In the end, Ron, there is nothing "positive" about anything you have written. It is all unbelief with an "I don't know" attitude and you appeal to others who apparently don't know either. And since they don't know, and you don't know, you assume it is presumption for anyone to claim they do.

And from there we must bounce around like a ping pong ball in the wind with no idea where we may land.

And of course, the SDA church overall is as ignorant as the rest of the world with the bible being unreliable since no one can really or truly know what it means.

All in the name of "wisdom" and great academic scholarship.

Actually, you are a disgrace to the church in particular and the Christian community in general. This is my opinion, and I have stated why.

Bill Sorensen

Ron,

Thank you and thank you, for this whole series.

I think what you've reflected on here is so vital, and it is frustrating that we have developed a culture of literalism and 'math equation' theology that has lost sight of the radical otherness of God's act in the Crucified Christ.

You've raised excellent questions. I look forward to a day when our whole community will engage with these questions, and will do so without fear of being alienated or having their faith commitments come into question by others.

Amen, Ron.

Matt Burdette

Bill,

You are mean. Have you noticed this?

Matt Burdette

Matt,

No...he hasn't, and in his mind isn't. His theological correctness and the wrongness of all the "heretics" here makes it all ok.

Thanks...

Frank

Bill,

You are mean. Have you noticed this?

Matt Burdette

I suspect, Matt, that God chose Jewish people and the seed of Abraham because for the main part, even when they are wrong, they are dynamic and less wishy washy. They tend not to play games, especially in religion.

So, they put Jesus to death. No games here. A postive decision, even when it was wrong.

I am not Jewish, and there is much that we could disapprove about the whole race. But if I were to choose a race that I am not, it would be Jewish.

As it is, I am a Dane. And you know what they say, "You can always tell a Dane. But you can't tell'em much."

In the end though. There is nothing "mean" about direct confrontation with error in the context of this forum which claims to be a supporting SDA ministry.

In my opinion, the whole ministry is for the purpose of undermining the SDA faith in particular and the bible in general.

Jesus wasn't "mean" when he called His enemies of "Their father the devil." Being a Jew, He told it like it was.

If His purpose was to redemptive, and it was, how is it you are qualified to judge if my purpose is redemptive or not?

Some new SDA's may float through this place and not really know some of the issues. If they see, fine, and if not, God will judge. At any rate, like the apostle Paul, "I became all things to all men, that I might by all means, save some."

Even God can't save everybody or He would. Once you give a moral being free will, you can't force them to do what's right. Can you? Even love and grace is resistable. Surely we can see this reality, unless of course, we assume Jesus was not the perfect witness.

Trust me Matt, if I could "change your mind" by any other means, I would.

Bill Sorensen

Hi Everyone. Bill has made his points. He says his words are the words of Paul or Jesus himself. I think this is something readers can judge for themselves. I hope, though, that from this point forward the topic of personalities can be dropped entirely from this thread. I am stunned that my talking about the cross of Christ has provoked such immediately harsh words, and I hope that we can overcome this harshness by returning to a conversation about the cross itself. How does the cross of Jesus change the way we think about the creation?

That God exists is irrefutable (logically). That something created this world is irrefutable as well. That the world was created in 6 literal days (as it says in Genesis) is an article of faith to be sure. But make no mistake about it, if you do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis you do not believe in the plan of salvation. Jesus came to redeem us from a fallen condition. First we were perfect (not redeemed), then we fell and found ourselves in need of redemption. Then Jesus came to save us. But if we've been forever redeeming ourselves, there would be no need of redemption. I would be very interested in hearing how you rationalize the plan of salvation to be necessary under your understanding. Or are you one of those that thinks you're saved by what you do? For a sermon on the topic go to http://lewisburgchurch.org/podcastlist.php and click on the sermon "Things That Just Are."

Hi Brikony. Thanks for getting us back on track. If you carefully read what I wrote you will see that I have NOT suggested that we redeem ourselves in any way. Humans need redemption that can only come through Christ's death for our rebellion. Christ's act on the cross reconciles us to God and makes us adopted sons and daughters of the Creator. The question we must now wrestle with is: what does the cross reveal about the creation? Not about the fall but about the creation itself? The theology most of us have grown up with teaches creation without the cross. It assumes that we can fully understand Genesis 1 without any reference to Christ's cross whatsoever (which only enters the picture at Genesis 3). I think this is a theological problem.

I'm now going to take a break from posting comments to enjoy my Sabbath :)

Ron, sincere apologies for getting things off track. I triggered that.

Brikony, have you considered that salvation may be more comprehensive than a plan to fix sin? According to what you have described, Jesus came only because we sinned. That is, the plan of salvation was a reaction on God's part. However, the Bible is clear in several places that what God did in Jesus was God's eternal plan since before creation. Unless God intended sin (and I don't think that is the case), it appears that God had something more in mind than just dealing with sin.

Matt Burdette

Why should Ron be a disgrace for the church? I think this is a remark made out of fear. Which is not necessary. Don't be afraid! Why don't you apply the principles that we know from the New Testament: wait for the fruit of this kind of reflections, they will tell us; Ron is pointing to the cross as a possible key for further understanding - this is so wonderful. I think this is a very helpful point. I don't agree with all his conclusions, but I'm thankful for his work. And I'm thankful for everyone who declares to be an Adventist not in possession of the truth, but that he wishes to have a healthy relationship with the truth - which is a person, God.

Knowledge to my understanding is: a true conviction that you gained in a correct way (three parts: what you know must be 1 true, it must be your deep 2 conviction and you must have come to this conviction in the 3 right way).

A consequence of this definition is that you can't know that you know. You can only know that you believe. And you can know, of course. But knowing that you know? - is an impossibility under any circumstance, at least if we are using English language here. A claim or even just the wish to know that we know is complete nonsense.

We are not talking about knowledge here, we are believers. Jesus didn't say "I have the truth" but "I am the truth". If we think to have the truth, everytime someone questions it, our life is at risk to get completely out of order. And we become fearful and angry. If however we have a relationship to the (personal) truth, then no question can shatter our grounds, because (personal) relationships, as long as they are alive, are immune against any immaginable kind of rational reasoning. That's why God wants us to love him. If we are believers and not knowers, we can lie back, relax and enjoy Ron's effort and thank God that he is leading us into a deeper understanding of who he is.

Ron said....

"Hi Everyone. Bill has made his points. He says his words are the words of Paul or Jesus himself."

Did someone say, "mean spirited"?

At any rate, this forum needs me, I don't need it.

The web master can drop me any time he chooses. I got other things to do.

And neither will I change my method. Ask them over at A-today.

Bill Sorensen

Ron--

Haven't followed your posts in this series that closely, partly due to time contraints, partly due to preparing for the storm (maybe Alex can come shovel the few feet of snow out my driveway that they're calling for, again, and then he can come in and canvass me a bit more about global warming), and partly due to the fact that I'm not quite sure of the relevance of their views, however much I can respect the folks you were referencing, at least in their own spheres. There is such a thing as progressive truth, is there not, and I'd like to think we've moved beyond Maimonides, much less Augustine.

My big question, as I said, was in reference to evolution and the cross, because I can't see how evolution can be true and the cross, at least the subtitionary model (the only model the Bible teaches [I know that's a zinger on here]) could possibly be reconciled with it. I was waiting for your response to that.

I must admit I was disappointed. Is what you wrote above your answer? If so, then I am confirmed even more in my belief that one has to chose evolution, or Jesus, but not both.

Your words, "Or does this narrative in fact keep the cross as far away from the creation as possible? The standard legal-forensic model of Christ’s death may in fact be a desperate attempt to isolate the creation story in Genesis in a way that allows us to read it without any reference to Christ at all" . . . ? Maybe I'm missing something here, but what in the world, brother, are you talking about? Am I alone in finding those two lines uncomprehensible?

Can anyone on this blog give me a logical, coherent, biblical way of harmonizing evolution with the cross? I'm even willing to listen to someone harmonize a Maxwellian-subjective-view of atonement with evolution, if they can.

With all due respect, Ron, and as someone who truly stands in awe of your erudition and brilliance (and I mean it) I found your post nothing but pseudo-intellectual dribble. Read it again. What in the world are you talking about? How does your post explain how evolution can harmonized with the cross?

With respect, and friendship

Cliff

Ron,

You are very eloquent, and I can see have been blessed with certain gifts. The level of criticism you get is proportional to your potential for impact, and that can be a good thing. I need to be honest and direct. If that is going to be considered mean, then there is no room for my say.

Your assertions that literalists have not truly considered the things that you suggest is just insulting to me as a literalist. You haven't treated the literalist perspective adequately, at least in my opinion. Actually, you treat the literalist perspective very pejoratively.

You trivialise what literalists think as a quadratic equation. Unbelievable! Well, my response is that yours is a system of differential equations, with no known solution. But then that would suggest that your model is more complex, and that is the opposite of the way I see it! I did appreciate Bill Sorensen's analogy - ping-pong. And, I didn't think Bill was any meaner than you were in your article.

One thing I find really ironic, is that you construct a literary argument against literalists!!! I would love to know more about how you understand the term 'literalist'. The way you use it goes against the fact that you rely on 'literary' argument. And, you appear to have quite some aggression towards that term.

Here is one of my main questions to you. Where does this aggression come from?

You don't need to be pejorative in order to put forward your own point of view.

Now, your basic synthesis of a type of theodicy with evolution is a fair rebuttal to many points against what 'literalists' (as you call it) put forward. But certainly, not all 'literalists' put forward those points like that. You write off all 'literalists' because of the voice of some?

What is your need for such a synthesis in the first place? Why concede so much, without giving the 'literalists' a fair hearing? It appears that you assume already one side of a contentious debate.

PS. Just a minor correction for you. I think that most literalists would accept that sin entered the universe via the Devil, and did not originate with Adam. Such a trivial thing, I know!

PPS. Although I disagree with some of your points, you are certainly not a disgrace.

For Bill,

Since I am of Jewish and Adventist heritage, let me respond to your comments on the "Jews," which deeply concern me, since such statements have endangered the lives of many a Jew in the past.

First of all, the "Jews" did not crucify Jesus. Most Jews did not know who Jesus was, since most Jews (as even till this day) did not live in Israel/Palestine but resided in Diaspora. This argument alone should prove sufficient from making such generalizing stereotyped statements about the "Jews."

Your other statements are very stereotyping, if not racist. What is a Jewish person to make of your statement "that God chose Jewish people and the seed of Abraham because for the main part, even when they are wrong, they are dynamic and less wishy washy. They tend not to play games, especially in religion;" or "there is much that we could disapprove about the whole [Jewish] race"?

Do you find much to disapprove of the "black" race or the "white" race? Is there something genetically wrong about the Jewish "race," which you conceive of so as to make such a sweeping statement? I should state for clarification here that there is no such thing as a Jewish "race," as there are White Jews, Black Jews, Asian Jews, and yes even some Danish (which is not a race either)Jews.

I would expect some greater sensitivity on the part of a Dane over their descriptions about Jews, a greater awareness as to how their theology could endanger Jewish life (as it so often did in the past, especially in Europe).

On a more positive note, I just want to thank Ron again for the great series he provided, digging from rich sources. As the rabbis state, there is great merit in studying Torah lishma (Torah for the sake of Torah), the journey itself, the ongoing quest.

a great series, Ron....and kudos at least to Bill for recognizing it as "great academic scholarship" (tho he seems to represent a fraction for whom it may otherwise be apparently beyond the need or desire to know, much less understand)

Your series shows that many greater minds than most of ours have continued to accepted Christianity as the best way to run a world in the past, while not always accepting everything literally.

however, like Columbo, there's just this one last thing that's bothering me...
maybe its not even important....but....

you conclude with:

..."God does not design or create using tools of suffering and death."...

so.... just who or what DID design claws, molars, poisonous fangs and stingers, poisonous mushrooms masquerading as edible, mosquitoes to transport disease, the AIDS virus to punish the guilty, schistosomiasis to punish the innocent, cow pox and cow flatulence (which is a greater greenhouse source than all Al Gores and John Kerry's suv's combined)?

and who sent the "flood" to wipe out people, innocent animals and reptiles...because "He was SORRY He had made them"? and if it was a world wide flood (which apparently is necessary to explain creationism thru flood geology), who notified the people in China and Tibet 3 miles above sea level that God was going use this tool of death on them, despite their distance from all the bad stuff going on between the earths hot women and space aliens back in the Middle east? http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6&version=CEV
did Noah during his 120 yrs of preaching (as explained by EGW) reach the far flung corners of the earth with the message to repent? or did God just use His supernatural tools to kill everybody without warning?

and who temporarily used the tool of gravity to upset the balance of the cosmos by holding the sun back so the Israelites could kill more of their neighbors, including men, little boys, and any women who had had sex (but save the virgins to use - while ignoring the genetic dilution and genocide issues)?

and all those plagues God sent to harrass the Egyptian people...including murdering innocent firstborn kids...just to influence the only guy who had the power to let them go?? were not those plagues "tools" of God?
and didn't they cause "suffering and death"?
to many (potentially)innocent people?
if we believe the story literally?
and isn't the meaning of "murder"...the deliberate and malicious act of killing, with planing and aforethought?

how do all those great minds from the series explain that?

or, do we extend the questioning of the literalness of the 144 hr creation story just 6kyo, to other stories with which some have seen similar "issues"?

Wow! After all his denigration of "literalism," Ron latches onto some language in a clearly poetic passage in Job, obviously not meant to be taken literally, and says, "See, wickedness existed on earth even at the creation."

Ron, do you believe that the Earth has a "foundation" (38:4), or that God stretched a "measuring line" across it (38:5), or that it has "footings" and a "cornerstone" (38:6), or that the sea is shut behind a "door" or sprang from a "womb" (38:8), or that the earth has "doors" and "bars" (38:10), or that the earth has "edges" (38:12)??? If you don't think all that is to be taken literally, then why would you think God had to shake the literal "wickedness" out of the world? And you call me a literalist?

The real message of Job is that his faith could not be shaken by what the "experts" of his age were telling him. He knew that, contra the "experts," he was not to blame for the suffering that had befallen him, but he also knew that he needed a redeemer who would make possible for him a bodily resurrection from the dead. "I know that my redeemer lives, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." Job 19:25-26.

"The standard legal-forensic model of Christ’s death may in fact be a desperate attempt to isolate the creation story in Genesis in a way that allows us to read it without any reference to Christ at all."

Well, fortunately, the New Testament writers will not allow us to cut Christ out of the creation story. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. . . . Through Him all things were made, and without Him was not anything made that has been made." (John 1:1-3) "In these last days He has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world." Heb. 1:2.

The implication of a continually suffering creator is counter-biblical. "Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." Heb. 9:25-28

Cliff, you raised the question about the compatibility of theistic evolution and the substitutionary model of atonement, and one I share. (I don't think this is what Ron is actually dealing with in this post; he's exploring the question of the later requires a literal reading of Genesis 1.)

One of the more thoughtful explanations I've heard is from a former systematic prof of mine who drew on the distinction between first and second deaths mentioned in Revelation. (This surprised me, as this professor was not an Adventist, and I've heard the distinction between these two deaths mentioned mainly in Adventist circles.)

Anyway, according to this prof, the first death (physical) preceded the fall, but was experienced as "sleep" and was without the negative connotations of fear and evil we have it until after the fall. This is when the second death (permanent, spiritual separation from God) also became a problem for humans.

Jesus on the cross saves us from the second death, and eventually, at the eschaton, from the first death as well.

I realize that such an explanation is not without its problems, but its one that I have found to be fairly compelling (although I'm still not sure if I agree entirely with it), showing a nuanced way to take Scripture, traditional doctrine seriously while attempting to reconcile them with what we are learning from other areas of inquiry.

Shabat Shalom all!

Zane said:
"Anyway, according to this prof, the first death (physical) preceded the fall, but was experienced as "sleep" and was without the negative connotations of fear and evil we have it until after the fall."

I guess I'm confused at this explanation because I don't know what is meant by the fall. Do you know what your prof meant in context of what we know about evolution including the evolution of humans?

Ron,

Thanks for your comments about the book of Job. I had never really seen this as a creation account, but agree it can't be dismissed as such. As I think you were driving at, Job implies that predation is a part of God's design, which is completely at odds with our traditional view that predation resulted from Adam's sin.

As I think you also suggested, this has enormous implications on the relationship between creation and redemption. The traditional view is that:

- God created the world perfect;
- Man's sin spoiled the perfect creation; and
- God then had to redeem us to restore the perfect creation.

Of course a major problem with this is that no attempt is made to explain how man sinning could suddenly cause lions to get long teeth & claws and a short digestive tract, and start liking fresh meat instead of vegetables (not to mention a host of similar radical changes that would have needed to take place.)

The alternative you've helped me see, is something like this:

- Sin was already an unpleasant reality when God created life on this earth;
- In addition to creating life, God has also been working on our redemption; and
- The end result will be a perfect creation, similar to what God would have created had sin not existed in the first place.

Beth, great question! The implications of that question skewer the whole idea of trying to blend evolution and Christianity.

Presumably, God had been using evolution to create the world, so there was alot of death, obviously. Then, when a primate became sufficiently human-like, and not so ape-like anymore, God gave it moral accountability, and it became "Adam," the first man. Then Adam sinned, and was condemned not only to the first death but to the second death, from which Christ's death saved him and us.

But Adam's father and mother must have been almost identical to Adam, yet they were not human, and will not be saved eternally. Or will they? I mean, they didn't fall, so why should they be lost? Or maybe because they were arbitrarily classified as animals, and not given moral responsibility, the couldn't fall, but they won't be redeemed, either. But isn't that the second death? I thought only morally responsible humans could suffer the second death. I'm so confused.

"... I thought only morally responsible humans could suffer the second death. I'm so confused."

Posted by: David Read (not verified) | 06 February 2010 at 4:29

David,

I sense you're trivialising the issues, but the scenario you outlined just might be closer to reality than you realise.

An intriguing thought:

Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden to dress it and keep it(KJV). When sin entered, they were driven from the Garden of Eden. What was life like outside the Garden before man's sin? Was the Garden a protected environment from dangers outside? Wasn't Satan already on the Earth? Remember when the Israelites rebelled and poisonous serpents came among them? Could there be some answers in what Genesis doesn't tell us?

I believe in evolution and the Cross.

I also believe in the IJ. Ha!

Bet no one else on earth believes all the above!

I would explain...but...where to start....

Well, let's see - Ron O. brought up the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. That's always seemed key to me. That tells me the Christ principle is built into the very cosmos.

If you start there, everything changes, you have a lot of latitude to think in other-than-moralistic terms, which I find boring and unsatisfying.

I also don't believe God gets in jams, so I believe the Creation is proceeding as planned, i.e., there is nothing wrong with it.

I find moralistic thinking insipid, but I find thinking about the cosmos as a learning environment intriguing!

And I don't see humans thrust into this world without their express permission - no kind of theodicy works for me if God sends innocent babies into this hellhole to prove some kind of Great Controversy point. How revolting!

Also, in the vein of this being a learning environment, rather than a moral battlefield, I also believe that consciousness is fundamental in the same sense as we see the laws of physics as being fundamental, i.e., irreducible, and that our consciousness is collectively co-extensive with God's.

So I believe that we have chosen to be here to develop our consciousness co-creatively with God and each other, and that this happens in stages, first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear, i.e., the process is evolutionary, from the relatively simple to the relatively complex. (I know evolution denies teleology, but really, look around....)

The mature level of consciousness, I believe, has completely embodied the Cross at the individual level, and the implications of this are vast. Our doctrine of the IJ hints at this, and bumped up several levels is quite exciting, actually, IMO!

Hint: Christ reconciled the world to Himself and has given to us the ministry of reconciliation!

Also, I think we are suffering from a nature-of-reality problem bigtime, and at the heart of this is the nature of time, which is NOT AT ALL what we imagine.

I trust I have made myself obscure....

"Remember when the Israelites rebelled and poisonous serpents came among them?"

Posted by: Stephen T Terry (not verified) | 06 February 2010 at 5:39

Stephen, Thanks for your thoughts. The whole concept of Eden raises a number of questions, such as whether Adam and Eve were able to leave the Garden or not prior to sin? Who dressed and kept the Garden after Adam & Eve were kicked out of it? What happened to the Garden ultimately - when did the need cease for God to have an Angel guard at the gate? etc.

I didn't quite follow your connection to the serpents in the Israel camp - can you clarify?

Thanks!

Happy to oblige, Robert. I was struggling with the best way to make that connection clear when I wrote it and then hit the submit button and voila! No escape for me. I simply meant that perhaps the Garden was simply a protection for Adam and Eve from Satan and the fallen angels' presence and influence on the Earth like God protected the Israelites in the wilderness. Perhaps once they were expelled they saw firsthand the effects of Satan's influence on the Earth.

Here's another intriguing thought: What if the only thing that gave Satan access to the Garden was the rebellion already present in Eve's heart when she went to look at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

Ron said:

“Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty?” God asks Job.

I believe that contending with the Almighty is exactly what we're here to do.

Contending with the Almighty is what drives our evolutionary growth, which culminates in our participation in the redemption of the world, through our true baptism into Christ's death.

Stephen, Thanks for clarifying - I think it's useful for us to consider those possibilities.

As for the Tree of Knowledge, the Genesis 3 account doesn't indicate where the conversation between Eve and Satan took place. But the inference is that they must have been right at the Tree, as Eve then took the fruit and ate it. So Satan likely had access to the Tree of Knowledge, but not to the rest of the Garden. In any event, Eve wouldn't have even gone over to take a look if there wasn't some unhealthy curiosity (aka rebellion) in her heart.

David Read: Good points. I like your logical flow. Excellent reference to Hebrews 9 regarding Christ's suffering not being eternal.

Cliff: Great arguments, and your style is entertaining. But please, get with the program -- it's not global warming anymore, it's "climate change". Allows for more creative ways to use weather data to further an agenda.

Ron: I appreciate the intellectual depth you bring to your articles. The Dostoevsky post made my brain hurt, but at least now I have a good idea what "The Brothers Karamozov" is all about. Then I got excited when I saw you were tackling this topic -- reconciling evolution and the cross -- finally a thoughtful response. I immediately gave you an "A" for the courage to address this persistent Achilles heel in the theistic evolutionary camp. But in attempting to address this topic, you punted -- you made some novel (to me, at least) arguments referencing Job, then basically played the "it's all a big mystery" card. I expected more.

Your caricature of creationists' view of the cross as Anselm's penal substitutionary theory of atonement only camouflages the weakness of your argument. There are plenty of thoughtful people who don't view Christ's death on the cross as an appeasement of God's wrath against the sinner, yet hold to a literal reading of Genesis, and see a vivid connection between Creation and Calvary. I don't remember much about quadratic equations, but the Creation-Calvary connection seems pretty straightforward to me -- God created "and it was good" (x6) - even "very good", in Genesis 1, with no mention of death, then He warns of death from disobedience in Genesis 2, then after man's disobedience in Genesis 3, He promises a Savior, who will triumph over the serpent, Satan, which He did through His death on the cross (Rev. 12:10-11).

How does theistic evolution have any relationship, quadratic or otherwise, with the cross? I've never heard a satisfactory answer to this question. Or maybe I should ask this in a different way, on a more basic level -- Why did Jesus have to die?

Your answer to this question, Ron, is essential to your credibility to speak on the connection between Genesis and the cross.

Thanks for furthering the discussion.

David R. Smith
Loma Linda

David Smith, Thank you very much for posing substantive questions and a prescient critique that is going to force me to now develop my ideas more clearly (although you realize this means no rest for the weary). Thank you also for doing so in a tone that invites conversation rather than attempts at point-scoring. I am going to have to ask you for patience since your challenge deserves a truly considered reply. Also, I'd rather not attempt really heavy theological lifting over the Sabbath. I will post a reply note within the next few days however. Peace be to you and all your kin!

Ron,

In consideration of your response to David Smith regards others "attempts at point-scoring", along with the fact that you have never responded to my questions. I take a moment and wonder if this is how you (or others?) view my posts, if this is why you have not responded to my questions?

If so, I would truly appreciate you letting me know in all honesty, because it would mean that I am not putting my questions accross in a culturally suitable way. I am now concerned that I have been grossly naive about how I have come accross.

I admit that I was very defensive in that last post to you. Perhaps your wisdom in not engaging my defensiveness was a good thing.

I'm asking for a little clarification here.

David Smith,

Thank you for your skill in posing the questions to Ron in a suitable manner. I look forward to Ron's answers on that.

Yes there is a connection between creation and the cross.
The Covenant of Redemption was formulated prior to creation.
"The Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth." Aren't we glad that salvation isn't like health insurance otherwise Original Sin would be a prior condition and we would be excluded from coverage. Tom.

One connection of the the cross with creation - is that the man Jesus was a new and unique creation. He was humanity as God intended and it got him killed.

Thank you, Ron, for a thoughtful and thought-provoking series. A propos of its concluding part - your use of Job in this way is interesting, but it is hermeneutically unsound. I absolutely agree one must take Job (and all other Biblical references to creation) into account, but you effectively place it on the same level as the Genesis narrative. Yet a basic hermeneutical principle is, what is this about? Genesis specifically says it is about the creation of the earth, whereas in Job, God is rebuking Job for presumptuousness. The whole of Job is poetical, whereas Genesis presents itself as narrative. So yes, we have to take on board what God says about creation in Job - but you ignore everything about the context of His statements there, because it suits your reading to do so.
I don't mean to imply you did so calculatedly or dishonestly, I know that neither is true. I do want to point out that your reading of Job is lacking in the nuance and concern for context that you ask, in this series, for as a church us to apply to interpreting what the scriptures say on creation. I put it to you that, inadvertently, you may have selectively ignored your own advice.
I entirely agree that we need to think more deeply about the Bible, and bear in mind the metaphorical and poetic nature of much it. I disagree substantially about where that leaves the Bible student as regards creation! But I'm grateful to you for highlighting some overlooked issues and some different approaches.

Chris, you wrote:

"You trivialise what literalists think as a quadratic equation...Well, my response is that yours is a system of differential equations, with no known solution."

I think you have hit the heart of the issue that undergirds this discussion. Some of us want theology to be simple and certain. Others of us want to preserve a God's transcendence and mystery over our questions and purported grasp of the
"answers." One side characterizes the other as being simplistic, dogmatic, and hubristic; the other side returns the favor by charging them of obfuscation and agnosticism.

(Personally, if I were to err, I'd err on the side of the latter.)

But I think you have correctly surmised the point of this post: both what happened at creation and what happened at the cross may be more complicated than what we can understand, and both deny our simple formulas and characterizations.

Beth,

I think David Read summarized what my prof was getting at, although I do not think he would have put it quite that way. =) To be fair to him, his answer was a very quick one at the end of class.

Ron

I am among the many who respect and appreciate the contributions you made in this series. Thank you! A few comments:

1. I think it exceedingly helpful to review how thoughtful Christians before our time approached these and other issues. We can agree or disagree with them, or partially agree and disagree. But we should not ignore them. Ideas matter and so do their histories.

2. I am reluctant to yield the term "literalism" to those who insist on finding geological truth in Genesis. To me their approach is like trying to find a receipe for carrot cake in a telephone book. The first chapters of Genesis were not written to answer our scientific questions about origins. They respond to different issues in their time and ours. Reading a text in harmony with its intentions is "literal;" making it answer different questions isn't.

3. As you indicated, many have long thought of redemption as chronologically and logically subsequent to creation. This pattern of thinking is so ingrained that any other way of thinking about the issue is often greeted by bewilderment, some of it frustrated, angry and disrespectful. Yet, as you point out, there is much in Scripture that collapses the distinction, making creation itself God's ongoing redemption of the universe from "the void" and "formlessness" and "darkness." The Cross can help us to see that God does this by way of suffering love rather than dictatorial power.

4. Your point that lesser but still very important expressions of freedom pervade the whole of life is also very important. One of the scientists where I work says that we live in "an entire ecology of freedom." Exactly!

5. The problem of "natural evil" is the greatest challenge for all theodicies. Anyone who can look at what is going on in Haiti without thinking seriously about the claim that God loves each and every individual might not have understood the boldness of that claim or the vastness of the suffering. When it comes to dealing with issues like this, all theodicies have every reason to be humble.

Thanks again for your excellent series!

Dave

I am an evolution accepting person down to my bones but so far I think I have to side with the conservatives on this topic.

I think the more we try and incorporate what we know scientifically about our world and how life arose on it, the further and further you have to get from the overall narrative of scripture. Yes, one can find verses here and there that hint at something different, but I think the narrative of scripture (and I'm thinking especially of Paul here) couldn't have been more clear about why Jesus had to die.

We can say there are other possible narratives but in doing so, we would have to say that Paul was pretty much mistaken in his understanding. Which I am ok doing but then I don't claim to be someone who takes a "high" view of scripture.

And BTW, wasn't Paul pretty much viewing Genesis in light of the cross? I'm no theologian but it seems to me to suggest that literalists are viewing Genesis without the cross kind of ignores Paul's basic theology which the Christian church is based on.

I disagree strongly that one can't accept what science tells us about the creation of life and still be a Christian. But one has to do pretty major "reinterpreting" of the basic narrative of scripture to make it fit. Most don't really try to make it fit. They want to be Christians and they accept science and so they chalk it up to mystery and move on (meanwhile driving their more conservative brothers and sisters into fits.)

Posted by: David Trim | 06 February 2010 at 6:23

A basic hermeneutical principle is, what is this about?

Genesis specifically says it is about the creation of the earth, whereas in Job, God is rebuking Job for presumptuousness. ...

I entirely agree that we need to think more deeply about the Bible, and bear in mind the metaphorical and poetic nature of much of it.

Bearing in mind the metaphorical and poetic nature of the Bible...

God rebuked a perfect man for presumptuousness and rewarded a deceiver/usurper who contended with the Almighty in a much more impertinent, even physical, way, we're told.

What is this about, indeed?

Jacob, representing the less spiritually advanced on this Hero's Journey, demonstrates how readily the Divine engages with anyone who takes up that purpose single-mindedly.

I would say that the more spiritually mature Job's spiritual journey brought him to the place where he lost his shirt in his confrontation with chthonic forces, and he came out trusting them, for no logical reasons, but for very good subjective reasons, and was also rewarded. He suffered the loss of all things, but gained unity with the forever- inscrutable and Wild Divine.

Job's faith was tried and he did, "unsinged, abide the day of fire." Or, perhaps it's better to say that he did not survive the day of fire, but was, rather, alchemically transmuted.

But I hardly think one can see the Bible poetically and metaphorically, and also see the human drama moralistically in any coherent way. The two don't mix, it seems to me.

As long as one sees the Cross moralistically and judicially, its poetic power remains in potentia.

Which is fine, of course. Wherever we are is fine. Does anyone argue that a poem can be seen through only one pair of eyes?

Cliff
I enjoyed your last posting. No vitriol, no nothing, just directness, and I liked that. I wish you'd keep posting; your voice is needed. Like you, I scratched my head trying to understand Ron's point. Appreciating the fact that life can be really ambiguous does not mean that I think we should revel in it.

As for finding the Cross in Creation, I'd like to direct everybody's attention back to a column posted last year by Dr Herold Weiss in which he pointed out that the concept of "the Fall" does not exist in the Old Testament. The Hebrews of the OT are faulted for falling short of realistic covenant obligations. They are blamed for being rebellious but not for being inherently "sinful".

Judaism is a religion without a cross, either at Creation or the day of reckoning. If you want the Christian cross planted in Genesis, you'll have to put it there yourself because the text doesn't do it for you. Judaism is like the Lord's Prayer: you come before God and you throw yourself on his mercy. You don't need somebody's meritorious coattails to be accepted by God.

Dave, you mention looking for carrot cake in the phone book. I would argue that the issue is whether we, as modern readers, should feel obligated to read Genesis with the same literal mindset that the book itself fosters. I certainly agree with liberals that accepting the first 11 chapters of Genesis as a literal eye-witness account is tantamount to crucifying your modernity, but the text itself does not allow for any such concession to our scientific sensibilities. On that point Cliff is right.

Beth rightly reminds us of the narrative structure of Scripture. Interestingly enough, it offers more than one story about sin and salvation and we do well to attend to each of them on its own terms.

The book by Jon D. Levinson [Harvard] on "Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence" interests me in this regard.

For a video of Levinson on the relationships among Judaism, Christianity and Isalm, and how "Father Abraham" both divides and unites them, please visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQHE9Fuo0zQ.

Aage wants us to read the Bible as it is without feeling forced to see everything as it does. Yes!

But I really don't think that its writers were concerned with issues of origins as we debate them today but with other matters that are even more important.

For example, one of the prominent themes of the early chapters of Genesis is that all humans are essentially the same in being and value because they all orginate from the same divine source.

This is contrary to every attempt, ancient and modern, to treat some humans as though they are of divine origin and others as though their sources are demonic.

Permit me to overstate the case in order to make a point:

The devil constanly tempts us to argue about Genesis and geology, and other scientific disciplines, so as to divert our attention from what it says about ethics and politics. And far too often we yield to his temptation.

Any church that insists on reading Genesis for what it might say as a scientific text while ignoring what it does say about the equality of all human beings by, for instance, officially denying full opportunities for service and leadership to both men and women, is yielding to the devil's temptation.

Again, this language is hyperbolic. But I'm trying to jar us from conventional assumptions about Genesis that do not square with Scripture.

Before we can agree or disagree with Genesis, we need to understand what it is saying.

Thanks!

Aage, I certainly agree with your statement:

"the concept of "the Fall" does not exist in the Old Testament."*

This was a new concept developed by writers of the NT and illustrates how much the OT has been reworked to fit preconceived opinions about Adam, sin, and the redemption bought by Jesus. The NT writers grievously abused the Hebrew scriptures to fit their own concepts and in so doing introduced an entirely different perspective never even known nor intended by the Hebrew writers. This has also been the practice in interpreting Daniel's prophecies.

Maggie, the effusive praise often repeated by Job's soliloquy,
reflects a change by an unknown scribe who was scandalized by what he was copying and changed it. The RVS reflects the original sense:

"Behold he will slay me; I have no hope;
yet I will defend my ways to his face."

This is only one example of many where a scribe either intentionally or unintentionally, changed the text he was copying.
Which is why we should be less autocratic when quoting Bible texts.**

*James L. Kugel "How to Read the Bible."

**John B. Gabel, et al, "The Bible as Literature."

Elaine, I see the Bible poetically, so I'm probably the least autocratic Bible quoter you know. :)

Actually, I like your version better because Job kept on confronting God through it all. Against hope, he believed in hope, and he came out in a more spacious place, if you don't take the story literally.

Actually, you're a bit autocratic if you think the Scriptures can be "grievously abused" by poetically reworking them. =)

Maggie,

to clarify your statement about scripture being "greviously abused" surely you don't accept that the OT prophecies were all foretelling Christ rather than (mis)appropriating them to the particular circumstances at the time?

atalefman said....

"Do you find much to disapprove of the "black" race or the "white" race? Is there something genetically wrong about the Jewish "race," which you conceive of so as to make such a sweeping statement? I should state for clarification here that there is no such thing as a Jewish "race," as there are White Jews, Black Jews, Asian Jews, and yes even some Danish (which is not a race either)Jews."

Actually, I disaprove of all "races" and find it more than a little interesting that anyone who professes to be a Christian feels a real "identity crisis" about himself and his heritage.

That "the Jews" crucified Jesus is so clear and obvious, not only from secular history, but the bible itself, I could wonder why anyone would try to claim otherwise.

Jesus said, "Behold your house is left unto desolate."

Not to mention Peter (who was a Jew) who accused his country men of crucifying the Lord.

None the less, the Jews simply represent all of religious humanity at its best, and EGW has well said, "Upon all rests of guilt of crucifying Christ."

And of course, Jesus said to Pilate, "Those who have turned me over to you are more guilty than you are."

But as Christians, we need not suffer from some "identity crisis" and simply admit we all born lost and evil, and "there is none righteous, no not one." Which includes Jews and Gentiles.

It does not matter what color we are, or where we came from. No need to defend our heritage. The Jews simply did what we all would have done had we been there ourselves. That is, turn Jesus over to the Romans and then applaud His suffering and death.

At any rate, the bible is too clear to be misunderstood and makes the point repeatedly. We can either believe it, accept it and act accordingly, or disbelieve it, reject it, and try to defend our identity and our heritage.

Christians don't go on a "pity party" because of the way they have suffered at the hands of society for the many injustices of the past or present. We try to accept it as a reality in this sinful evil world.

Or, as the world would say, "Man up".

Bill Sorensen

The word "drove" found in Gen. 3:24 kjv. is congruent with divorce in the Hebrew. Thus the concept of estrangement is found in the Old Testament--which also consistent with the concept of a "fall" from Grace or favor with God. The burnth offering predates Moses even Abraham. The need for propitiation is a concept introduced shortly after the first pair were "driven" out of the garden.

Gen 3:15 is frequaently cited as the first prophecy of the Cross. The Bible is sometimes like Prego Tomato Sauce. Its in there but difficult to identify.

It is obvious that the first pair were fully aware of their trespass and its consequences as well as the promise. H.M.S. Richards poem that I posted over a year ago--is an endearing
history of man's inability to "make the old thing, right!"

It is Scripturally clear that John the Baptist understood, even in Hebrew thought that Jesus was the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world. Certainly the author of Hebrews reminded his brethren of that promise clearly in Hebrews 4 and on through Hebrews 11.

I don't think we should brag that we figured it all out. Tom

if this is true....

..."the bible is too clear to be misunderstood"... - Bill

then why is this question still so hard to answer?

Does the blood of animals in sacrifice "atone" for sin?

yes it does, according to the Old Test way of understanding:

Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, 35
And the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

Leviticus 5:10, 16, 18
And the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin ... and it shall be forgiven him.

Leviticus 6:7
And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord: and it shall be forgiven him.

Leviticus 17:11
I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Numbers 15:27-28
And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.

Numbers 29:5
And one kid of the goats for a sin offering: to make an atonement for you.

or should we believe the New Test way of understanding the question:

Hebrews 10:4
For it is NOT possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Hebrews 10:11
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering often times the same sacrifices, ...
.... which can NEVER take away sins

Bill
The NT writers were pro-Roman but even they could not cover up the fact that Jesus was executed by Rome. Crucifixion was a uniquely Roman punishment for political offenses against Pax Romana. The Jews detested the Roman presence and its hated idolatrous flags and statues. Reading the New Testament you wouldn't know that. By the end of the first century the last gospel writers, John, sounded like you. In his gospel Jesus is no longer a Jew, and he refers to his enemies as "the Jews."

And now you complain that the Jews should be able to put the centuries of pogroms and even holocaust behind them and "man up". I suppose that's what you've done with regards to the depredations of the Inquisition and other nefarious deeds committed in the name of the Catholic Church? Or does this rule only apply to Jews?

Dave
You're certainly right that Genesis was not written to answer scientific questions. It's purpose was to create a narrative that people could embrace as their own story--the Great Chain of Being approach to history. The reason why so many people feel lost today with respect to knowing who they are is that they no longer know who they were. I think that's what Genesis tries to answer.

Historians point out that Judaism had a significant religious impact upon the Roman world. People were drawn to its Genesis narrative precisely because they had none themselves that could compare. In the Roman world, if I've got this right, it was the various illustrious leaders of nations that had a divine origin. The Jews alone made everybody the children of God. Eventually, it was, as you well know, out of this group of Mediterranean 'godfearers' that Paul crafted the Christian church. Never underestimate the power of a well-crafted narrative.

Posted by: Elaine Nelson | 06 February 2010 at 11:19

Maggie,

to clarify your statement about scripture being "greviously abused" surely you don't accept that the OT prophecies were all foretelling Christ rather than (mis)appropriating them to the particular circumstances at the time?

Elaine, as I said earlier, I believe in the Cross, evolution, and the IJ, which undoubtedly sounds like mystical mush to virtually everyone. (Some things can't be avoided.)

The history of religion, as you often speak eloquently on, is the story of myth-borrowing and reworking. I see this as an ages-old evolutionary process in which we're engaging at this very minute.

And, as I said earlier, I hardly think one can see the Bible poetically and metaphorically, and, at the same time, also see the human drama moralistically in any coherent way. The two don't mix, it seems to me, so your use of "misappropriating" doesn't really compute for me.

I also see the mutual pressure science and religion exert on one another as an essential evolutionary force.

The Christ principle is always in development.

Maggie,
Poetry is an experience. The poet may have a specific picture he wants to paint with words, but once that has been laid down on his canvas, the reader responds personally based on his/her experiences. Frankly, I can't see your problem with poetry and metaphor. They are simply word pictures that are interpreted -
just another mode of expression, perhaps even more powerful than some other form.

Aage said......

"Bill
The NT writers were pro-Roman but even they could not cover up the fact that Jesus was executed by Rome."

Unbelievable! Where do you people come up with these wild ideas and conclusions?

What new testament text do you quote to support this claim?
Did you say, "pro-Roman".

Peter was crucifed by Rome.
Paul was beheaded by Rome.
James was beheaed by Rome.

Thousands, if not millions of believers were persecuted by Rome and or killed.

John was exiled by Rome.

Oh well......Good luck trying to sell that story to anyone who reads the bible for themselves.

In class today, someone said, "Those who think they know everything are very irritating to those of us who do." (No, it wasn't me, but I appreciated the sentiment.)

Bill Sorensen

"if this is true....

..."the bible is too clear to be misunderstood"... - Bill

then why is this question still so hard to answer?

Does the blood of animals in sacrifice "atone" for sin?"

Well, John, when I started reading this post, I guessed it was you, Elaine, or maybe my dear friend Maggie. (Yes, Maggie, I still consider you a friend, a somewhat deluded friend, but hey, what are "friends" for. We been around a long time.)

So, John, no "spiritual" minded OT believer did not know that all the sacrifices pointed forward to a redeemer.

To be sure, John, even if many on this forum don't think so, there is no "new" religion introduced by Jesus.

By the time Jesus came on the scene, the Jews had so perverted the Old covenant there was scarcely a semblance of its real and true meaning left.

Jesus not only fulfilled and restored "the law" but re-established the historic faith of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.

So, when Paul says, "The law is our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ" he is not stating something new. He is only affirming what all true believers knew and believed for hundreds of years.

A huge portion of the confusion in modern Christanity is the false assumption that somehow the Jews in Jesus day had a clear preception of the meaning and purpose of the OT. The fact is, they didn't have a clue. But because of this modern false idea, it is wrongly assumed that Jesus came to bring a "new" religion, with a "new" covenant, and a "new" law. NOT.

The idea of covenant renewal is more expressive of the meaning of Jesus and His work. The same covenant. Now ratified by His blood as was promised in the OT. If we think "new" means different. We miss the point.

I always pray, John, that some day you will quit bickering and fighting the bible and find the Savior you need. I still think there is some sincerity in your antagonism. Maybe you are an apostle Paul....?

Your friend,
Bill

Bill
Maybe you could give me the NT texts for the following events you cite:

Peter was crucifed by Rome.
Paul was beheaded by Rome.
James was beheaed by Rome.

I didn't think so.
Aage

DOCTOR TOM ZWEMER:

TODAY AT CHURCH WE LEARNED THAT AN IMPORTANT AREA OF PRINCE HALL, WHICH HOUSES LLU's SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY, IS NOW NAMED IN HONOR OF YOU. CONGRATULATIONS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR MANY YEARS OF DISTINGUISHED SERVICE HERE AND ELSEWHERE!

David Larson
Loma Linda, California

Zane,

We (all - me included) are very often wrong when we characterise the 'other' side! Hopefully, my mathematical caricature was useless and unhelpful. My point was to show the futility of over-simplifying the 'others' position that we use to argue against it.

You said, "Some of us want theology to be simple and certain. Others of us want to preserve a God's transcendence and mystery over our questions and purported grasp of the
"answers." One side characterizes the other as being simplistic, dogmatic, and hubristic; the other side returns the favor by charging them of obfuscation and agnosticism."

These caricatures are what I was trying to suggest are wrong. This simplistic polarising of the "others" perspectives pits them against each other. Divide and conquer! This is not listening to each-other!

All, me included, are often hubristic. That is because we have opinion.

Maggie,

I wish to understand more about what you mean by moralistic. It seems you almost go for a Moral Influence theory. But this would be moralistic?

Dear Bill,

Wow. . . .

Where in "secular history" do you find evidence that is so clear and obvious regarding the "fact" that Jews crucified Jesus? I am at great loss to find any source that would confirm such a fact, but eagerly await a citation.

As for the Bible, the evidence is far from clear and simple as you argue. The Gospel of Mark states that Jesus was handed to the Gentiles as well as the chief priests in order to be executed. The Gospel of Matthew presents a bitter diatribe directed against Pharisees (only one type of Jewish group among many varieties). The Gospel of John, as another reader in this forum mentioned, presents a generalizing statement directed against the "Jews," which is not to be found in any of the Synoptic Gospels.

We cannot extrapolate statements found in the New Testament regarding Pontius Pilate without fully appreciating the historical context in which these texts were written. In other writings such as those of Philo and Josephus, Pilate is not presented as any gracious man, concerned about the welfare of the Jews. On the contrary, he seems quite ready to oppress the Jewish people and this eventually led to his removal from Palestine.

You are welcome to preach that Jesus died on behalf of all of humanity so as to mean that all are in a sense guilty of sin. But when you insist on retaining the term "Jews" and insisting that historically this particular group was collectively responsible for the death of Jesus, then you risk committing the same crime of fratricide as many other Christians did in the past, who, like you, misunderstood the complex events surrounding Jesus death, and did not hesitate to put blame on the Jews as a specific group, which translated into the death of thousands throughout the centuries.

Simply because Christians have also been persecuted by others does not justify your collective libeling against the Jews as the perpetrators of deicide. It may be easy for you, as a comfortable westerner, perhaps living in a western country, where Christianity has historically been the majority religion, to make placid declarations about "manning it up," but if you persist in your misguided rhetoric regarding the Jews, then you become guilty of murder, since your theology potentially can create the occasion, given the right circumstances, for the persecution of many, which, according to both the Jewish and Christian tradition, is one of the most heinous crimes as all humans are created in the image of God.

Cliff presents an ideologue dilemma:

Goldstein even while challenging someone to show him an alternate view posits that his view is the only real view anyway. In other words he sets himself up in the ideologue position. He is asking for someone to explain a different view from his own that incorporates all of his already preconceived notions. Particularly his Substitutionary view of Atonement. He says: “at least the subtitionary model (the only model the Bible teaches…)” and then later says “Can anyone on this blog give me a logical, coherent, biblical way of harmonizing evolution with the cross? I'm even willing to listen to someone harmonize a Maxwellian-subjective-view of atonement with evolution, if they can.”

Setting up the impossible mission where the subjective view of atonement most be based upon the Biblical version which he has already told us is only Substitutionary. There is thus absolutely no way for anyone to present a logical coherent view that will be viewed as logical and coherent to Clifford Goldstein. The ideologue position prevents the ideologue from ever listening to anything that is not their position even if their position is impractical.

This is explained in more detail on my latest blog article:
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2010/02/idealogues-impossible-to-explain-to....

Ron

Ron
You're dodging Cliff's challenge.

Dave

Somehow my thanks didn't get posted. I am highly honored.
My eight years in developing the Orthodontic Graduate program were great years of learning and the results in 48 years of graduates serving their Church and their communities has been reward enough. But I intend to submit the books I have either written or edited. One title I like the most is a dental dictionary entitled from A to Z with Zwemer. There is no ego in my family--I have it all! I wish my health would allow me to visit one more time. A super market shopping trip is all my hips will allow.

Thanks for the acknowledgement. Tom

Sirje, I guess I didn't make myself very clear. Try reading what I said again (if you want to).

I look at the Bible poetically and mythically, so I have not a single problem with that. :)

I believe that we are engaged in poetically reworking the Bible myths as we speak, and it's a very good, evolutionary thing to be doing.

But poetically reworking myths, and rationalizing away Bible violence as if it didn't really say what it really says, are not the same thing, I think.

--
Ron
You're dodging Cliff's challenge.
Posted by: Aage Rendalen (not verified) | 06 February 2010 at 4:45
--

Actually not but you would have to read the blog article.

Ron

Posted by: Chris Plewright | 06 February 2010 at 4:31

Maggie,

I wish to understand more about what you mean by moralistic. It seems you almost go for a Moral Influence theory. But this would be moralistic?

Chris, I am very far from believing the Moral Influence theory.

The moral influence view of the atonement is a doctrine in Christian theology that explains the effect of Jesus Christ's death as an act of exemplary obedience which affects the intentions of those who come to know about it.

My imitation of a Perfect Man will amount to diddly squat, because my conscious intentions are a very small part of my psychological makeup, and I can't even conceive of what perfect obedience would look like, anyway, even with the best of intentions.

My world view is not the Great Controversy/Crime and Punishment scenario.

Rather, I believe that earth is a voluntary learning environment, where there is only good will and grace coming our way from God, never petulant wrath.

I believe God is a grownup, even if most human parents are not.

Congrats Tom. It's great to see a life of service honored.

I can't help but be confused by this article.

Ron, are you saying that from a TE standpoint, to somehow explain the cross we must conclude that sin existed before any sort of creation (be it special or evolution) occurred? I suppose this is the only rational way to explain the concept of sin, Christ's death to atone for it and save man from it within an evolutionary framework.

As necessary as this is for the theistic evolutionist to do, I can't help but feel that such speculation, while theoretically possible, continually moves us further and further from the Bible as the infallible word of God as our standard of truth, something I've believed is an inevitable progression in trying to make theistic evolution fit. The Bible's definition of sin, it's creation, it's effects, and the redemptive process to save us from it and restore us is woven within the concept of special creation.

Sin by it's very definition is 'transgression of the law'. According to the Bible, sin separates us from God and has tarnished God's image in us. God's created image in us, man's fall and sin cannot be separated from a biblical standpoint. From a TE standpoint, who exactly broke God's eternal law in the universe? What exactly is 'sin' according to an evolutionary concept? How in the world did sin come into existence? Such questions might be speculated upon, but it is quite clear that the Bible cannot be used as a guide to explain it and you would not only have to speculate outside the Bible, but you would have to turn the Bible completely on its head while doing it.

Genesis does not exist within an isolated contextual island. It cannot be separated from the scriptures as a primitive attempt to understand the cosmos, the mythical part of the Hebrew culture, that can be easily dismissed. The concept of a special creation is woven throughout the entirety of scriptures. Sin, death, redemption, restoration, all of the biblical writers from Moses and David to Paul and John, explained these concepts within a special creation framework. They believed it. If theistic evolution is true, than it is quite plain that the Bible and the writers cannot be trusted.

As Beth has pointed out, much of the Biblical narrative and most of its theology must be reinterpreted. What exactly are you left with? You can be a theistic evolutionist and believe in God, even a God that loves us. You cannot believe in TE and claim the Bible as the infallible word of God to guide us in all truth.

Congratulations, Tom. A well-deserved honor!

We all hope that you have time to write a book on some of your church experiences as I greatly enjoyed your one about your military service.

We surely must be the oldest contributors here and I hope that you can continue with your most interesting memories. What a collection!

With two hip replacements and one knee, and the other also needing replacement, I admire your ability to navigate as we begin to slow down, don't we? Thank God for the computer.

"You cannot believe in TE and claim the Bible as the infallible word of God to guide us in all truth."

Posted by: Darrell (not verified) | 07 February 2010 at 2:41

Darrell, I agree with this statement, ie., you cannot believe in TE and also make the stated claim regarding the Bible.

However I believe the stated claim to be internally inconsistent and self-evidently false. Suppose for a moment that the Bible is the infallible word of God. If so, this would make it truth, period. Not something that would guide us in all truth. As soon as you suggest that something is meant to guide us in truth, you're admitting that that something is subject to interpretation. If it's subject to interpretation it cannot be infallible, as multiple interpretations are possible.

Personally I see the Bible (OT) as being an authentic account of the Jewish nation's quest to discover truth, and of God's quest to teach them truth and bring them salvation. (The NT is similar, except that the scope can be broadened to the Christian world.)

However we must approach the Bible acknowledging the following limitations and constraints:

- It was not intended to be, nor is it a thoroughly reliable factual account of history (books such as Job, Jonah & Ruth are quite likely fictional);

- While we cannot know the actual blend of investigation vs revelation that went into the writing of specific Bible books, it is naive to assume that all of the Bible authors had complete knowledge of that about which they wrote;

- Parts of the Bible were undoubtedly influenced by ancient oral traditions, which are of very questionable historic reliability;

- As one studies the Bible from beginning to end, it's very clear that God's truth is progressively revealed. However the most recent Bible books were penned approx 1800 years ago. Are we to assume God has revealed nothing to man during this subsequent period? And if not, the Bible can't be called "complete" in any real sense.

While I personally remain unconvinced regarding the TE model, I am convinced that the creations accounts of Genesis 1 & 2 are not factual histories and should not be read as literal.

Hi Everyone:

David Smith has requested that I develop my ideas on the cross in creation in greater depth for the benefit of those who are serious dialogue partners. As I have thought about his request I have realized an additional article is really needed. This week I wrote seven articles in seven days. To do full justice to the seriousness of the request I would therefore like to ask for everyone’s patience as I spend the next seven days writing one article exploring in greater depth “the shadow side” of creation. There are a few things I would like to say now, though, about the comments posted over the past 24 hours.

First, I need to clarify to David Smith, Clifford Goldstein, and several others that my project has never been to defend “evolution”—theistic or otherwise. I am open to exploring evolutionary possibilities, but my statements were offered as highly tentative possibilities that should be considered and explored. If I have failed to make the conclusive case for theistic evolution that Mr. Smith has been waiting for, this does not trouble me in the least because making a conclusive case for evolution was never my goal to begin with.

My goal has been to make the case 1) that Adventists need to think more carefully, deeply, and openly about questions of origins, 2) that it is the responsibility of persons concerned with faith and science to also engage with the ideas of important theologians through history who speak to the issues, and 3) that holding to a strict literalism on the days of Genesis 1 is not the only way to be a spiritually and intellectually serious believer who thinks the cross of Christ is the critical question all our ideas must be tested against. My burden is not for an evolutionary perspective or a literalistic one, in other words, but for an Adventist community where people can talk and think without fear or censure about difficult questions in an ongoing search for present truth.

In fact, as hard as it might be for some to fathom, I consider myself to be a creationists and also a literalist on Genesis. I am not trying to be sophist or to play semantic games when I say this. The trouble is, I literally do not know what Genesis literally means. That is a confession of ignorance, not a dogmatic position. The thinker who resonates the most strongly with me is Barth, who basically says we need to read the Bible literally but without making our readings into a literalism. Thanks to a comment by David Larson, though, I will from this point forward be more bold in claiming the word as my own. I am a literalist! If some readers take strong exception to my saying this, for the sake of the discussion they can assume that my reading of Genesis is one that fully embraces the language of the Adventist fundamental belief on creation. The creation account in Genesis is an authoritative record of God’s creative activity.

Since we all agree that Genesis is God’s authoritative account of the creation, that is where I will begin next week. This will be my final note until then. Thank you again to my honest and civil dialogue partners. You have helped me to think better, not always by your agreement. I am tempted to say to all others may you cover yourselves with your own confusion (Psalm 109:29), but instead I will say pax vobiscum! :)

P.S. to Tom Zwemmer and David Read: I've just learned you both may be in the SoCal and/or Loma Linda area. I'm not sure how else to reach you except through this site, but it would be fun to grab lunch and talk creation or just life in a more amiable way than this forum allows. Let me know if you are free: rosborn@usc.edu

Congratulations, Tom!

Congratulations Tom Z!! It has been my pleasure to read your posts and learn some interesting history lessons from your experiences! May God continue to bless you!!
Fred

Thanks Maggie.

Ron

Thank you for the exciting invitation. At 85 with two hip replacements and advancing deterioration of my left knee, it is doubtful that I can travel any distance. I would love the opportunity to visit.

Thanks Zane and Fred. It is a great honor but I have rejoiced over the success of my students and the many contributions of LLU School of Dentistry. I am glad I had a part. What I learned and accomplished at LLU brought me onto the nation scene. I served as a site visitor on Accreditation for the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and as a site vistor for the American Dental Association, the Association of Dental Examiners, and the Ameerican Association of Dental Schools. In those capacities, I site visited 33 universities and colleges and well as being a member of the Crisis Management team for the American Dental Association and the American Association of Dental Schools.

The best definition of a university I ever heard was from the President of Sony Buffalo. At our exit visit, he welcome the site visit team into his conference room by saying: "I will tell you everything you want to know about my university except: How many faculty we have, How many Students we have, How much money we have, or what we teach. Those things change every day!"

I matured my understanding of Christianity under Graham Maxwell and Paul Heubach. I matured my understanding of learning from Graham sister M. Maxwell. From her, I developed my definition of teaching. "Learning is the happening in the encounter between a new idea and a receptive mind. Teaching is the art of seeing that those encounters occur on more than a random basis."

Thank you LLU. Tom

Ron,

In light of your clarification, I understand now that I did mis-read you.

I look forward to your next article.

SDA theology has a problem keeping Christ (specifically the cross) as the central theme of the Bible. The Christian must start with the cross and work everything else into this central message; but we have problem even identifying that message. The Berriens were applauded for doing just that, reading Christ into the scriptures they had. We, on the other hand, claim that that is what we're doing but in reality we are locked into a linear time frame; and since Hebrew theology predates Christ, we make the cross a necessity because the Hebrew experience failed to reach its intended purpose. Christ becomes a contingency plan - and we read Genesis in the same way, of course.

Did God's purpose change at some point? Did He set up the Hebrew system and then become frustrated, give up, and try another tact?

We seem to approach the Bible in sections, each being of equal value and authority. When we read "You are saved by faith" do we imagine that we are told to "believe" - Christ is the Son of God; that the Red Sea parted to let the Hebrew slaves cross; that the sun stood still (by extension implying the sun circles the earth); that the donkey spoke; that the earth was created in six days.... An yet, assign by authority of special revelation, all kinds of symbolic significance to the book of Revelation and fling it back to the book of Daniel for an explanation of its very symbolic imagery. We take obscure references to time (457BC) and elevate them to extreme heights in order to work out the math.

I submit that the central point of SDA theology is "obedience", even when it comes to Christ. It starts in Genesis and culminates, not with Christ at the cross, but in Revelation with the words, "these are they...", the focus always maintained on human obedience to God's will. In this case, the time frame must be linear, and Christ, having been slain "from the foundations...", speaks only to God's knowing "the end from the beginning" - in a line beginning at the fruit tree in the garden and ending with Christ "leaving the sanctuary" on His trip back to earth which also takes linear time.

...so when questioned as to the possibility of counting DAYS before even the sun was created in Genesis, one literalist replied, "there must have been another source for light back then"! The box we have placed ourselves in, just won't give an inch; and so we have various personalities trying to make sense out of it all, while arguing with each other for meaning.

As part of the Christian community we must rework our relationship to the Scriptures so as to place the emphasis where it belongs, on "Christ and Him crucified"; and understand that God did not give His Son, literally sitting beside Him in a throne room, the mandate to go "down" to earth and "fix that problem".

Ron Osborn writes: "Over the course of the week, several readers have asked the question: Why not write about Ellen White? These same readers may have hoped that White would be the climax of the series."

Maybe he didn't because there wasn't anything in her writings to support his views.

and while y'all are in SoCal, risking the Big One thanks to St Andrews fault,which EGW somehow missed*,
http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=84731

why not attend some of these lectures at CalTech and review for those of us too geographically challenged to attend except by computer, and inform us just where these otherwise apparently intelligent folks go wrong.
http://www.skeptic.com/upcoming-lectures

(* building a "sanitorium" over a major fault, in one of the earths most geologically active areas and some of the smoggiest air on the continent....to help people with their breathing?????)

btw: mega congrats, Tom, for helping serve a valid raison d'etre for the Hill Beautiful. My current dds is a LLU grad, son of missionaries whose parents were missionaries,
a perfectionist, a great guy, family man, spiritual and ...notably, an xsda..... over the very questions considered here.

possible moral of the story? if you want your kids to stay in the church, if you can't get the church to change some of its untenable views, keep your kids in the dark about how the earth was made. Do NOT send them to LSU, or LLU, or even let them attend college anywhere that people speak Science or English. and for the churches sake, keep them away from the history channel tonight during the super bowl, where they can find out about...
Sex in The Bible:

..."From erotic poetry to sinful sex, we'll explore the uncensored Bible. Discover scriptures brimming with lustful tales like King Solomon's 700 concubines, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Jesus and the adulteress. Dr. Ruth Westheimer and other experts discuss a Bible where passion and sexual deviancy live alongside the quest for the Holy. (90-minute version)"...

and:

Decoding The Past: Mysteries of the Garden of Eden

..."The biblical Garden of Eden was taken away from man because of his sins. The Bible says Eden was located east of Israel where four rivers meet--The Tigris and Euphrates and the Pison and Gihon. The later two have long been considered mythical; however recent satellite photography suggests these rivers did exist in Iraq. Another theory places Eden's location beneath the Black Sea. Do texts other than the Bible reinforce the idea of Eden? Both the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh and Ancient Greek texts speak of a paradise lost. Sift through the evidence to decode an age-old mystery about how paradise was lost, and where it might be found"...

and where next tuesday evening unsuspecting naive kids might be dangerously exposed to geological heresy like:

How The Earth Was Made: Grand Canyon

..."The Grand Canyon is nearly 300 miles long and over a mile deep. You could stack four Empire State buildings one on top of the other and they still wouldn't reach the lip of the Canyon. As vast tectonic plates clash and grind against one another a giant plateau has been pushed up over a mile in the air. The Colorado river, flowing from high in the Rockies and carrying a thick load of sediment, has carved an amazing canyon in the rising plateau.
TVPG"...

or worse, find out that 250 million years ago, life on earth was almost totally destroyed....

..."How The Earth Was Made: Earth's Deadliest Eruption

In the remote wastes of Siberia buried under snow are the remains of one of the greatest catastrophes that the Earth has endured. 250 million years ago, huge volumes of lava spewed out onto the surface--so much that it would have buried the whole of Texas under one mile of lava. At first the temperature dipped but then the greenhouse gases that escaped from the depressurized lava caused a massive global warming. It wreaked havoc and 95% of the species on Earth became extinct. Yet life hung on and in time this disaster paved the way for the next great phase of life on earth--the age of the dinosaurs."...

Thanks for the response Ron. After going back and re-reading your article, I must confess a bit of presumption on my part in seeing your argument as a defense of theistic evolution -- it isn't explicitly so. But I still don't see why the Creation-Calvary connection should be difficult to make, even though it must be drawn out with the help of NT writers (who I believe were operating under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit). I should have mentioned Romans 5:12-19 in my post.

As for your three-part goal: ("My goal has been to make the case 1) that Adventists need to think more carefully, deeply, and openly about questions of origins, 2) that it is the responsibility of persons concerned with faith and science to also engage with the ideas of important theologians through history who speak to the issues, and 3) that holding to a strict literalism on the days of Genesis 1 is not the only way to be a spiritually and intellectually serious believer who thinks the cross of Christ is the critical question all our ideas must be tested against."), I can agree wholeheartedly on #1, moderately on #2 (partly due to time constraints -- theologians write a lot, and those of us with day jobs may not be able to digest Calvin's Institutes on our lunch break), and as for #3, I'm looking forward to your next article to explain what the other way(s) is(are)!

Thanks for the time you've put into these articles. I realize it's a lot more work you to author them than for us to fire off critiques (and being adverse to extended research projects, I rather enjoy the latter role).

May God's peace be with you.

David R. Smith

Ron,

>>But how would our understanding of Genesis change if we took seriously and literally the statement in Revelation that Jesus is “the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world”? … The cross is not the final proof in a mathematical theorem. Nor is it simply God’s contingency plan. It is the complete revelation of who God is as both Creator and Redeemer.<<

“IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” Jn.1:1-3.

“knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. 20 For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you 21 who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. 1 Pet.1:18-21.

There you have it Ron, Our "foreknown" Creator and Redeemer and we who are believers are saved by “His precious blood.”

Both roles are not some difficult equation but simple and not difficult to understand. Simple enough for a child that can read scripture to understand. Not all that "heady stuff."

>> If the creation suffers—and if this suffering began before Adam joined the rebellion already underway when he was formed—there is one thing we can know with absolute certainty. Christ suffers with it.<<

Ron why should we entertain the “if before” that is "not written" if we don’t believe the serpent and “the fall” were real that “were written” about in the Genesis 1-3 Story?
If the real “male and female He created” did not fall and thus make needful a Savior as substitute we simply need to evolve more…not that old “literalist” blood lamb stuff...not any of that "non-historical" stuff.

Augustine, Luther, and Calvin did hold to the “fall /original sin”, and the “blood lamb stuff” as remedy for mankind while all creation awaits the “adoption” regardless of the “time of day/days.”

Regards,
pat

PS. I suggest that an Old earth and Universe with a “young creation” and “fall” don’t violate scripture.Gen.1:1,2.

The hermeneutics of our first parents fall in the Genesis story and what that entails in all of scripture as to the redeemer/savior response remains the problem of those supporting “theistic evolution.” The cross of Christ suffers violence at their hands.

Christians make much of "The Fall," but where in the story in Genesis is it ever referred to as "The Fall"? Nor is there any mention of a sinless existence in Eden, nor is the serpent identified in the story as the devil (he is just a talking snake).

It was Christians who began re-interpreting many stories from the OT and were typified in the theology they began developing. The idea of the Trinity (never actually presented as God's very nature in the NT,but adopted as Christian doctrine later on) was more than three centuries in its development. Thus Jerusalem referred to the church and Christ became the "Lamb of God" typified from the Jewish sacrificial system.

Originally, Christians came with baggage from their Judaic religion and brought those concepts which were later re-interpreted in a newly discovery process to foretell Christ. They forgot that prophets often contradicted one another and were not endowed with more prefect minds but with a more vivid power of imagination (something that apparently the NT writers gifted).

Can it be explained for a child to understand, how we are "saved by the blood"?

Elaine

Maybe one would begin with Humpty Dumpty: Then the potters clay. The question is: Is guilt intrinsic or extrinsic? Or both? I don't know of any cluture in which the need for exoneration or vindication is not a driving force in life.

We men always point to the woman and she to the snake! Tom

Tom,

I believe there is intrinsic guilt: watching a toddler knowingly
swiping a playmate's toy, or even hitting another child, one can sense their understanding of doing something wrong.

The extrinsic guilt is what is taught. Just as prejudice must be carefully taught, so the "religious guilt" we older SDAs were taught: attending movies, reading fiction, even wearing jewelry, was guilt foisted on young minds.

Separating the two forms of guilt is not always so easy. Especially it is inherent in the Christian doctrine of our inheriting Adam's guilt from the moment of conception. This is truly a diaboloical belief like an albatross around our neck for a lifetime. There is no way I feel guilt whatsoever for the death of Jesus, anymore than I should be guilty for any previous act of others. Only those in which I have freely chosen are mine to confess.

Elaine

Thanks I understand your position although I don't entirely agree. But if two minds agree on everything only one mind is thinking. Thanks for a very independent thoughtful blog. Tom

Tom,

We can appreciate others' thoughts because we recognize that they all are dependent on our life's experiences. That is where we develop our opinions; that, and our reading and being open to learn something new every day. If we never change our minds they are inextricably closed.

Elaine,

>> If we never change our minds they are inextricably closed.<<

Well we will just leave it open that someday you may see the correctness of "original sin" and change. :~)

regards,
pat

Pat,

I have often changed my mind with new information. What is your response when confronted with a different premise?

Are there more than two choices: reject or consider?

Watching and listening to our leaders in Washington, it is very noticeable how some have radically changed their minds on gays in the military over time: Admiral Mullen, Robert Gates, Colin Powell, and John Mccain, who was for it before he was against it.

This indicates that on very strong and opinionated positions, "enlightenment" does happen when confronted with one's own children or close friends.

Is it also possible that on strongly held doctrinal positions that there is more than one possible answer?

Elaine,

Would that be 1/2 original sin? :~)

Actually, we still retain a reflection of our creator. Our propensity, it seems to me, is to live in autonomy from God. It isn't just "actual sins" but our "attitude" that I deem as also fallen. Being born again begins a change in attitude but "the flesh" remains while we are in "this tent."

"They saw that they were naked."

"For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven; 3 inasmuch as we, having put it on, shall not be found naked. 4 For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed, but to be clothed, in order that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life." 2 Cor.5:2-4.

Thanks for the conversation Elaine.

regards,
pat

Pat,

We both evidently enjoy conversation, else we would not so frequently comment ;-)

"Original Sin" is such an old term, yet how seldom is it explained, or perhaps how many the variations?

In developing Christianity, there were many accretions over the centuries. Augustine has been credited with the idea of "Original Sin," however Paul, the acclaimed apostle to the Gentiles, did not believe that Jesus had been incarnate, nor did he ever attempt a precise or definitive explanation of salvation that he had experienced. Some have expressed that Augustine's sadness over the fall of Rome influenced his doctrine of Original Sin which would later become a central view of man's condition. He believed that God had condemned humanity to an eternal damnation simply because of Adam's one sin and the inherited guilt was passed on to all his descendants through the sexual act.

Some of his statements reflect his harsh and terrible picture of a condemning God. Evidently, neither the Jews nor Greek Orthodox Christians viewed the fall of Adam this way.

From this perspective: that sex was the origin of all man's sins, it resulted in women being cast as the entire cause of sin and the picture of women in that role is still consistent with most of the Christian churches today.

Theologians from the earliest centuries adopted and passed down to all Christians many perspectives that cannot be accepted without fully realizing that their views were limited to the society in which they lived and should not forever be an unwanted heritage for us today.

Elaine,

I think neither of us is likely to say anything that might change or inform the other's view at this time. Shall we just agree to disagree on this and your above statements?

Take care,
pat

"And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." I've always worked under the assumption that "void" meant lifeless. But even if it doesn't it's hard to extrapolate life in a place of darkness and without form.

And doesn't Romans 5:12 say, "As by one man sin entered the world, and DEATH THROUGH SIN"? If a day isn't 24 hours and you have long ages for a day (theistic evolution), what does that do to the plan of salvation?

The plan of salvation (from the Bible) teaches that first we were perfect, then we fell, then Jesus came to save us from a fallen condition. According to the Genesis account of creation, we have no hope without the redeeming effects of the cross. It's called redemption for a reason: we are being redeemed from a fallen condition.

The other plan, that you allow here, is quite the opposite. You have things living and dying before the sin of "one man" (Adam). Death before sin is not a biblical concept. Furthermore, you don't have redemption (the idea that we're redeemed from a fallen condition by "one Man," Jesus), you have exactly the opposite. If you're using long ages for a day to explain the fossil record, you have Jesus coming down to save mankind from the highest condition he'd ever obtained as he made his way up the evolutionary ladder. There's no redemption in that.

Say what you want, but there is no form of evolution (not even theistic evolution) that coincides with what the Bible teaches. The best explaination I could ever give on why this must be true can be found in a sermon. It's called, "Amazing Grace in Time and Space" and it can be found at this link: http://lewisburgchurch.org/podcastlist.php. You'll find it near the bottom of the list.

God bless,

Pastor Stewart Pepper

Pastor Pepper, if I go through that sermon and point out a lot of the many mistakes you make in it, will you stop touting it as proving anything?

I just want to know whether to spend my time doing it, or whether your mind is made up about its quality...

/Bevin

Everyone admits that science and evolutionary theory present a problem for Christian theology. But why stop there? A problem is simply an invitation to creative thinking.

Hundreds of books, including many fine theological works, have been written in the last 150 years or so offering ways in which the Christian message might be co-ordinated with the findings of modern science. Note: co-ordinated, not compromised.

Why not read read at least five or ten of these before deciding that it can't be done?

Here are some authors whom I have found helpful:

Richard M. Ritland
Langdon Gilkey
Roland Murphy
Arthur Peacocke
Roland Murphy
Jurgen Moltmann
John Polkinghorne
Davis Young
Nancey Murphy
Isaac Asimov
Annie Dillard
Virginia Stem Owens

and many others

For a developmental perspective, read my chapter "Faith Development in a Scientific Culture" in James L. Hayward, ed., Creation Reconsidered: Scientific, Biblical and Theological Perspectives (2000).

It is so easy and convenient (read: lazy) to simply decide either/or on topic as this. Intellectual problems require research, new ideas, conversation, time, and a continuing open mind to truth wherever it might show up. I admit not everyone has the heart or time for this. In that case, step aside and support those who have. Hold up their hands; don't tear down their spirit or make personal attacks. Agree where you can and offer constructive criticism where you can't.

Good for you, Ron! I applaud your efforts.

"Some of us want theology to be simple and certain. Others of us want to preserve a God's transcendence and mystery over our questions and purported grasp of the
"answers." One side characterizes the other as being simplistic, dogmatic, and hubristic; the other side returns the favor by charging them of obfuscation and agnosticism."
___________________________________________________________
The thoughts expressed in the quotation above intrigue me. Balanced theology recognizes that God is both transcendent and imminent. Surely the awesome Being Who designed the universe is beyond us mere mortals. And this transcendence creates unfathomable mystery. However, the great God has also chosen to make Himself immanent by revealing Himself to human beings.

So we must be willing to recognize that in many ways, God is mysterious because He is transcendent. But if His revelation to humanity means anything, we must also be willing to recognize that God has made some things clear and simple - so simple, in fact, that a child can understand them.

In conclusion - I think we are coming dangerously close to blasphemy if we think we have God in a box and all figured out. But I also think we are coming dangerously close to agnosticism if we try to make obscure what God has made plain.

Greame above admonished us
..."Why not read read at least five or ten of these before deciding ..."

so far I've googled two:

heres a quote from John Polkinghorne from
http://www.wcg.org/lit/booklets/science/religion.htm

..." The fact that we now know that the universe did not spring into being ready made a few thousand years ago but that it has evolved over a period of fifteen billion years from its fiery origin in the Big Bang, does not abolish Christian talk of the world as God's creation, but it certainly modifies certain aspects of that discourse"...

apparently Polkinghorne is not a YEC!!!!

next I checked with the worlds former most recent and smartest and prolific writer....and found this interview:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/asimov.htm

Kurtz: Do you take the Bible primarily as a human document or do you think it was divinely inspired?

Asimov: The Bible is a human document. Much of it is great poetry, and much of it consists of the earliest reasonable history that survives. Samuel I and 2 antedate Herodotus by several centuries. A great deal of the Bible may contain successful ethical teachings, but the rest is at best allegory and at worst myth and legend. Frankly, I don't think that anything is divinely inspired. I think everything that human beings possess of intelligent origin is humanly inspired, with no exceptions.

Kurtz: Earlier you said that the Bible contained fallible writings. What would some of these be?

Asimov: In my opinion, the biblical account of the creation of the universe and of the earth and humanity is wrong in almost every respect. I believe that those cases where it can be argued that the Bible is not wrong are, if not trivial, then coincidental. And I think that the account of a worldwide flood, as opposed, say, to a flood limited to the Tigris-Euphrates region, is certainly wrong.

Kurtz: The creationists think there is evidence for the Noachian flood.

Asimov: The creationists think there is evidence for every word in the Bible. I think all of the accounts of human beings living before the flood, such as Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel, are at best very dim memories of ancient Sumerian rulers; and even the stories about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob I rather think are vague legends.

Kurtz: Based on oral tradition?

Asimov: Yes, and with all the distortions that oral traditions sometimes undergo.

Kurtz: In your book In the Beginning, you say that creation is a myth. Why do you think it is scientifically false? What are some of the main points?

Asimov: Well, all of the scientific evidence we have seems to indicate that the universe is billions of years old. But there is no indication whatsoever of that in the Bible if it is interpreted literally rather than allegorically. Creationists insist on interpreting it literary. According to the information we have, the earth is billions of years younger than the universe.

Kurtz: It is four and a half billion years old.

Asimov: The earth is, and the universe is possibly fifteen billion years old. The universe may have existed ten billion years before the earth, but according to the biblical description of creation the earth, the sun, the moon, and the stars were all created at the same time. As a matter of fact, according to the Bible, the earth itself existed from the beginning, whereas the stars, sun, and moon were created on the fourth day.

Kurtz: Yes, so they have it backward.

Asimov: They have that backward, and they have plant life being created before the sun. All the evidence we have indicates that this is not so. The Bible says that every plant, and every animal, was created after its own kind, which would indicate that species have been as they are now from the very beginning and have never changed. Despite what the creationists say, the fossil record, as well as very subtle biochemical evidence, geological evidence, and all sorts of other evidence, indicates that species have changed, that there has been a long evolutionary process that has lasted over three billion years.

Kurtz: It's not simply biology that they are questioning, but geology, astronomy, and the whole basis of the physical sciences.

Asimov: If we insist on the Bible's being literary true, then we must abandon the scientific method totally and completely. There's no way that we can at the same time try to discover the truth by means of observation and reason and also accept the Bible as true.

end quote...because of the 5000 limit.

but there's so much more at the above link to suggest that Azimov should not be used as a friend of YEC!!!!

Ron, I want to thank you for a series that stimulated my thinking and opened new avenues for contemplation. I wish that I had avoided reading the commentaries that followed - sigh! If only we could all remember what we learned in school: "Politeness is to do and say the kindest thing in the kindest way." It really disturbs me that so many are unable to discuss different viewpoints without being offensive and defensive.

Ron:

Thank you for challenging us in this fine seven part series of looking at other Christian writers struggling with Life, God and the creation story. We often exegete the verse, "Behold the Lamb of God that was slain from the creation of world" as just a focus on God’s eternal plan to save humanity on Calvary. However, I believe John the Revelator is speaking of a much deeper reality of God’s relationship to the cosmos and creation; this relationship would be relevant whether the cosmos was created 6000 years ago as claimed by 7 day creationists or 7 billion years by those believing in theistic evolution.

God in self-sacrificing love is continually dying, in a metaphorical and literal sense, to some part of His being so our cosmos, you and me moment by moment can exist. Certainly, Calvary is a unique point in time where God dies for the salvation of mankind. However, Calvary is symbolic of God’s continual dying to some part of His energy so the cosmos can exist. Put differently, the energy composing the cosmos is personal to God in the sense that this energy is literally a part of God; this energy is impersonal to God in that God has chosen not to have personal use of it so the cosmos can be self-different from God yet sustained by God. This is necessary for love can only exist between two self-different free will beings. In this case between the Creator and the creature.

When God died on Calvary He came to save that which was intimately and personally His own – the cosmos. “For God so loved “the cosmos” that he gave his only begotten son.” God literally suffers in Adam and Eve’s fall and death because some part of His being or energy is sustaining our fallen cosmos and the humans within it.

Also, thank you for your excellent analysis of those who have to hang onto Biblical literalism without allowing broader interpretations. One of your best paragraphs:

“Dostoevsky’s opinion of a certain kind of biblical literalism and religious piety is evident in The Brothers Karamazov in his depiction of Father Ferapont—a half-crazed ascetic monk absorbed with perfectionism and doctrinal purity, who prides himself on his simple diet, who harshly condemns the other monks in his monastery of apostasy, and who concretizes the mysteries of faith in a naively materialistic fashion (most notably by claiming to see devils in physical form)….Ferapont’s faith cannot stand without a reduction of all spiritual matters to certainties and physical evidences (what we might call "creation science"). It is therefore in reality not faith at all. And perhaps the clearest evidence of the untruth of his hermeneutics is that his harsh and prideful claims to "truth" make him simply insufferable to be with!”

In the Brother’s Karamazov Christ ends His discussion with the Grand Inquisitor not in anger or appealing to keeping a creed or list of fundamental beliefs or the law or demanding a belief in a literal seven-day creation week but by a kiss; a kiss representing God's love that is given and received in freedom and liberty of conscience. Ron, keep up the good work.

"When the Inquisitor ceased speaking he waited some time for his Prisoner to answer him. His silence weighed down upon him. He saw that the Prisoner had listened intently all the time, looking gently in his face and evidently not wishing to reply. The old man longed for him to say something, however bitter and terrible. But He suddenly approached the old man in silence and softly kissed him on his bloodless aged lips. That was all his answer. The old man shuddered. His lips moved. He went to the door, opened it, and said to Him: 'Go, and come no more... come not at all, never, never!' And he let Him out into the dark alleys of the town. The Prisoner went away."

Ron R.,

>>God in self-sacrificing love is continually dying, in a metaphorical and literal sense, to some part of His being so our cosmos, you and me moment by moment can exist.<<

I suggest your appraisal is lacking. Christ died once for all and not continually for "the cosmos."

"nor was it that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him." Heb.9:25-27.

Also, God is not depleted or made whole in a scriptural sense by His creation. He is Lord over his creation for His pleasure. Neither are all things in God (panentheism) but He is over all things.

regards,
pat

Hi Pat:

I never said God was depleted in creating the cosmos and I agree God died once and for all for the cosmos on Calvary. However, God is continually giving of His energy so the Cosmos can exist; to think otherwise is to say the cosmos stands as a God apart from God. Nature is then deified as God, instead of the cosmos being God's creation.

The Old Testament writers understand this: "Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see him?" declares the LORD. "Do not I fill heaven and earth?" declares the LORD." (Jeremiah 23:24) "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!" (I Kings 8:27) "The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good." (Proverbs 15:3) "Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? (Psalms 139:7)

The Hebrews believed in “One God” a God that was in everything, (not that everything or the material world was God--that would be pantheism), but God desires the fullness of His divine life to be interwoven into the life of a believer by faith and grace. Children of Abraham should be exploring ways to let God’s eternal self-sacrificing presence, already present and available in the cosmos, simply be known and enjoyed.

In Genesis 1:3-5, the phrase “first day” comes from the Hebrew word echad meaning unified or one in unity and not merely “one day” at a time as defined by the Hebrew word reshon, seen in the sequential numbers one, two, three, and four. Moses uses Echad or one in unity to stress the unifying presence of God who permeates the whole created order. Echad is also repeated in Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one (Echad).

A. W. Tozer writes in The Knowledge of the Holy: “Few other truths are taught in the Scriptures with as great clarity as the doctrine of divine omnipresence. Those passages supporting this truth are so plain that it would take considerable effort to misunderstand them. They declare that God is immanent in His creation, that there is no place in heaven or earth or hell where men may hide from His presence.”

Ron,

Heb.ehad is the Masc. absolute Cadinal number for #1 as used in Gen.1:5. It can also be used as an adjective of quality as in Deut.6:4.

I suggest you are placing too much nuance on the simple naming numeral of the 1st.day.

>>Children of Abraham should be exploring ways to let God’s eternal self-sacrificing presence, already present and available in the cosmos, simply be known and enjoyed.<<

God's material universe which He does create and sustain is not some energy field/presence we metaphysically absorb. His presence does dwell in us by His Spirit (HS) as believers and that is made manifest by coming to belief and the growing resultant obedience in cooperation with His Spirit.

While God is "self-sacrificing" it hardly describes to me that which He in fullness is “without limits” in His own being in creating and sustaining the Universe. God is both transcendent and shows Immanence in activity in His creation without the pantheistic or panentheistic overtones.

Regards,
pat

Pat:

I would ask you where does the energy in the cosmos come from? If it does not come from God, then it must stand independent of God, therefore a force or a God in an of itself. The Egyptians believed - incorrectly - the sun-God Amun-Re was just that force. Moses countered that God was the omnipresent source of the cosmos. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." God is the source of everything, the alpha and omega, nothing stands independant from his omniprescence.

I agree that God's essence is not nature, and the essence of God stands outside of nature, but some part of His energy, a part He deems not necessary for his essence or existance is given in in self-sacrificial love for the cosmos and matter and life to exist. By God's grace I can also have the Holy Spirit enter into my life and body that is created and continually sustained by God.

Ron,

We're getting closer. :~) I still have a problem with "self-sacrificial" but perhaps it is in the realm of terminology. I just don't see Him as "enduring a loss" as might be connoted by "sacrifice" in His creative and sustaining power. I see it simply as His Joy and Pleasure that is also to His creations benefit and it could be done by no other.

Can you live with that?

regards,
pat

Pat:

Matter is compacted energy, incredible amounts of it. If that energy comes from some part of God's energy, the creation process; although, one of joy may also be one of suffering, like a mother giving birth to a child; although, God is doing that moment by moment through out the cosmos. The loss comes in God suspending His immediate use of that energy so the universe can exist and ultimately love can exist between a created human and God. Thus the cosmos is continually being created in self-sacrificing love.

NOTE TO ALL: In response to requests for me to develop the ideas in this article in greater depth I have begun posting a three part series on "Genesis and Cosmic Conflict" on the blog "Constructing Adventist Theology":

http://constructingadventisttheology.wordpress.com