms of the earth not being flat, then the use of figurative language (what we even use today when we say "when the sun rises tomorrow...") shows nothing.

When Jesus said "Tear down this temple, and I will rebuild it in three days" he was using figurative language. In that instance, it is stated. Where in scripture does it say that God has to tell us when he decides to use figurative language when he speaks to us?

Is God bound by what we say? Does he care if "liberalism" might use the opportunity to infiltrate the church (as if he is not in control in the first place)?

God is sovereign. If he chose to use historical figurative language, we are stuck with it. If he did things in a way that are inconvenient to our showing how right we are about evolution being wrong, we are still bound by what he chose.


----------



## Highlander

Bookmeister said:


> If Genesis is allegory then there is no actual fall, if there is no actual fall there is no need for an actual savior, the conclusion I draw is there is then no actual faith. This would seem to exclude them from holding membership in confessionally reformed churches.


I would say myself that the scripture in its entirety is compromised entirely if it is diluted at this point. God is the fount of all truth, and if God did not create ex nihilio and partially allowed time+plus chance+nothing to take effect via theistic evolution then logically it follows that He would and could have no interest in the areas where chance was allowed free rein.So if the claim is that The Earth is involved in this evolution there is no point in God saving the Earth, there is no point,purpose or reason in saving mankind, thereis no historic space time fall of mankind, we are free to doubt the humanity of Christ because it is only God's inspired word that assures us of our divine origin ie coming from God but not God's ourselves and that we are who we say we are and therefore even more powerfully that Jesus is who He says He is, fully man and fully God and places his divinity in question,places his once for all substituitonary sacrificial death in question,place His historic space-time resurrection in question, and place our redemption in question therefore according to this theory we are still in our sins and there is no basis for law, for morality, for altruism, for art, for beauty, for science , for literature for drama.If we are weak at this point or fail to fight for God's truth the next generation will note our failure and take the fall and the failure further and further.I saw the fruits of my labours in the sixties fighting against the rules,I and my generation and those following us of the postwar generation are now paying a terrible price for that sin.We were so wrong.May God in mercy bring reformation and revival to us so we can like Nehemiah strenghten the walls, strenghten that which remains.


----------



## Turtle

*Problem solved. PuncturedRib ToSequelHim*



lynnie said:


> ...
> 
> Warfield believed that there was nothing in the first chapters of Genesis that could not be properly interpreted in a way consistent with the evolutionary development of the present world. The only caveat he allowed was that the creation of Eve (Out of Adam’s rib by a special act of God) was hard to reconcile with an evolutionary interpretation of man’s development...



Not to worry.. this too was found to be an evolutionary process. In the early 70's scientists realized there had to be examples of long periods of stasis interrupted by short, rapid evolutionary advancements. 

The sudden arrival of Eve found in Genesis was the perfect example they had been looking for. "PuncturedRib ToSequelHim" had been written from the beginning. It just needed some scientific eloquence, thus it was adapted slightly.. 

("Punctuated Equilibrium": the hypothesis that evolutionary development is marked by isolated episodes of rapid change, interrupting long periods of little or no change.)

Bryan


----------



## JennyG

Brian (Withnell) says,


> The other problem I have with geocentric is you might as well be flat earth as well. There are references to "the four corners of the earth" that literally taken would support a flat earth.


I am not sure yet what the answer is here, though I'm sure there is one. Lynnie, you're ahead of me on this topic.... any thoughts?
oh, wait though.....maybe the earth _is_ flat with four corners!!*

As Highlander says, when it comes to acknowledging God's sovereignty over his Creation, it really is all or nothing, so there can be only one answer.

Kathleen, sorry I didn't respond (I was suddenly very busy). On the (supposed?) discrepancy between Gen. 1 and 2, I won't reinvent the wheel by giving my own explanation. On AiG or CMI and probably the Answers site as well, there is a lot of material dealing with it from every angle

*[only kidding ....I put that in for the benefit of any atheist evolutionists who may be reading. They love nothing better than when a Creationist plays up to their stereotype]


----------



## Brian Withnell

I suppose part of my problem is that many people will acknowledge that figurative language is used in many places in the Bible (there are instances of mentioning figurative speech) but then if there is any uncertainty in what a passage might mean, some people are unwilling to think their world view (of things that do not affect faith, life and practice) ought to be the only one that works and they bring that to the scriptures and look for support of it.

I don't care what position a person holds, that is just plain wrong. We don't approach the Bible as a means to support our position. We should approach the Bible as the authority, and look at what we see within it as having to be true, and if we see that it might be different from what we think, then we ought to hold charity toward others' view. Credo and covenant baptists hold to their position (both groups) out of a sense of what they believe the Bible teaches. Yet we still believe we are brothers. The strength of how some people hold to doctrines though is sometimes related to not what the Biblical argument might hold, but what would through the largest difficulty into the world view of those outside the faith.

In a sense, I don't care what those that are outside the faith believe. I proclaim the gospel to them in order that they might come into the faith (or be more thoroughly condemned for trampling underfoot so great a salvation) and when they do come to faith, then I'll worry about the rest.


----------



## Montanablue

> Kathleen, sorry I didn't respond (I was suddenly very busy). On the (supposed?) discrepancy between Gen. 1 and 2, I won't reinvent the wheel by giving my own explanation. On AiG or CMI and probably the Answers site as well, there is a lot of material dealing with it from every angle



No worries.  And I should clarify that I _don't_ have problems with the supposed contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 - just that I can see why new converts (or even people who have been Christians for a while) would find it troubling or confusing. It isn't the clearest part of Scripture.


----------



## JennyG

Montanablue said:


> Kathleen, sorry I didn't respond (I was suddenly very busy). On the (supposed?) discrepancy between Gen. 1 and 2, I won't reinvent the wheel by giving my own explanation. On AiG or CMI and probably the Answers site as well, there is a lot of material dealing with it from every angle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No worries.  And I should clarify that I _don't_ have problems with the supposed contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 - just that I can see why new converts (or even people who have been Christians for a while) would find it troubling or confusing. It isn't the clearest part of Scripture.
Click to expand...

I understand! (and of course agree with you in not personally finding any problem). A question maybe for another thread, too - this one has strayed a bit from base already! Have a great Sunday
Jenny


----------

