Is There a Relationship Between Christian Views on Creation and Christian Views on Eschatology?
This is an interesting topic. Please vote! What view do you hold? I’d like to do some research on this and perhaps write a short semi-scholarly paper on the results.
DEFINITIONS
Young Earth Creation - God created in six literal, consecutive days less than 10,000 years ago
Gap Theory - God created in six literal, consecutive days less than 10,000 years ago, but there was a backstory of billions of years
Day Age - The days of Genesis 1 are long eras corresponding with geological time
Evolutionary Creation - Macroevolution was the means by which God created
Premillennial - Christ will return and inaugurate a 1,000 year reign before eternity
Amillennial - The Rapture, Second Coming, final judgment, and new heavens and new earth will be one simultaneous event
Postmillennial - There will be a Christian golden age before Christ returns
I don’t know how to vote because based on the definitions, all options are true!
Young is relative – the earth is young compared to the universe. By “literal” the Creation days do have defined start and stop points (you didn’t say that they have to be 24 hrs.) – and they are consecutive. The 6th day of creation was completed about 2,000 years ago (Time of Christ):
Creation Day Timeline Compared to Earth History
Creation Day
Time Span (Approximate)
Major Geological & Biological Events
Day 1
4.5 – 2.3 bya
Formation of the Earth (~4.54 bya); Heavy bombardment, formation of oceans; Earliest life (simple bacteria, ~3.8 bya); Photosynthesis begins (~3.5 bya); Great Oxygenation Event (~2.5–2.3 bya)
Day 2
2.3 – 1.8 bya
Stabilization of atmosphere; Early eukaryotes (cells with nuclei) appear; First signs of more complex life processes
Day 3
1.8 – 1.3 bya
Multicellular life begins to emerge; Supercontinent cycles (Columbia, Rodinia); Beginning of green algae (precursor to plants)
Day 4
1.3 – 0.87 bya
More complex multicellular organisms; First sexual reproduction; Cryogenian Period near end (Snowball Earth); Increase in sunlight penetration in oceans (symbolic of God placing “lights in the sky”)
Day 5
0.87 – 0.41 bya
Cambrian Explosion (~541 mya): sudden burst of complex animals – Development of eyes, gills, limbs – First fish, early coral reefs; By ~400 mya: first flying insects
Day 6
410 mya – time of Christ
Rise of land plants and forests; Amphibians, reptiles, and dinosaurs dominate; Mammals and birds after extinction events; Humans appear (~300,000 years ago) – Early civilizations, agriculture, written language
Day 7
Time of Christ – 365 million years into the future
Sabbath rest (millenium): symbolic of spiritual completion; Humanity’s stewardship and rest in God’s plan; Potential for transformation, restoration, or a new age
See above and indeed there is a gap of at least 8.8 bya between Gen 1:1 (Most distant starlight 13.3 billion light years away) and 1:2 (formation of Earth 4.5 bya)
Again see the chart above which includes geologic correlation.
Of course! “Let the earth bring forth…”
His first return was on the Day of Pentecost 50 days after the Resurrection. The 1,000 year reign is based on 2 Pet 3:8 – A day with the Lord is as a thousand years (1,000 x 365 (days per year) = 365,000) and a thousand years with the Lord is one Day (365,000 x 1,000 = 365 million years)
The 365 million years is the Millenium (1,000 years) which is the one Day of the Lord.
The “Rapture” and the “Second Coming” are both the indwelling Holy Spirit that was sent on the Day of Pentecost. We are raptured because we are still in the world (this current heavens and earth) but are not of it. Chaos and “Judgment” ensues around us but we have Peace.
Rom 5:1-5 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope. Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
This part of your definition of Amillennialism I believe is wrong though. The “new heavens and earth” are still after the current Millennium that we are in.
Yes, the “Christian golden age” is the Millennium and while Christ has already returned, its also both now and not yet.
Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
I believe in a second coming but beyond that I have not been convinced of much else. I have trouble dealing with apocalyptic language and verses in an overly literal fashion and when I read something like Revelation, I think most of it already happened or it serves other purposes than giving us a literal play by play of the future if we can accurately decipher it.
As for the other part of your poll. I am
a Christian who generally thinks the evidence favors evolution and a very old earth but I do not worship at the altar of science.
I think there is some correlation between the interpretations of the start and the end, but not a perfect correlation.
Usually, we use a general frame or approach to interpreting the scriptures. Although I would expect similarity in the approach, human minds can show ‘mosaic’ patterns of interpretation - we are not always fully logical or our logic may be something that the others do not follow. For example, some take the NT as authoritative and the OT just as an ancient collection of texts that do not have much relevance for Christians. Such opinions may lead to quite different interpretations about Genesis and Revelation.
If we are prone to take what is written as ‘literal’, then we use that approach to both Genesis and Revelation.
If we use allegorical interpretations, we likely apply that to both ends.
If we filter what is written through our modern worldview, we probably interpret both ends through the same ‘spectacles’ and get different outcomes than those that strive to understand how the original receivers understood the messages.
Is there any interpretation in increasingly ‘Reformed’ Western Christianity, as you head north and west, that doesn’t depend on Jesus depending on Genesis? On ‘sin’, original and otherwise? Eastern Christianity dilutes ‘original sin’ and there is a spectrum of less damnationist, ‘liberal’ atonement theories, but the suicide by cop of Jesus is integral, fundamental to them all. I had dinner with an old church friend this week, my dentist. He’s a brilliant, devout man. For him there is no Jesus without Genesis. At least he’s honest for an English Christian. Anyone here for whom that isn’t so at all? Even metaphorically? I can’t see how.
Intrigued, I submitted your post to ChatGPT and asked “What do you think?”
Surprise! I’m not going to tell you. Personally, I thought you overstated the necessity of a literal-historical Genesis and Augustinian original sin, and–although I remember suggesting that Jesus’ crucifixion was an unusual form of suicide in the 1970s–describing it as “suicide by cop” would never have been my choice of words.
By the way, the OP’s author (or Hugh Ross himself) might want to get ahead of the crowd and upload his latest book into a ChatGPT prompt, if they haven’t already, because I’m pretty sure somebody has or will very soon.
So, … A Jesus without Genesis? Certainly not likely “in the fullness of time”, but what about in 2020? Asking Google “How many Jews believe in a literal Genesis now?”, I’m told: “Short answer: it’s a minority, and it depends where you look.
U.S. Jews:
• About 81% say they believe in evolution (Pew, 2019). That implies a relatively small creation-literalist share. (Pew Research Center)
• Directly on scripture: only ~11% of U.S. Jews say the Torah is the literal word of God; 26% say it’s God’s word but not literal, and 55% say it was written by humans. This tracks with low “literal Genesis” views. (Jewish Telegraphic Agency)
Israeli Jews (big denominational split):
• 53% say humans/life evolved; 43% say humans have always existed in their present form (a common proxy for Genesis literalism). (Pew Research Center)
• By group (Pew, 2016): roughly 3% Haredi, 11% Modern Orthodox, 35% “traditional”, and 83% secular accept evolution—so literal readings are very high among Haredi/Orthodox and low among secular Jews. (The Times of Israel)
Bottom line
In the U.S., “literal Genesis” among Jews looks to be ~1 in 10 (using Torah-literalism as the closest direct measure).
In Israel, views are much more mixed overall, with large literalist majorities in Haredi/Orthodox sectors and low literalism among secular Jews. (Pew Research Center)
Well that’s kind of interesting, IMO. And the likelihood of any Crucifixion is even less.
So, I think the support for a Jew without Genesis, is “Time and Place sensitive”,don’t you?
I do not think I fit into a catagory., although maybe I am missing the meaning of Millenial in this context.
I have a basic acceptance of evolution as a means of Creation, but, as can be seen from my posts, do not accept the complete scientific package on the subject.
As a Chriatian i cannot ignore the second coming, but do not dwel on it either way. if it comes, it comes if it doesn’t , it will one day. In the mean time we are told to be as ready as we can be. I guess that could spark a debate in itself as to what constitutes ready.
The question seems to assume a fairly literal interpretation of Genesis, in the sense of a modern worldview.
I would say that what Jesus told and did was strongly linked to what the Hebrew scriptures told. Genesis is part of the Torah that is the central part of the Hebrew scriptures.
The strong link between what Jesus told and what is written in the Torah does not tell that the modern ‘literal’ interpretation of Genesis is correct. Yes to Jesus and yes to Genesis but no to the modern YEC interpretation of Genesis, that would be my answer.
The point about Genesis is that it sets up the heritage and identity of the Hebrew people (Avoiding naming both Israel and Judaism) Jesus as a man is set in that heritage and identity but only inasmuch as the prophecies about Him stem from it, and at least one interpretation of the Passion reflects the Jewish sacrifical system although it is better related to the Passover in which the events were set and orchestrated.
Pragmatism would suggest that the Passover needed a setting and circumstance to be noticed and understood. The three year preparation was essential to gain both fame and notoriety. It would have been difficullt to get the same distinction in this day and age, where He would have been set amongst the fanatics and delusioned, not to mention the extended delay in it happening.
The fact that it has persisted despite rigorous attempts to eradicate it must count for something. (Anti-seimtism could be viewed similarly in terms of Judaism)
However, despite God’s planning and intentions there is the human factor that is, by His choice, beyond His control. Cynicism aside, the human factor is demonstrated in the diverse acceptance or rejection of what happened. To suggest “One Way”, or “one Understanding” is to deny or ignore that rather obvious elephant.
I realise that nether pragmatism or cynicism is recognisd as tools within apologetics, but there you are.
Although it is not a hill I choose to die on, if asked about my eschatological views, I say that I lean amillennialist or partial preterist with a dash of Teilhard and Tipler thrown in. I hold the position that a moderate Christian transhumanism has the potential to do with the book of Revelation what I think evolutionary creation does with the book of Genesis. It brings it into conversation with modern science.
It doesn’t matter that YEC is literally mindless nonsense, vast numbers of educated people believe in the Fall independently of that. Believe that we are rightfully damned and need Jesus’ spilt blood. Who doesn’t here? Not just the wooden literalists, but the TEers. All on the fundamentalist spectrum.
“Fundamentalist” is a problematic term. Etymologically, it should refer to those committed to the fundamentals of a particular view. However, it is popularly used to mean “extremist”. Extremists often do not display a good grasp of the core teachings of the position that they profess to support.
“Fundamentalist” is not particularly useful to communicate what position is meant. For example, calling militant atheism “fundamentalist” ignores the range of positions.
There is certainly significant overlap between insisting on misinterpretation of Genesis as a modern historical account of the past and insisting on a misinterpretation of the apocalyptic as a modern historical account of the future.
I believe we are condemned because of what we have done, not because of what our ancestors did.
Establishing firm doctrines brings clarity but also ties the members of the denomination to the interpretations of that era. When knowledge increases, the outdated interpretations that have been carved to stone as doctrines turn into a burden.
I have been participating in theological teaching and the teacher of the current course is specialized in systematic theology. That is the way how she approaches most theological issues. She loves clear, detailed doctrines because such make any comparisons easy. She has been somewhat frustrated about the teachings of my denomination because our basic doctrine is what the biblical scriptures (canon) teach, acknowledging and accepting the interpretations in the early ecumenical creeds.
Every generation needs to return back to the scriptures and interpret the teachings based on the information they have. Maybe an approach that is more demanding than having medieval written doctrines. The positive side is that there is some freedom to reinterpret the biblical teachings when we get better understanding about the context, culture and language behind the biblical scriptures.
Depending on what you mean with fundamentalism, this approach could be called fundamentalism but such fundamentalism that is not tied to medieval or later interpretations and doctrines. It is open to any criticism and alternative interpretations that can be justified with the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, as documented in the canon and the early ecumenical creeds.
This approach expects and demands loving the truth, also in what we can learn through honest study of the creation.
Small consolation, IMO, in a world filled with imperfect people.
I have, in mind, a scene from Episode 6 of the first Season of Irish Blood, in which a character, Fiona Margaret Murphy, is played by a 10-year old girl AND a 30+ year old adult.
The young version challenges the adult version, asking “Why do you continue to help him (her father), after he has hurt you?” And the adult version answers: ““Because if I only loved perfect people, I’d never love anyone.”
That line has stayed with me because it names a deep paradox: to love at all is to love within imperfection. It is not the purity of the beloved, or the perfection of the doctrine, that sustains fidelity, but the integrity of the one who loves and seeks truth despite imperfection.
And I find that both depressing and intruiging. Why someone who refuses to accept Genesis 1 as real can then accept the Garden as real is beyond me.
Then to try and incorporate Adam and Eve into evolution?
Perhaps there is a need fr humanity to be flawed or sinful. I guess it takes away the responsibility of entience and living. If we can’t be righteous why bother. Our experiencees prove that whan we ask God He takes over all those important decisions for us (Sacrastic font) But who needs reality! We have faith!
Ah hah! But you see it don’t you Richard. It’s the raison d’être of this site after all. It’s how scientists have their cake and fundamentally eat it too, embrace the whole spectrum of belief, with knowledge at one end and Jewish myth becoming Christian cult at the other. With their God of the gaps in between. They have both, reality and faith. Whereas you have faith? You have to reject the reality of evolution?
neither do i try and mash Scripture and science together, or, even worse, segregate them as if they do not interact..
At least people who try and rectify Genesis 1 with evolution and Old Earth are being consistent, I suppose, no matter how futile and misguided the attempt.
It’s all on the same spectrum. Of having to justify God’s love in Jesus’ appalling death, inflicted on himself to grab our attention; all who would be saved. That is not Love.
