Whether or not Mark asks you for references, I am curious. --not for references necessarily, but even just names. Which church fathers would you name as examples of using the solution you refer to above? I’m not challenging your assertion; I’m just curious.
JimmyCakes said this on another thread (the Thread called: who said that Genesis doesn’t have scientific facts) and I’ll copy his statment here because in my view this is where the YEC goes wrong: “It’s best to read Genesis on its own terms and let it say to us what it wants to say rather than what we want it to say. Trying to read Genesis 1 as if it were a scientific paper just reduces it to absurdities, in the same way as trying to read Shakespeare’s sonnets as if they were a scientific paper reduces them to absurdities.”
I read the YEC trying to explain deep time, things like genetically implanted “kinds” into the ark and super fast “evolution” post the ark and I see special pleading to explain reality.
Genesis was about much more profound truth than what, in my view, YEC majors on. And yes I understand that this causes some of us to take a hard look at some of our cherished theological formulations.
Kind regards (this is quickly written I’m not intentionally trying to be confrontational)
Larry
A couple:
Justin Martyr:
“For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 81 [155 CE]).
Irenaeus:
“And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin” (Against Heresies, 5:23:2 [189 CE]).
There are several in this article.
http://www.thomisticevolution.org/disputed-questions/interpreting-genesis-1-with-the-fathers-of-the-church/
And right on this site
Thank you both. I had known of Augustine’s objection that God would not literally need six days, and so maybe He did it in an instant. But I had forgotten if/who others were that went the other way. In either case they do reveal as false the YEC idea that ‘day’ could/would only be understood as a 24 hour sort before modern science came along.
In the article you link, Bill, I was intrigued with this excerpt from Augustine:
In the case of a narrative of events, the question arises as to whether everything must be taken according to the figurative sense only, or whether it must be expounded and defended also as a faithful record of what happened. No Christian will dare say that the narrative must not be taken in a figurative sense. For St. Paul says: “Now all these things that happened to them were symbolic.” And he explains the statement in Genesis, “And they shall be two in one flesh,” as a great mystery in reference to Christ and to the Church. If, then, Scripture is to be explained under both aspects, what meaning other than the allegorical have the words: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth?”
It fascinates me that Augustine here (contra those today who imagine that their ‘default-to-literal’ approach alone takes Scripture seriously) actually seems to be aligning himself in the other direction! I.e. In regard to Genesis 1, it’s as if he’s asking not “where must Scriptures be considered allegorical?” --but instead he asserts that “No Christian will dare say that the narrative must not be taken in a figurative sense.” [Added emphasis mine]. So much for the proposition that anything less than a default-to-literal sense is demeaning to scriptures!
[edits for clarity and correction]
I will add that allegorical, non-literal readings of Scripture were pervasive in the early church. They had some seriously wild ways of reading passages, that are completely foreign to our way of thinking. Like take this reading by Origen of the Parable of the Good Samaritan (from Wikipedia):
Origen described the allegory as follows:
The man who was going down is Adam. Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The robbers are hostile powers. The priest is the Law, the Levite is the prophets, and the Samaritan is Christ. The wounds are disobedience, the beast is the Lord’s body, the [inn], which accepts all who wish to enter, is the Church. … The manager of the [inn] is the head of the Church, to whom its care has been entrusted. And the fact that the Samaritan promises he will return represents the Savior’s second coming.
I had to read some of this source material as part of a college course, or I don’t think I ever would have heard that for hundreds of years, this kind of exegesis was par for the course for the great doctors of the Church.
I don’t think these guys thought like modernist YECs… or like ECs, for that matter!
I am not sure I understand this statement? Every word of it? Some books? The gospels? The OT also? As much of the NT is just a re-telling/explaining of the OT.
This seems more of a semantics when reading other posts below? Do you mean does His actual original physical body have to have been resurrected?
Like some mentioned further down the thread about cremation or explosion victims ect. Is the original body parts reassembled and then animated back to life in the resurrection? I don’t know, I don’t have all the answers.
However, I do believe that I those will be resurrected, just as Jesus was, given a glorified body. So in a non-semantics point of view, yes resurrection is necessary…but only because it was said to be. Jesus (and many prophets) say that Jesus (the Son of God) will die, and come back to life. You kind of have to believe that…
But like @AMWolfe said, I wouldn’t turn anyone away because they don’t believe that. If you were so intent that that is the truth, and you are so prideful and arrogant to think your great knowledge and wisdom (which many disagree with) is what is saving you, then I would wager you probably donb’t know God.
The Pharisees (in their own mind) were some awesome and arrogant that they didn’t even recognize Jesus as the Son of God, or recognize God in Him when He lived out the OT scriptures and the heart of the scriptures.
I think if you really want to know the truth, and pray and meditate on it, realize the importance of scriptures as a whole, God will reveal the truth to you.
Some believe in YEC, some believe in flat earth, some believe in EC, some in no resurrection. I don’t really care (from a spiritual/eternal perspective). Maybe my thoughts are correct (I am resurrection, EC) maybe I am wrong? I just use the tools God gave me to come up with my own thoughts on things…very trivial things in the scheme of what is important.
If you are loving God, seeking to honor Him in all you do, realizing that He is the only way to life, we were created to be dependent on Him, and trying to love and value our neighbor like He would/does, then I don’t really care what you believe on insignificant topics. That is to say, I won’t get angry with you or insult or do the opposite of loving you as instructed/shown by Jesus. But if you want to have a debate, and in that debate dig into the Word and both learn more about God and grow closer to Him, then I am all for it.
I apologize if I interpreted your post incorrectly and that was what you were trying to do, I just feel as I read some replies, that many are being very defensive and almost hostile about why they are right and others are wrong, as if that is eternally important.
I kicked that idea around in my head in the past. I kind of didn’t think so. I thought when Jesus died, (just like sacrificial lambs) the sins were forgiven. The resurrection was just a bonus. But as said above, since Jesus said he would, then it is necessary. But had He not said that, or the other prophets, then maybe not so much. It would have been just a really sad and even more sacrificial act. How much of a sacrifice is it to die, knowing you will be resurrected in 3 days? I don’t know if I believe His death (even a brutal crucifixion) was the more difficult sacrifice/hardship (as many humans were crucified back then). I think leaving a perfect heaven with your Father, to come to earth to this amazing place you created, and man destroyed, to become one of us, and not as a ruler, but as a servant, that would be pretty difficult too. Living a sinless life must have been extremely difficult too, as I try often, and often fail. But the hardest difficulty/sacrifice I think would be to take upon you everyon’s sin, and to be forsaken by your own loving Father, just for some of those who hate you and reject the restoration you made available to them.
Christian meant Christ follower or disciple. And Christ said He would raise from the dead, so you can’t literally be a Christian.
Can you be saved? That is another question. That goes down an entire new rabbit hole with could one be saved before Jesus’ life?
Is it? I thought the whole premise of Christianity was to acknowledge God as our King, and we are separated from Him, and need Jesus’ sacrificial death to reconcile us back to Him. Again, other than Jesus saying it (resurrection) will happen, is it necessary?
This is the best I could come up with apart from “He has to because He said He would”. I love hearing N.T Wright speak. Rom 6:4. God gave us spiritual and physical life, we sinned, our spirit died, and eventually our physical dies. Jesus was given physical and spiritual life, He never sinned, never died spiritually, but He died physically. His physical body was raised, so now our spiritual bodies our raised (if we believe) and eventually our physical bodies will be raised. He had to die, so we could die with Him, and He was reborn (resurrected) so we can be reborn with Him.
I sounds to me like semantics, but I would be interested in what you mean by this.
If you don’t accept anything from lack of evidence, you will trust in nothing. All things require faith, some more than others. But I assume you mean lack of significant evidence, or there isn’t enough evidence to convince you? In which case, I would just advise you to seek you Father, Creator/Designer, and Provider, ask Him earnestly, He will reveal many truths to you void of all evidence, and a un-explainable peace or 'gut feeling" or confidence that something is true. Not something you can argue, but something you can live on. It is an unshakable foundation and security that only the Father who created you can give you, if you allow Him to be your King.
If you believe this, you missed the point of the entire Bible… Christianity is based on a disciple of Jesus. Jesus was an example of how it was supposed to be, as image bearers of God. The Kingdom of God is at hand, a kingdom where God is King and ruler, we are dependent on His grace and mercy and guidance to live, and that our purpose in life is to give glory to the Father, with Whom it belongs to solely. This is how Jesus lived, to honor the Father. He honored the Father through loving others. This is why the greatest commandment was to love God with all you heart, soul, and strength, and then to love others as yourself. This is how Jesus lived, this is how a disciple of Jesus should live, this is what Christianity is based on.
After typing all of that, it dawned on me that it could be semantics/interpretation error if you meant to use “based” like “started or began after”, then yes, it was mostly founded on the resurrection and I agree with your quote. But if you meant “based” like “most important aspect”, then I would say what I said above.
The Egyptians wanted a self serving eternal life were as Christians were designed/created to live eternally as image bearers of God. But having ruined that status when we sinned, we to require a High Priest to atone for our sins that we can’t atone for ourselves, to have the eternal life (as originally intended), so we can forever praise the Almighty Lord.
Eternal life isn’t the reward for Christians, it is a re-united life with our Creator that is the rewards. It just happens to result in an eternal life. Mortality is a blessing, not a curse. Living a life separated from God is hell. He graciously and mercifully blessed us with mortality while being separated from Him, having this void in us that we were not meant to have.
Where as an Egyptian want eternal life as a reward? They wan’t the glory, they want to be a god? They spent their whole lives searching for a way to fill that void, to have an eternal well of satisfaction, and never found it. They attempted to fill that void and distract it with power and wealth and comforts and failed wanting more always. Why do they think they will find fulfillment in 1000 or a million years? The only fulfillment in this life is in God, our Creator, who created us to depend on Him, but allowed us to attempt to live without Him, and gracioiusly allows us to come back to Him after rejecting Him, and paying that high cost of sacrificing His own Son for the likes of those that rejected Him.
Since you brought Mormons and Islams and other religions into it. That is the main difference, not some slight doctrinal pieces, the entire foundation of it. They all want to be rewarded with eternal life for them, Christians just want to be re-united with our Creator.
I see you are so greatly confused with what EC believes. I don’t think a single EC will ever reject Genesis. Many might reject your interpretation of it though. It’s quite the opposite of reject though. Genesis is embraced as the possible story telling book that it is. a book that tells us of who our Creator was, how He Created all from nothing, How he did it for us..but to a larger extent for His glory (like all created things). How we rejected Him and ruined His first creation, and how He graciously has a plan to redeem us and make a new creation for those that chose Him.
Amen!
Satan can, and will use all means necessary to dishonor God. If he can get us to fight over anything, he will stir the pot, even using scriptures.
I agree that is the “right aim” or what Christianity is based on.
I have never heard that, thanks for sharing.
You have certainly sparked a lot of interest and generated a lot of answers - which probably gives you a sense of the centrality of the resurrection to Christianity.
I would argue that the resurrection is central to the whole overarching meta narrative of the bible, both OT and NT.
In Genesis God created the universe, Earth and then all living things, lastly Man. Then he gives mankind authority over all of creation.
Adam and Eve then succumbed to Satan’s temptation and disobeyed God by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. In that act of rebellion against God they introduced sin and death into creation and put themselves (and by extension creation too) under the authority of Satan (who had himself Already rebelled against God).
So from that point on, things look pretty terminal for
mankind and creation - because Satan has been handed a seemingly Irrevocable authority over all
Of creation and the power of sin and death seemed impregnable.
Christ the Redeemer then enters the story and He did something truly astonishing. By being both fully man and fully God, he was able to live a life that was without sin, and by being born of the virgin the curse of Adam did not touch him. He was a second Adam - born without sin and a man who lived without sin and over whom sin and death had no authority.
Christ then deliberately and willing goes to the cross - a truly barbaric death that was so cruel that even the Romans later abandoned it. Why did Christ do that?
Because whilst Christ himself was not subject to sin and death the rest of humanity was. The bible tells us in both OT and NT that the price of sin is death - that without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sin. And yet the death of a normal man could not possibly redeem anyone - because that normal man would be tainted with sin himself.
So how can our sin be paid for - redeemed? Only by the blood of the Lamb - by jesus paying the price
For us in our stead. So Jesus went to the cross -
Deliberately and out of love for you and me.
So did it work.? Did Jesus’ death defeat sin and death?
The answer is a resounding Yes, it did!
How do we know? Because Jesus rose from the dead (as did many others at the same time - see Matthew), and Jesus was seen by and preached to many thousands of people over the next 6 weeks before he bodily ascended to Heaven. You may think that this is all make believe and tall
Stories but the documentary evidence for the resurrection is very strong. Many thousands of new testaments still exist from the first century. Lord Denning the most prominent Law Lord of the 20th century famously said:
“We, as Christians, are asked to take a very great deal on trust: the teachings, for example, and the miracles of Jesus. If we had to take all on trust, I, for one, should be skeptical. The crux of the problem of whether Jesus was or was not what he proclaimed himself to be, must surely depend on the truth or otherwise of the resurrection. On that greatest point we are not merely asked to have faith. In its favour as a living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in the verdict that the resurrection story is true”.
If Jesus was not resurrected then Jesus has not defeated sin and death, and we are all condemned for eternity.
That is why the resurrection is central to Christianity.
If you don’t buy any of that - then don’t worry about whether you are a Christian or not - you have much bigger problems than that.
Okay… let’s see if you can keep your positions consistent. What is the minimum belief of a Christian that a reasonable person would agree is the basis of the Christian believer’s salvation?
If you can’t decide on exactly which belief is the minimum one, suggest two crucial beliefs… which may or may not overlap in a logical sense… and we can continue the discussion from there, yes?
However, as for this paragraph:
… you have completely missed my point. Egyptians didn’t require a special belief in a person, or in any specific God to ensure a happy afterlife. The universe was “tuned” to provide the happy afterlife if you were a minimally virtuous person. I suppose embedded in this idea is the belief in Virtue, or Truth, or both… but not because the belief triggered the special movement of metaphysical gears that would allow you to enter a happy afterlife… the belief in Virtue is what you would want to have to make sure you were able to guide yourself through the difficulties of a mortal life span, and choose the right behaviors.
I can try, its complex yet simple…
A Christian by first use, is a disciple of Christ or one who follows Christ.
Christ lived to honor the Father, and as a human, realized that the only way to do that is to follow the Fathers will and acknowledge Him as Lord of our lives. We need God, to help us honor God. And if we don’t need God and reject His will, we can’t honor Him. Even Jesus needed God to help Him not sin. That is why He taught us to pray often and meditate on the scriptures. If Jesus needed God’s help to not sin and honor God, how much more will we? We aren’t even a Son of God.
To honor Him we need to follow the 2 greatest commandments, to love God, and others.
We can’t fully love God if we have already rejected Him (which we did by sinning). So one must first and foremost, believe that Jesus was a full human, that lived a sinless life, died in atonement for our sins to reconcile us back to God. If you do not do this, EVERYTHING else is pointless, we are separate from God before this. Os any deeds one does, are like filthy rags.
The only way to follow the 2 greatest commandments (ergo to follow Jesus) is to be reconciled to God. We are then able to love God, and to love others.
It’s kind of a chicken and egg, or smoke and fire, what came first.
The 2 greatest commandments are the most important part of Christianity, this is how Jesus lived, and a Christian is a follower of Jesus. But we are not image perfect bearers like Jesus was, and can’t love the Father untl reconciliation.
So to summarize.
- Be reconciled back to God.
- Two greatest commandments = Christian minimum belief the best I can say. Which I also believe is what @fmiddel was saying.
This was Adam before sin, he was supposed to live like Jesus did, by loving God and others while he commenced his vocation of subduing the earth, using the gifts God gave him to do work for God. Not that God needed that work done, but it gave us a way in which we could glorify Him in our daily routine.
The first greatest commandment can be broken down. Loving God with your heart is choosing Him and His will, fully dependent on Him. Loving God with your soul is knowing Him (like a soul mate). One must understand His holiness to fully know Him and therefore, fully know Him. Love Him with your strength is using his gifts to help others and glorify Him. And that kind of leads into the second commandment…
That is where “good deeds” come into play. Jesus related to others, He met their needs, or tried to for some that were willing. The deeds are God’s love, being shown down on us, we are simply mirrors shining His light to others. It is not our good deeds, nor do we get or deserve any glory, only Him. This is why all good deeds apart from Him are filthy rags. If it isn’t for His glory, it is worthless.
It is very simple, God does all the work for us. It is just complex in this world being given this body with the propensity to sin and try our own way, to try to fill this void in our lives, and do things our own, for our own glory.
Wow… is there a summary for your summary?
Could you try again? What one belief… or two beliefs… does a person need to have to obtain immortality in Heaven?
That answers your questions…though it is the wrong question. Immortality in heaven isn’t the goal.
- Be reconciled back to God.
If I read this correctly, you don’t have to be a Christian to achieve immortality in Heaven. Would you agree?
If not, where is the Christian requirement in your few sentences I have highlighted?
That is what I am saying…though I am not the authority on this, just how I interpret things…but it isn’t crucially important that I am wrong or right, I just do my best to live as Jesus did and follow the 2 greatest commandments to glorify the Father.
But there will probably be plenty of people in heaven that weren’t “Christians”. As we established, a Christian is a follower of Christ. The thief on the cross will be in heaven, he didn’t follow Christ. Abrham, Issac, Jacob, Judah, Moses, David, Ilijah ect. will probably be in heaven and were not Christians.
It was never about rules or conditions. If you realize that you have a void with out your creator in your life, and want to know Him, you will probably be in heaven. If you chose God, He has already chosen you, and you will be with Him, and has allowed us now a days to be with Him again, through the atoning work of Jesus’ blood on the cross, that reconciles us back to God (#1 summary point).
What about the mentally ill guy who never accepts Jesus, or the kid who dies at age 1? I think they probably will be in Heaven. If you don’t have the capacity to know Him…or reject Him.
What of those that never heard about Him? Or don’t have Bibles?
I can’t claim to know every detail or God’s ways. But I do know He is merciful, and gracious and loving and wants us to know and depend on Him.
So no, Christianity is not, nor has it ever been a spelled our obvious requirement to go to heaven. However if you are a Christian (and follow those 2 things above) you will go to heaven. But you really only need that first rule, to be reconciled to Him. If you chose Him on earth (the temporary), He will welcome you to Him heaven (for eternity).
Hmmm… Are you from the back pew of my Unitarian Church? I’m not sure you are the one to tell me
what makes a Christian a Christian. I’m not even qualified to tell me what that is…
If nobody knows what it means, why are we even using the word, especially in a conversation like this? What a waste of time!
2 Likes
Thanks to all for chiming in.
Just to be clear, I likely don’t fit some of the YEC stereotypes described here. My primary concern is faithfulness to the Scriptures, and noted early in the discussion the importance of being consistent there. It is a valid question to ask why a Christian would believe the New Testament testimony by faith that Jesus rose from the dead and seemingly dismiss the Old Testament testimony regarding the timing of creation. I am very interested in references regarding how that was viewed historically, but mostly during biblical times and not after. I believe the age of the earth is not nearly as important as the understanding of Adam and Eve as literal people and death following sin. I just don’t see how you can believe in progressive creation / macro evolution without doing violence to the biblical narrative on those points.
I have yet to find adequate answers to those items on Biologos.
Mark
‘Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.’ - Romans 5:12-14
You are begging the question by phrasing it “seemingly dismiss the Old Testament.” Disagreeing with one particular view of Genesis 1 is not equivalent to dismissing the OT.
I’m probably in the minority (maybe even the lunatic fringe) of theistic evolutionists (at least on BioLogos) in that I agree that a literal Adam and Eve is a cardinal Christian doctrine. However, I don’t know how they became distinguished from other hominids. I tend to favor a supernatural “ensoulment” view, but that’s pure speculation.
That is a very vague criticism. And to me it’s an argument stopper.
5 Likes
There is eye witness testimony recorded confirming that Jesus rose from the dead.
The only eye witness to creation would be God. The only way Genesis could be a record of eye witness testimony is if the Holy Spirit dictated the words the author used. It is pretty clear that the Holy Spirit used the author’s belief in how creation happened to record the event. The Holy Spirit’s job was to make sure the meaning of the event was recorded, not the details of how it all happened. That is how inspiration works, IMHO.
1 Like
I think you might be surprised at the diversity of thought on this point within the tent of people drawn to BioLogos. At least, if your view is truly in the “lunatic fringe,” then I’m not sure what kind of tent I’m in…