Does Old-Earth Creationism Undermine the Gospel? A Response to Kevin Bauder

http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/matt-recker-and-t…

but when I click the initial link it flashes a title and then the web page goes blank! Anyone else getting this?

Mark, I hope you can find a way to read it. It is a good piece of writing and makes valid points. I will be interested in your thoughts.

It’s almost as if the author thinks no YEC has considered or addressed the arguments he presents.

Also, he makes a point that day is used in Gen. 2:4 to refer to a time period rather than to a 24-hour day, and it’s the same word, yom, as used in ch. 1. Well, I guess that settles it, because a word can’t possibly be used in different ways in the same writing!

“Back in the day, I was quite an athlete, as I completed 3 triathlons in 3 days.”

The author misses a number of points. The biggest misunderstanding that a lot of old earth people have is around the heliocentric story. It is almost as bad as people thought the earth was flat during Christopher Columbus’ day. I would encourage you all to study the issue in much more depth. This banning of Copernicus’ view was significantly based more on political type pressures, than on anything in Scripture. The Scripture was used as an excuse to justify the ban. Most people miss this. Most people don’t even realize that Catholic Universities even taught heliocentrism during this period.

[Greg Long]

It’s almost as if the author thinks no YEC has considered or addressed the arguments he presents.

Also, he makes a point that day is used in Gen. 2:4 to refer to a time period rather than to a 24-hour day, and it’s the same word, yom, as used in ch. 1. Well, I guess that settles it, because a word can’t possibly be used in different ways in the same writing!

“Back in the day, I was quite an athlete, as I completed 3 triathlons in 3 days.”

The author of the old earth article is correct in describing what Kevin writes as “dismissive.” Otherwise how do you explain the statements the author points out: “That Keller is in error at this point is not open to serious question,” “The question is not whether Keller has erred. His interpretation does not arise from the text,” “The question is not whether Keller has erred. The question is how serious his error is.”

In Kevin’s opinion “No one ever came to any belief except special creation and a young earth by simply reading the text.” No one? Really? I have no way to know how Kevin knows that to be true. Perhaps the conservative scholars who read the text other than young earth are not to be trusted. I concede that reading the text screams “special creation.” However that cannot be said for “young earth.” When I simply read the text I sense no authorial concern for the age of the earth. That does not prove the earth is not young. But I don’t see young earth simply by reading the text without making many other connections and assumptions, warranted and otherwise.

Finally, I don’t see what is gained by arguments against “exalted prose narrative.” None other than C. John Collins speaks of “elevated prose, almost liturgical” and Keller in his BioLogos article on “Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople” quotes Collins who refers to Genesis 1 as “exalted prose language.” Keller also quotes E.J. Young who refers to Genesis 1 as “exalted, semi-poetical language.” This article is not one of Kevin’s finest. Kevin dismissing the existence of this genre does not make it disappear. It sounds more like “exalted personal opinion.” I’m sure I would disagree with Keller in some ways but reading Kevin on this would not help me to know why.

Technically, Bauder is right. “Exalted Prose Narrative” simply is not a recognized genre. It might be a legitimate way to label a style, but try to search for exalted prose narrative on the internet and see if anyone outside this particular debate refers to it as a genre (or even refers to it at all).

I pastor a small church in rural Indiana, but have the privilege of having Dr. Terry Mortenson as one of my deacons. He serves as one of AIG’s primary speakers, and has been gifted with a brilliant mind and a passion for truth. He has studied under Gleason Archer and Wayne Grudem at Trinity and did a PHD in England. We have had many discussions about various aspects of the interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Here is where I think Keller and others are getting lost. Where does the idea of billions of years come from? It’s not found in scripture. It is an interpretation of data that is posited as a possible theory about the origin of all things. It has been posited as fact, and Christians going back for years have tried to integrate the concept of billions of years into a “normal” interpretation of Genesis. AIG has a great book, Coming to Grips With Genesis that addresses many of these issues. I can’t speak for Bauder, but I follow AIG in arguing that this is NOT a salvation issue, but it IS an authority issue (if I am trying to fit billions of years into Genesis 1-2, it is only because I believe an outside authority). And if that same outside authority tells us that there is no possible scientific way that we all descended from a single couple? Do we reinterpret Adam and Eve too? May seem extreme, but that’s the debate that is now raging.

On a complete side note…if you haven’t seen the Creation Museum, you need to. We are 40 minutes away and have an apartment in our church gym. We love housing visiting believers to help them save on the cost!

Some scholars read Prov. 25.2-3 as referring to the mystery of God’s creation. I think God wrote Gen. 1 as a mystery or parable. To apply later references of language usage to Gen.1 can be seen as anachronistic since this parable is not explained to us.

Look at the dry bones vision in Ezek.37.1-10. If we didn’t have the explanation of v. 11-14 One could come up with all types of interpretations. It seems to me that Gen. 1.1-2.3 is a parable but without the solution. So God has in fact kept this secret. YE thinks they can decipher the account but I doubt them.

The YE position seems like an attempt to control the parameters of interpretation and thus control accessibility to the gospel and inclusion of salvation. I’ve seen and heard these same tactics repeatedly in my experience in fundyland. Fundies (or their spiritual kin) like to think they are the special ones with the corner on the truth and everyone else, had better watch out.

Also, I will not be drawn into an extended discussion as I am not current on my origin studies as I used to be and now I have other things on my plate. I have thought on these things though recently and stand by what I say. In addition, I’ll be out of the country shortly for a few weeks and cannot really post much back and forth with opponents to my view. I read what Bauder wrote on the Aquila Report a few weeks ago and thought what he said was weak but did not interact with it at that time.

[alex o.]

Some scholars read Prov. 25.2-3 as referring to the mystery of God’s creation. I think God wrote Gen. 1 as a mystery or parable. To apply later references of language usage to Gen.1 can be seen as anachronistic since this parable is not explained to us.

Look at the dry bones vision in Ezek.37.1-10. If we didn’t have the explanation of v. 11-14 One could come up with all types of interpretations. It seems to me that Gen. 1.1-2.3 is a parable but without the solution. So God has in fact kept this secret. YE thinks they can decipher the account but I doubt them.

The YE position seems like an attempt to control the parameters of interpretation and thus control accessibility to the gospel and inclusion of salvation. I’ve seen and heard these same tactics repeatedly in my experience in fundyland. Fundies (or their spiritual kin) like to think they are the special ones with the corner on the truth and everyone else, had better watch out.

Also, I will not be drawn into an extended discussion as I am not current on my origin studies as I used to be and now I have other things on my plate. I have thought on these things though recently and stand by what I say. In addition, I’ll be out of the country shortly for a few weeks and cannot really post much back and forth with opponents to my view. I read what Bauder wrote on the Aquila Report a few weeks ago and thought what he said was weak but did not interact with it at that time.

As has been pointed out before, there is nothing in scripture itself that suggests Genesis 1-3 are allegorical, and multitudes of references throughout both testaments that point to a literal reading of Genesis 1-3 as an historical record of the first six, 24-hour days of creation. On another thread, I offered a brief sermon by Dr. Larry Oats that deals with only one passage and several points of contact between the Genesis account of creation and the rest of scripture. I am posting the link again here. You cannot allegorize the creation account without doing irreparable damage to soteriology and bibliology just to name two doctrines.

The author and Biologos like to quote all kinds of theologians and their interpretations, but fail to address that both Paul and Christ clearly articulated and viewed that Adam was the first real man. All of Scripture is clearly cohesive in this view and even the gospel demands a physical first man created called Adam. Yet these are quickly glossed over or explanations that are not sustainable are used to explain their views.

I think God wrote Gen. 1 as a mystery or parable.

What are the indications from God (i.e., the text) that this is a mystery or parable?

To apply later references of language usage to Gen.1 can be seen as anachronistic since this parable is not explained to us.

What do you mean by “later references of language usage”? It is true that this is among the earliest part of the OT, being written about 1440 BC, but it is also true that the usage of “yom” is fairly consistent throughout the next thousand years until the OT canon is complete. So in what sense is this standard word with consistent usage for a thousand years anachronistic? And assuming that “since” means “since” in a logical way not and not a temporal way, why are you tying anachronism to the lack of explanation? What is the connection between the two?

[dgszweda]

The author and Biologos like to quote all kinds of theologians and their interpretations, but fail to address that both Paul and Christ clearly articulated and viewed that Adam was the first real man. All of Scripture is clearly cohesive in this view and even the gospel demands a physical first man created called Adam. Yet these are quickly glossed over or explanations that are not sustainable are used to explain their views.

The author of the article states: “I believe in a historical Adam and Eve, and a historical fall…” However, your point is well taken and I concur. Jesus and Paul make it clear that they believed that Adam was the first man and fell and that is good enough for me. To deny that denies the gospel. [Of course some are proposing that even as the first man there may’ve been a larger group of sub-human hominoids from which he was chosen.] And if Jesus and/or Paul had commented on the age of the earth there would be less debate (and no debate from me). From my viewpoint one of the problems with some YEC is trying to make things like this, age of earth and historical Adam, of equal certainty or equally clear from a simple reading of the text. I can hold with firm conviction a belief in a historical Adam and at the same time remain tentative or agnostic and teachable on the age of the earth.

[Steve Davis]

From my viewpoint one of the problems with some YEC is trying to make things like this, age of earth and historical Adam, of equal certainty or equally clear from a simple reading of the text. I can hold with firm conviction a belief in a historical Adam and at the same time remain tentative or agnostic and teachable on the age of the earth.

I think the case has been made pretty clearly. Most evangelical commentators agree that a “normal” reading of Genesis 1-2 indicate a Young Earth and a Creation in 6 literal 24 hour days. That language is usually followed by something like….”but science….” and they then go on to explain their own personal way of “reconciling” the two. This is where the tentativeness comes from. People then argue that the text is unclear in order to justify the tentativeness that some scientists have instilled. Once again, I would encourage guys to make sure they have at least read the YEC literature (of vital importance is Coming to Grips with Genesis), and even consider interacting with a current YEC (not someone who is going to dust off old, outdated, and logically fallacious arguments). To address an earlier comment- this is NOT strictly a “fundy” issue. That reflects a massive misunderstanding of who is representative of the YEC position. Guys like Al Mohler, John MacArthur, Kevin Deyoung and Ligon Duncan are YEC. AIG is NOT a “fundy” organization (though some fundamentalists work there). Fundamentalists in fact are famous for promoting the GAP theory through the Scofield Reference Bible. I have been trained in Fundamental schools, and currently in an SBC seminary, and consider myself well read, and I am just not in any way convinced that Genesis 1-2 is anything but historical narrative.