Examining the Assumptions of Mosaic Creationism vis-a-vis the Assumptions of Evolutionary Creationism

[Mike_Gantt]

Revisions to Assumptions and Stipulations of Mosaic Creationism (MC) in the OP

I am today revising the OP, particularly the “Assumptions” and “Stipulations,” to reflect our dialogue. The changes I have made are the result of your questions and challenges sharpening and drawing out my thinking. That’s not to say you will all be pleased with what you see, but, whether you are pleased or not, you have helped me and I appreciate it.

I have decided to sign off BioLogos sometime tomorrow. That’s why I want to do this tidying up today. If you have anything else you want me to think about, you have about 24 hours to post it. I have been here since June 22nd. I have not reached the closure I had hoped for when I came here, but I do think it’s clear that there’s a season for everything, and this season is passing. I’ll write a final note tomorrow before I sign off.

Here are some clean-up items.

On Assumptions

I think the only changes are revisions to the existing #2 items and the addition of multiple sub-items.

On Stipulations

I revised the first stipulation to make it more to the point - the point that we’ve discussed over and over.

I’m completely removing the fifth stipulation. That’s going to require some explanation, so let me start by first reproducing Stipulation #5 here:

@Mike_Gantt

5.If OT history - or even just the history found in the Torah - is deemed obsolete by the coming of Messiah, MC fails. (This stipulation is more fully explained in this post from me below.) Note: The “obsolescence” spoken of in this stipulation refers to history only - not to any other aspect of the text. Thus, for example, any OT story could be considered just as worthy of teaching as ever even though it was no longer considered accurate historically. Another way of describing this issue is to ask, “Does ancient history in the Bible really matter anymore?”

I added this stipulation a couple of days ago because as I was keeping an open-mind on the subject, it seemed to me a possibility. That is, as the temple, animal sacrifice, dietary restrictions, and other things passed away, perhaps the importance of OT history passed away. (I explain this more thoroughly here.) I don’t recall anyone specifically suggesting this possibility to me. I just posted it, and got some responses - which led me to add to what I’d originally written.

The more I’ve thought about this, however, I’ve come to see that it doesn’t deserve to be listed with the other stipulations. Here are two reasons why.

1. If a parable is presented as a parable, everyone knows it’s a fiction designed to convey a truth. Now history can also be used to convey truth. And it’s not as if one is a better way of conveying truth than the other. However, if I present a parable as history, and it later turns out that the history is false, the truth conveyed by the parable may still stand but I have damaged my credibility in the process. The same would apply with OT history. If certain people and events are portrayed as having been real, and we draw certain principles from those people’s lives and the events, the principles may stand but God’s credibility will have been damaged by the consignment of the history He gave to some category of non-history. (I know some people on this board consider what’s presented in Gen 1-11 as something less than history as it’s commonly understood, but that position is outside the scope of this stipulation.)

2. I remembered how frequently the NT writers referred to OT history, including historical people and events from Gen 1-11. If OT history had passed away, we would not see the NT writers referring to it. Rather, we would see as little from them on OT history as we saw from them on how to sacrifice an animal.

Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to list as a stipulation something that cannot be argued.

Other Revisions

It’s possible I’ll make some other clean-up revisions to the OP today, but I won’t make any tomorrow, and certainly none after that. Unless there’s something specific which requires my response, my next and last post will be my sign-off note.