Epistemology, apologetics, "feel-good religion," and evolutionary creationism

Faith & Science Conversation
14

Chris, Thanks for engaging what I had written. However, the very verses that you have quoted are not against Biblical wisdom but “the wisdom of the world”:

• “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” - I Corinthians 1:20-25 (ESV)

Instead, Paul used Biblical wisdom and reasoning to win people to the faith:

• Acts 17:2-4 (ESV) And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.

• Acts 18:4 (ESV) And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks.

However, the TE has relinquished such argumentation by claiming that the Bible cannot teach reliably about the physical world.

15

Daniel, You cut verse 20 short. The full is
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

Paul was not talking about knowledge of the natural world. In fact none of the verses you quoted are talking about the natural world.

2 Likes
16

Interestingly enough, RJS just posted some great thoughts on this exact subject today, on her blog. The Wisdom of this World | Musings on Science and Theology.

Here’s her main point:

There are certainly important lessons that we can and should take from Paul’s comments on foolishness of human wisdom. But it has little, if anything, to do with the scientific questions. It has more to do with the shape and focus of life and the need to focus on God and his wisdom and plan rather than human wisdom.

1 Like
17

I am a Christian because Jesus rose from the dead. I encountered this living God in the evidence we find in history, the testimony of all believers, and my personal experience of Him. Nothing I find in science compares with this act of God to reveal Himself to the world and to me.

1 Like
18

This is not a correct interpretation.

This was not Biblical wisdom at the time. The Bible was not formed yet. “Scripture” as he knew it was the Old Testament. He did use Scripture I am sure, but his focus was on Jesus. This was not Scriptural at the time.

So, I am echoing Paul when I write…

1 Like
19

Let’s look at what I said on the other thread in context, because the context matters.

My response that Daniel has taken such issue with was directed at someone who essentially said that the foundation of their faith used to be intelligent design creationism. That foundation had been demolished, and the person was asking what new thing to base their faith on.

So in response, I said

Daniel wrote:

First of all, how did the subject of evolution come up? We are talking about how we ascertain the truth about Christianity. @Daniel_Mann you may not believe this, but I hardly ever think about evolution when I read the Bible. They are not “married” for me. Scientific facts and biblical interpretation are two different domains. I believe that reality is coherent, so scientific facts and spiritual truths do not contradict each other, but they also don’t shape each other. My hermeneutical approach to the Bible was developed studying language, culture, and communication under Evangelical Bible scholars, most of whom could care less about the evolution/creation debate. It honestly never came up in a single Bible or theology class I ever took. I don’t think about germ theory, or plate tectonics, or meiosis when I’m reading the Bible either.

So, I’m sorry but this idea that I learned to approach Scripture the way I do from evolutionary science is just a flat out wrong assumption on your part. It’s not that I don’t think there is any way to prove the Bible’s claims, it’s that we fundamentally disagree on the method for figuring out what the Bible is claiming in the first place and whether or not those claims need to or can be “proven.” That disagreement is there before and after either of us expresses our beliefs about origins or science.

Daniel wrote

What provable, known facts do you use to show the truth of the following biblical claims?

  • Humanity’s sin separates them from relationship with God

  • Jesus’ death atones for my sin

  • I am united with Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, through whom I participate in the death and resurrection of Christ and am re-created a brand new person

  • I am adopted into God’s own family as one of God’s own children

  • I will be physically resurrected with Christ in the Eschaton and live forever in an incorruptible body

None of the most important truth claims of the Bible (which I believe, by the way) can be proven with reference to historical or scientific facts. If you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that every single historical or scientific “fact” in the Bible was completely true and reliable, it still wouldn’t get you proof that Jesus’ death takes away my sins and reconciles me to God. Do you honestly think that somehow all those claims above follow from the historical fact “the flood in Genesis was global”? I honestly don’t follow that line of reasoning.

This idea that the gospel is dependent on fact-checking the Bible and the Bible passing with flying colors just doesn’t ring true to me. The gospel depends on God being a trustworthy person whose revelation of himself in Scripture and in Jesus and by his Spirit is true. God is the source of truth. That is why the gospel is compelling.

The authority of Scripture comes from God, not from some one to one correspondence with Scripture and facts. All throughout the New Testament what is held out as the basis for the authority of the message (whether it is being preached by Jesus, or the disciples, or the apostles) is the demonstration of the Spirit’s power. How did they know that Jesus was the Messiah? The blind saw, the deaf heard, the lame walked. The preaching of the gospel in Acts was accompanied by miraculous signs.

The Bible is authoritative because the Spirit of God has claimed it as his word and works through it to save and sanctify his people. It has authority because of the Spirit’s power. 2 Peter 1:21: The prophets’ authority in Scripture is established because what they speak is from God, as they are carried along by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 2:2-5: Paul reminds people he intentionally forgot everything except Christ crucified, because the gospel doesn’t depend on his clever presentation of it or his persuasive arguments, but on the Spirit’s power. Romans 1:16: The gospel Paul is not ashamed of is not a list of correct facts, it is the power of God at work in people’s lives, saving those who believe.

Daniel wrote

Speaking of leaps… How in the world do you get that from anything I said? And, why are you acting like “personally encountering Jesus” is less than the pinnacle of everything? Like it is some sort of substandard consolation prize? What is the real prize in your conception, a robust life of the mind? Certainty? I’m sorry, but I’ll take knowing Jesus over being intellectually fulfilled or certain any day of the week. How am I the one with the compromised view of the gospel here?

When did we start rating the “validity” of people’s faith and when did faith become a competition? It’s not the quality of faith or faith experiences that saves a person, it’s Jesus.

No, it’s not when we reach a point where we know what we believe and why, if by that you mean “master a bunch of apologetic arguments.” Did you read the verse you typed out? We find great riches when we know Christ. That is the knowledge and understanding Paul is talking about here; it is the relationship with Christ himself. Encountering Jesus, if you will.

The rest of Daniel’s post I don’t think is worth responding to because it is just a bunch of baseless claims about my alleged thoughts and beliefs, things I never came close to expressing and conclusions that in no way follow logically from anything I did say. If you read what I write and come away with “her position is essentially the same as Richard Dawkins’,” I guess I question your reading comprehension skills.

As a final thought, to say that all other foundations for faith can be deconstructed is not even close to saying, “faith is blind and irrational and baseless” As Christians we put our faith in Christ. Any other resting place for faith is shaky and can fall. If you build your faith on DNA evidence of a designer, on the historical accuracy of the Old Testament, on the ontological argument for the existence of God, on the fine-tuning of the universe, or any other human intellectual construct, no matter how compelling it is, you have settled for a foundation that is not Christ. I am all for shoring up one’s confidence in the truth of Christianity. If a person is edified and spurred to love and good deeds by watching William Lane Craig duke it out with atheists, than by all means, more power to him or her. But at the end of the day, it’s Jesus only Jesus. I am not one bit ashamed of claiming that.

11 Likes
20

Yes and amen. :clap: :clap: :clap:

1 Like
21

I certainly can agree with you!

1 Like
22

Hi Daniel,

I already agreed that there is value in art, science, and apologetics, so I’m in full agreement with Paul’s missiology.

However, nothing in Acts 17 or 18 contradicts the message of I Corinthians 1 - 2: there is no foundation other than Christ. Any foundation other than Christ is an idol, full stop (as the Brits say).

Now that I have engaged what you wrote, perhaps you would like to engage what I wrote:

So far, you are merely repeating the assertion that disagreeing with your hermeneutical approach to Genesis implies that we cannot reason from the Scripture.

This was based on a false dichotomy the first time you said it, in my opinion, and it’s still based on a false dichotomy.

Blessings,
Chris Falter

1 Like
23

Christy, Thanks for your response, especially in light of the fact that what I had written was deeply cutting. However, I have had many exchanges with TEs and believe that my remarks are warranted.

For one thing, the TE cannot expect to deprive Genesis 1-11 of its historical content and still retain a viable faith. Consequently, the TEs will then put themselves in opposition to the rest of the Bible, which regards these chapters as history. It is therefore not surprising that you write:

• None of the most important truth claims of the Bible (which I believe, by the way) can be proven with reference to historical or scientific facts.

You later cite WL Craig. However, he uses the historicity of the resurrection as one of his key proofs for the Bible and the Christian faith. If we have no convincing proof that Jesus rose from the dead, we have little compelling rationale to believe what He taught and how He affirmed the Scriptures. In contrast, you have written:

• This idea that the gospel is dependent on fact-checking the Bible and the Bible passing with flying colors just doesn’t ring true to me. The gospel depends on God being a trustworthy person whose revelation of himself in Scripture and in Jesus and by his Spirit is true. God is the source of truth. That is why the gospel is compelling.

While you are correct that we must believe that God and His revelation are trustworthy, we also must know WHY they are trustworthy. However, once you reject the history of the Bible is trustworthy – that the ENTIRETY of the Bible is “God-Breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) – it then becomes very difficult to believe that what remains of the Bible’s revelation is trustworthy. If we refuse to believe what the Bible very clearly teaches as history, how are we to believe what the Bible teaches as theology?

However, you have written:

• The authority of Scripture comes from God, not from some one to one correspondence with Scripture and facts. All throughout the New Testament what is held out as the basis for the authority of the message (whether it is being preached by Jesus, or the disciples, or the apostles) is the demonstration of the Spirit’s power.

However, “the demonstration of the Spirit’s power” was performed historically, as the OT and NT has often affirmed, but the TE does not receive His testimony:

• 2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

The entire Bible receives the testimony of the Spirit in Scripture as history, but the TE does not. Jesus so clearly quoted Genesis 1 and 2 as history:

• Matthew 19:4-6 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

However, the TE rejects Genesis 1-11 as history, contrary to the uniform testimony of the rest of the Bible. Consequently, if we refuse to believe what the Bible teaches as history, how are we to receive what it teaches as theology?

In fact, these two aspects of Scripture cannot be separated. We cannot separate the theology of the Cross from its history – that Christ historically died for our sins.

You claim that “at the end of the day, it’s Jesus only Jesus.” While I do not doubt your sincerity, I would like you to see that you have begun to descend on a slippery slope that can only take you away from the Jesus of the Bible.

The former co-head of Biologos, Karl Giberson, describes this slope:

• “Acid is an appropriate metaphor for the erosion of my fundamentalism, as I slowly lost confidence in the Genesis story of creation and the scientific creationism that placed this ancient story within the framework of modern science….[Darwin’s] acid dissolved Adam and Eve; it ate through the Garden of Eden; it destroyed the historicity of the events of creation week. It etched holes in those parts of Christianity connected to the stories—the fall, “Christ as the second Adam,” the origins of sin, and nearly everything else that I counted sacred.” (Saving Darwin; 9-10)

He then assured us that the acid would dissolve no further. However, we later find that Darwin’s acid had also dissolved the God of the OT. I also find that this acid has dissolved away huge chunks of the Christian worldview of the many TEs with whom I have had exchanges. For example, I haven’t found one who is against same-sex marriage. You can easily prove me wrong here.

24

Chris, Sorry if I hadn’t respond directly to you challenge:

• “There are many areas of knowledge that the Bible does not address. Set theory. Particle physics. Nuclear fusion. Double-blind experiments. Calculus. Alveoli. I could go on and on and on. Stating that God’s revelation of Himself in the Scripture is intended to give us teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness – so we can know Him, love Him, and share His love with one another – rather than scientific knowledge is consequently the obvious application of 2 Timothy 3:16.”

As you have correctly pointed out, Scripture doesn’t cover all forms of knowledge. Instead, we simply want to address what Scripture does cover.

My issue is with the history (not the “science”) of the Bible, which TEs deny, especially in Genesis 1-11. If Genesis 1-11 is mistaken about history, why not also the rest of the Bible? If these chapters aren’t fully God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17), what reason do we have to believe that the rest of the Bible is historically accurate?

Consequently, the Bible is seriously degraded. However, this problem is greatly multiplied by the fact that theology cannot be separated from history. For example, without the history of the Cross, there cannot be a theology of the Cross. If Christ didn’t historically die for our sins, then we still bear them.

More specifically, if Genesis 1-11 is not historically accurate, the theology of the Bible cannot stand. Jesus had based His teaching on divorce on the historicity of the creation account:

· He [Jesus] answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female [quoting Gen. 1:26 as actual history], and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ [quoting Gen. 2:24 as actual history]? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Had God not historically joined them together, divorce would not contradict what God had historically accomplished.

Similarly, Peter argued that we need to take seriously God’s promise of a future judgment, basing this on the fact that God had historically judged:

· For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly…then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment. (2 Peter 2:4-9)

Peter’s conclusion about the future judgment depends upon the historicity of God’s former judgments. Had they simply been parables teaching a spiritual lesson, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the promised future judgment is also nothing more than a parable.

The entire NT regards Genesis 1-11 as historical. Therefore, to deny the historicity of Genesis is also to deny the NT commentaries on Genesis.

However, TE problems do not stop here. While to deny history is to deny theology, it is also to deny any degree of certainty about our interpretations of the Bible. History grounds interpretation. If a worldwide flood did take place which destroyed the entire human race except Noah and his immediate family, this account says something concrete about the extent of sin and God’s hatred and judgment of it.

If, instead, this event did not take place, everything that it teaches remains in the darkness of uncertainty. Does God really hate sin, or is this a parable to merely scare humanity into conformity to a benign Santa Claus God? Does God judge? Perhaps not?

Historical context provides the necessary guidance to accurately interpret Scripture. Without this guidance, any interpretation is possible. Without the interpretive clarity, which the historical context provides, the TE is left without confidence. Without confidence, cultural norms fill the vacuum and become authoritative.

Consequently, it seems that TEs have been influenced in a “progressive” direction. To demonstrate this, I have often asked them, online, if they do not agree with same-sex marriage. Never has any of them gone on record to write that they do not agree with it. While they claim that they still believe in the basics of Christian teachings, their claims always seem insubstantial.

25

This kind of statement is a violation of our forum guidelines. Please avoid evaluating the faith of other people. You are not in a position to do that.

He uses it for evidence of the reliability of Scripture. There is a key difference between proofs and evidence that you keep ignoring. If WLC told me he based his faith on the historical evidence for the resurrection I would tell him he is misguided.

This just isn’t true. A person could live their whole Christian life completely ignorant of any evidences for the historical reliability of the gospels and it would not effect their salvation in the least, because salvation depends on faith in Christ. There is not must there. You think it is a good idea. Let’s be clear on the difference.

You can’t make prooftexts mean something they don’t mean. What does God-breathed-ness accomplish? It makes God’s word useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. It doesn’t make God’s word into a science textbook. It doesn’t make Genesis into a historical record that follows modern standards of objective reporting. I affirm all Scripture is God-breathed and completely trustworthy. We disagree about what the Bible “very clearly teaches as history” not because we have different origins views, but because we do exegesis differently. Like I said above, the way I do exegesis makes absolutely no reference to science. It does make reference to language, culture, and communication theory, as do a whole bunch of Evangelical Bible scholars with PhDs who think the Bible is God-breathed and trustworthy.

You know this statement makes no sense to people who don’t share your exegetical approach. There is a coherent process for moving from the text to theology. I recommend the Zondervan counterpoint book Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology.

Yes, and the Spirit continues to work with power today. Stop telling us what is inside the heads and hearts of others. You don’t know. what “the TE” believes. Again, it is a violation of forum guidelines to tell other people what they think and believe.

Jesus was talking about the establishment of marriage. I fully accept that marriage was historically instituted by God and complementary genders are God’s design. Jesus was not making a point about the literal historical accuracy of the Adam and Eve account. If that is what you see in it, you are reading into the text what is not there. It’s just as bad to add to the Bible’s message as it is to subtract, you know.

Flag on the play. You just conflated the literal historical accuracy of the entire text of Scripture with the historical accuracy of a single event. I agree it is theologically necessary that Christ historically died for our sins. And historically rose again. But it does not follow that it is therefore theologically necessary that every sentence of the Bible be literally historically accurate in order to communicate theological truth. Nothing in our salvation depends on Job literally sitting on the garbage heap covered in boils. Maybe he did, but the theological lessons of Job are accessible independent of the historical reality.

Well, if that is the case, then it is familiar, comfortable territory because I’ve been hanging out here on the slippery slope for twenty years. I even decided to become a missionary Bible translator so I could stay nice and close to Jesus and the Bible. Nobody who actually knows me is worried about my imminent descent into the abyss.

We already talked about this quote mine of yours. It is still inappropriate. It is a violation of forum guidelines to keep repeating the same argument, especially when you have been shown you are misrepresenting facts.

2 Likes
26

Great! Then…

I am a TE. I do not deny any of the historical content in Genesis.

This is falsehood. Show me where I put myself in opposition to the Bible. You cannot.

Where in the Bible does it teach this?

So your confidence comes from your own ability to interpret the Bible. Please explain to me your clear interpretation of Revelations. Does your difficulty here mean you have no confidence in the Gospels?

And regarding my faith, you preach falsehood. I am confident. http://peacefulscience.org/. Continuing to preach falsehood about others when corrected becomes slander. Please do not slander me.

27

Hi Daniel -

I agree with everything that @Christy and Joshua @Swamidass wrote regarding history in Genesis, so I won’t repeat it.

Since you posed the issue of same-sex marriage to me, I will answer you: I believe that same-sex marriage, like marital infidelity, is morally wrong.

It is another question altogether as to whether everything that is morally impermissible (such as being drunk in one’s home, or marital infidelity, or same-sex marriage) should also be legally impermissible. It is important to keep the difference between morality and legality in mind when we read what our fellow believers write.

Blessings,
Chris Falter

2 Likes
28

Thanks again for your patience with me. You responded:

• If WLC told me he based his faith on the historical evidence for the resurrection I would tell him he is misguided.

Would you say the same thing to doubting Thomas who had been persuaded by the evidence?

• A person could live their whole Christian life completely ignorant of any evidences for the historical reliability of the gospels and it would not effect their salvation in the least, because salvation depends on faith in Christ. (Christy)

Without having a sound cognitive basis to believe, the Christian will live a very truncated, uncertain, and defensive life, one that will remain highly vulnerable to attack, for example the false assertion that our four Gospels found their way into our Bible because of Constantine.

Consequently, I have often observed that Biologos and its followers are very reluctant to witness to the many professedly non-believers who feel very at home with their blogs.

When I stated that “the ENTIRETY of the Bible is “God-Breathed (2 Timothy 3:16),” you retorted:

• What does God-breathed-ness accomplish? It makes God’s word useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness…It doesn’t make Genesis into a historical record that follows modern standards of objective reporting.

Had the rest of the Bible never referred to Genesis 1-11, you might have a point. However, the Bible does refer to these chapters as history, and its theology is often inseparable from its history. For example, Peter, in proving that the coming judgment is not just a scare-tactic or myth, invoked God’s HISTORICAL judgments in support:

• 2 Peter 2:4-9 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly…then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment.

If this argument does not rely on actual history, then there is no reason to believe that a future judgment will also be actual. Let’s now turn to:

• 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ALL Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

First, ALL Scripture is God-breathed. Consequently, it is all “profitable.” However, the TE insists that they believe this way also, but they simply interpret it differently. Yes, they do interpret differently, disqualifying its historicity and the Bible commentary affirming its historicity.

This represents a major departure from Scripture, much like Mary Baker Eddy’s departure. She too insisted that Scripture is all correct as long as long as it is rightly interpreted.

Let’s now apply this to the Petrine verses above. By separating the Bible from its history, Peter’s argument collapses entirely. It means that these judgments didn’t take place, and if these didn’t take place, there is no reason to anticipate a future judgment.

Would you (or anyone else) care to comment on same-sex marriage?

29

I am glad to here that you have not compromised Scripture to accommodate Darwinism. I guess you are willing to live with the tensions between the Darwinian narrative and the Biblical, of which there are many points of conflict.

However, I am sure that you have observed the many problems that TEs have brought upon themselves with their interpretive uncertainty, having rejected the historical context. No wonder they have often written, “We have to remain humble about our interpretation of Scripture.” If only they were equally humble about Darwin.

1 Like
30

Good and solid distinction, Chris!

31

Thank you for backing of your claims about my faith. You will find that there are many types of TE.

I have not compromised Scripture. For me, evolution drove me back to Scripture and strengthened me and into connection to it.

I found that evolution conflicted with many interpretations of Genesis. However, I could not find any place that did not conflict with Scripture itself. Yes, you will point out some “apparent” contradictions, but I can point out equally “contradictory” statements between Scripture and old earth creationism and young earth creationism. Many of these contradictions, also turn not even to be in Scripture! For example, Genesis does not teach that animals reproduce “after their kind.” Rather it teaches that the “land gave forth plans animals of many kinds.” Even YEC OT scholars know this.

I find, also, that the purpose of the Bible is to bring me into correct understanding of Jesus. And this is what it does. However, there is no claim in Scripture that, “The Bible iss easy to interpret in all areas it touches upon.” That is an extra-biblical claim that appears obviously false. Outside of Jesus, the Bible can be difficult to interpret.

In fact Hebrews tells us that everything in the Old Testament is unclear, compared to Jesus. So we expect to be wrong about OT at times, but still have confidence we get Jesus right. If we are take Hebrews 1 seriously, we should doubt any one claiming to have a hermeneutic that confidently interpret every detail of Genesis. That appears to be false.

32

I’m certainly glad that St. Peter handed you the keys to the kingdom. Just to save time, can you give me a complete list of unforgivable sins?

Although I have quoted Mr. Mann here, I am not really interested in responding to him as to the oft-repeated canard that equates the historicity of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus to the historicity of Genesis and, by (il)logical extension, often the whole of the Old Testament.

For instance, John Walton, who I respect greatly, uses speech-act theory of locution, illocution, and perlocution to discuss inerrancy and historicity in The Lost World of Scripture. (Locution = literal/semantic meaning. Illocution = speaker’s intention/purpose for communicating. Perlocution = how listener received/understood the message.) Walton locates inerrancy not in the author’s locution – the literal meaning – but in his illocution – the theological purpose. I believe that Walton is absolutely correct here. Unfortunately, Walton then goes on to assert that although the illocution (author’s purpose) in Genesis was to teach theological truths about God and “the perlocution (audience response – ed.) focuses on a response to God rather than to the events themselves or the people engaged in the events,” he adds the parenthetical comment “at the same time realizing that they must therefore be considered real events and real people in a real past.” So despite the fact that Walton recognizes the theological truths of the illocution are primary, “the theology loses its force if the events did not happen.” This conclusion does not follow either logically or theologically from what preceded it.

In essence, Walton is claiming that the historical aspects should be considered part of the author’s illocution – his intended purpose – in early Genesis. Walton is in error in this. When the historicity of an event is part of the inspired author’s purpose (his illocution), he makes it clear. For instance, in regard to the historicity of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the inspired authors of Scripture make it obvious that this is their purpose. Just a few examples from the many available:

Luke – Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

John – one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

John again – That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

Peter – For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”[b] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

Paul – But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Clearly, the authors of the New Testament go out of their way to assert the historical fact of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. It is part of their illocution – their purpose in writing, which they make clear in passages such as these. There is nothing even remotely close to statements such as these in support of the historicity of early Genesis.

2 Likes
33

Ironically, that line of reasoning is why I find it difficult to accept the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. When read as poetry or as allegory, the obvious contradictions become mute, and acceptance of God’s message is unimpaired. If read literally, it makes for a very “truncated, uncertain and defensive” posture, and one that is vulnerable to collapse when challenged, and if that is the foundation of faith, threatens faith itself.
Regarding the gospels, also bear in mind that the early church survived and thrived without them being in their canon, though definately in a different situation being near to eye witness accounts.

5 Likes