Saturday, August 20, 2011

"Conservative" Ratzinger/ Benedict XVI and Evolutionism

When Ratzinger became pope, the the Times presented it this way, "The conservative Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany has been elected the 265th Pope and will be known as Benedict XVI." Undoubtedly, Ratzinger is conservative compared to some German theologians both within his own communion (such as his former colleague, Hans Kung) and outside the Roman communion.

But Ratzinger is not "conservative" on certain issues. For example, on the issue of evolution, Ratzinger has a book titled "In the beginning--: a Catholic understanding of the story of Creation and the fall."

You can see the direction that the book takes from pp. 3-4:
These words, with which Holy Scripture begins, always have the effect on me of the solemn tolling of a great old bell, which stirs the heart from afar with its beauty and dignity and gives it an inkling of the mystery of eternity. For many of us, moreover, these words recall the memory of our first encounter with God’s holy book, the Bible, which was opened for us at this spot. It at once brought us out of our small child’s world, captivated us with its poetry, and gave us a feeling for the immeasurability of creation and its Creator.

Yet these words give rise to a certain conflict. They are beautiful and familiar, but are they also true? Everything seems to speak against it, for science has long since disposed of the concepts that we have just now heard – the idea of a world that is completely comprehensible in terms of space and time, and the idea that creation was built up piece by piece over the course of seven days. Instead of this we now face measurements that transcend all comprehension. Today we hear of the Big Bang, which happened billions of years ago and with which the universe began its expansion – an expansion that continues to occur without interruption. And it was not in neat succession that the stars were hung and the green of the fields created; it was rather in complex ways and over vast periods of time that the earth and the universe were constructed as we now know them.

Do these words, then, count for anything? In fact a theologian said not long ago that creation has now become an unreal concept. If one is to be intellectually honest one ought to speak no longer of creation but rather of mutation and selection. Are these words true? Or have they, perhaps, along with the entire Word of God and the whole biblical tradition, come out of the reveries of the infant age of human history, for which occasionally experience homesickness but to which we can nevertheless not return, inasmuch as we cannot live on nostalgia? Is there an answer to this that we can claim for ourselves in this day and age?
It is probably not surprising to find the following statements on p. 50:
We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. ... But let us look closer, because here, too, the progress of thought in the last two decades helps us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason.
Thus is it not surprising that a conference on origins held in Rome would exclude creationism and intelligent design (see this report or this report - both from the so-called Catholic News Agency).

Ratzinger/Benedict XVI a conservative? Only in relative terms.

-TurretinFan

39 comments:

Coram Deo said...

Steve Hays posted an article at T-blogue on a related topic, TF.

I cross-linked your article in the combox there, and I thought it good to cross-link Steve's here.

Men never actually stopped building the Tower of Babel, did they?

In Him,
CD

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Thus is it not surprising that a conference on origins held in Rome would exclude creationism and intelligent design (see this report or this report - both from the so-called Catholic News Agency)."

In dialoguing with some Catholics, it seems that theistic evolution is the preferred explanation for Magisterium's teaching on origins.

But I didn't know that it was that preferred.

natamllc said...

The Pope,

Speaking from his own invention, perhaps?

"...come out of the reveries of the infant age of human history,..."

Let me give a verbatim Scriptural quote for what that means and from where that idea comes from:::>

Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

The very nature of "human history", well, that's all Satan has to work with besides his own personal rebellions against God! When you start messing with "human history" the way she is being messed with, now and historically, one is not so inclined to embrace such ideas as these that come from such Words:

Ecc 3:10 I have seen the business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with.
Ecc 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.



I stand with King David at least in that this is what I am praying now continually:

"...1Ch 16:28 Ascribe to the LORD, O clans of the peoples, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength!
1Ch 16:29 Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; bring an offering and come before him! Worship the LORD in the splendor of holiness;
1Ch 16:30 tremble before him, all the earth; yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
1Ch 16:31 Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice, and let them say among the nations, "The LORD reigns!"
1Ch 16:32 Let the sea roar, and all that fills it; let the field exult, and everything in it!
1Ch 16:33 Then shall the trees of the forest sing for joy before the LORD, for he comes to judge the earth.
1Ch 16:34 Oh give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; for his steadfast love endures forever!
1Ch 16:35 Say also: "Save us, O God of our salvation, and gather and deliver us from among the nations, that we may give thanks to your holy name, and glory in your praise.
1Ch 16:36 Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting!" Then all the people said, "Amen!" and praised the LORD.
"

Wandering Pilgrim said...

I may be mistaken but I believe that Anglicanism also accepts a form of "theistic evolution" as true, and indeed has done for quite some time.

Good post though, but it has gone me wondering how the papacy has changed Benny, if it has at all. To me he seems to toe the line more, whereas before his elevation he was more his own man, though still ultimately conservative in most respects.

Chemostrat1646 said...

Anti-darwinian creationism is more of an American phenomenon, rooted in the Seventh Day Adventist movement more than anywhere else. I don't see this as an issue on which to label any European theologian (Pope or not) along a scale of 'conservatism'.

On the contrary, he has done a great service in cutting biological evolution from its atheistic ties. Hmm, never thought I'd say that about a pope...

Coram Deo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Coram Deo said...

Chemostrat1646,

So is it your opinion that evolution is simply an epistemic non-issue?

In other words it doesn't matter if the visible church and professing Christians submit to the authority of scientism on the topic of evolution as opposed to dealing with the issue from a Biblical perspective?

Were Luke, Paul, Jesus, etc. simply parroting first-century Jewish myths when in the Scriptures they linked Christ back to Adam in the Biblical genealogies, and spoke about Adam as an actual discrete individual person who disobeyed God, and thereby sin entered the world?

If not in Genesis, where ought Christians begin believing that what the Bible says is actually a true, reliable, and historical account?

In Christ,
CD

Chemostrat1646 said...

CD,

In short, I reject the claim that accepting evolutionary theory requires one to 'submit to the authority of scientism'. As one who is actively involved in scientific research, I find this association to be reductionistic, inaccurate, and therefore unhelpful in the discussion. I view my scientific endeavors rather as rooted in the wisdom of God; a means by which I can know His glory through understanding His creation.

As a Christian, I question how the Bible may help us answer questions about biological theories. I reject scientific concordism as both unbiblical and anachronistic.

With regard to the NT examples, I understand and accept that the NT authors used Scripture exegetically. Paul, for example, did not frame his Adam-Christ typology to teach us that Adam was the first man in history; he used the latter concept (explicated by OT genealogies) to contrast a new humanity in Christ. The Eden narrative assumes, on the other hand, that Adam was neither the first nor the only human in the land at that time. If this fact were pertinent to his argument, Paul could have highlighted it instead. Paul and others were far more artistic in their use of the OT than you seem to require.

This discussion warrants a longer explanation, I know, but I want to maintain some relevance to the post. I pray for your patience,

JB

Turretinfan said...

"Anti-darwinian creationism is more of an American phenomenon, rooted in the Seventh Day Adventist movement more than anywhere else. "

There are few ways you can discredit yourself to me more than to make a comment like that.

It does seem as though God gives over to folly those who think themselves wiser than His Word on the issue of origins.

Steve Drake said...

@Chemostrat1646,
In short, I reject the claim that accepting evolutionary theory requires one to 'submit to the authority of scientism'.

Perhaps not, but it could be argued perhaps that an acceptance of the presupposition of materialistic naturalism upon which scientism is built is misleading you to believe that theistic evolution was God's method of creation.

I view my scientific endeavors rather as rooted in the wisdom of God; a means by which I can know His glory through understanding His creation.

And do your scientific endeavors deal directly with the issue of origins? If so, in what field? And are you wiser than the Word of God when it comes to this issue? If so, in what way?

Chemostrat1646 said...

Steve,

I do not simply make a presupposition of materialistic naturalism. But I do question (after years of thinking otherwise) whether a 'divine-interventionist' history is *necessarily* conveyed by the scriptural passages dealing with creation. I don't think it is, and I think ID/YEC readings force a very awkward and unworkable character on the text.

To answer your question, yes, my research does deal directly with the origins issue. I study chemostratigraphy and biogeochemistry.

Your other questions are rhetorical, and need not answering.

Graciously,

JB

Turretinfan said...

"I do not simply make a presupposition of materialistic naturalism."

That's how science works.

-TurretinFan

Steve Drake said...

Chemostrat1646, you wrote:
"...whether a 'divine-interventionist' history is *necessarily* conveyed by the scriptural passages dealing with creation. I don't think it is, and I think ID/YEC readings force a very awkward and unworkable character on the text."

If this is the only reason, (I dare say I don't believe it is for you), then perhaps you can explain what is awkward and unworkable about the text?

Coram Deo said...

Chemostrat1646,

The Bible teaches that at the final consummation God will annihilate the existing universe and make all things new...a new heavens and a new earth wherein righteousness dwells...Eden restored...a return to Paradise.

Based on your reading and view of Scripture do you expect God to do this over billions of years of naturalistic processes, and via the mechanism of evolution, or do you think He might actually make all things new via creation fiat - at the command of His Word - similar to the way Genesis explains the original ex nihilo creation fiat?

Just curious.

In Christ,
CD

natamllc said...

CD,

excellent question!

Besides the reality in your question is another interesting thing that I come back to, often enough, when trying to figure that God came into this creation, the present heavens and earth, to keep the same measurement of time and circumstance. He comes from His reality, Eternal Glory and He puts Himself into His creation after Mary was overshadowed with the Holy Spirit and she born Him for us, the Savior.

We know Him to be the son of Adam subject to time and eternity; and, the Son of God, the Sent One, from Eternity.

We also know this about Him, He had to observe these Laws:

Exo 12:1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt,
Exo 12:2 "This month shall be for you the beginning of months. It shall be the first month of the year for you.
Exo 12:3 Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for a household.

...

Exo 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work,
Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.


How does God put Himself in this measuring box, you might be thinking, subjecting Himself to these events according to time and eternity?

Well, Jesus Christ, as the son of man, when He came into this world was subject to those verses from Exodus and He kept every one of those dates, "to the letter". Had He missed just one of them He would have been in violation of the Will of God and the Holy Spirit could not vindicate Him as sinless before the Eternal Glory and if He could not vindicate Him as sinless before the Eternal Glory, not only would we be loss for eternity, He would have to remain separated from that Eternal Glory, too, never to be taken up into this Glory!

Joh 17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,
Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
Joh 17:4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.


...

1Ti 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

Chemostrat1646 said...

Steve,

In short, I think it requires a flat-footed reading that does little justice to the majesty of God's word (that's my opinion, to which I reason from exploring God's word and world apart from what I perceive to be a misguided hermeneutic). Moreover, it turns Genesis 1–11 into an unworkable history that has very little to do with reality.

Most do not bother with my second objection, because they don't trust scientists or believe some scientists have established a viable concordist model. That's fine, but for Christians who actually engage in science because they want to glorify God therein must deal with the hard questions that others can ignore. We realize why those models were abandoned long ago.

If you want to discuss this further, please follow the link from my name to my own blog or contact information. Thanks for your feedback.

CD,

I don't really know what to expect. :) I would caution against any sort of specificity in this area. Of course, I don't believe that Genesis describes a fiat ex nihilo creation—otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Genesis 1 is etiological, polemical, semi-poetic prose—and much deeper theologically than a face-value description of unimaginable events. It is a resplendent recapitulation of the work week of the timeless God—not an abstract out of 'Quaternary Science Reviews'. :) That's my take...but it's not entirely original.

God bless,

JB

Coram Deo said...

Chemostrat1646 said:

I would caution against any sort of specificity in this area. Of course, I don't believe that Genesis describes a fiat ex nihilo creation—otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Genesis 1 is etiological, polemical, semi-poetic prose—and much deeper theologically than a face-value description of unimaginable events.

So you're just not really sure. You encourage epistemic humility when it comes to taking the Scriptures at face value in these deep and mysterious things (original creation and new creation), but you're positive that Genesis doesn't describe a fiat ex nihilo creation based upon your materialistic naturalism. Gotcha.

You didn't answer me the first time, so in light of your latest reply I'll ask again.

If not in Genesis, where ought Christians begin believing that what the Bible says is actually a true, reliable, and historical account?

What are your controls for the parts of Scripture that actually mean what they say, and the parts that are unintelligible?

For some reason I don't see why ex nihilo creation is a problem for someone who professes to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Creator God Who has existed eternally and Who stepped into time in the Person of Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, Who lived an absolutely sinless life that fully pleased His Father turning water into wine, raising the dead, casting out demons, healing disease, walking on water, giving sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and wholeness to the maimed, Who perfectly suffered and died a perfect death giving Himself as a sacrifice for sin, and gloriously rose on the third day with an indestructible resurrection body, ascended into heaven bodily, and Who will one day return to earth to judge the quick and the dead and establish His eternal kingdom wherein He will make all things new (new heavens and new earth) where His people will serve and worship Him in perfection forever and ever, being conformed to His image.

Remind me again why the Genesis creation account is problematic for you? Because of some rocks and chemicals that sinfully corrupted men who presuppose there is no God (i.e. fools) claim are billions of years old?

Friend, I think you have a problem.

In Christ,
CD

Steve Drake said...

Chemostrat1646,
And does this flat footed reading of Gen.1-11 lead you to an historical Adam, or not?

Coram Deo said...

Steve Drake asked: Chemostrat1646,
And does this flat footed reading of Gen.1-11 lead you to an historical Adam, or not?


Of course the obvious answer is, "yes"; but Chemostrat1646 has such a profound love of and respect for God's Word that he that would never do it the injustice of employing a misguided, eisegetic hermeneutic, and denigrating its majesty by actually, you know, reading it as if it means what it says.

We need to free our minds of such notions and explore God's word and world with reason, and apart from a misguided hermeneutic that would attempt to understand what the text says and means as it was written within the context of the immediate passages, and in the light of the whole Biblical account.

Except where our reason tells us that science conflicts with the testimony of Scripture, and in those cases science is the authority to which we conform the Word of God.

Does that about sum things up?

In Him,
CD

Steve Drake said...

Hi Coram Deo,
Yes, although reading Chemo's blogger profile and perusing his website leads me to believe he doesn't take Adam as historical or our first parents, the sole progenitors of all the rest of us. And so that's why my question. After perusing his website briefly, I want to ask him if he believes Adam was an historical figure, or whether like other theistic evolutionists Collins and Giberson he claims some kind of mythology for Adam and Eve.

Chemostrat1646 said...

CD,

I am a little taken back by your caricatures, but I suppose I'm used to it by now.

"You encourage epistemic humility when it comes to...deep and mysterious things...but you're positive that Genesis doesn't describe a fiat ex nihilo creation based upon your materialistic naturalism."

I never asserted certainty in this. Though I believed it for a long time, I now think the biblical and literary evidence suggests otherwise. There is a qualitative difference, however, between investigating the future and investigating the past. It's difficult to sample rocks from the future; but God's work in history is rather evident from all sources. What this has to do with materialistic naturalism—which I reject—I cannot imagine.

"If not in Genesis, where ought Christians begin believing that what the Bible says is actually a true, reliable, and historical account?"

In Genesis. But the Genesis narratives are far more than history (our modern sense of the word does little justice). The Eden narrative is a story about a couple named "Man" and "Woman", tempted by a talking serpent regarding a "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". Does this sound like a purely historical account to you? The conventional story breaks down with the most basic literary analysis.

"For some reason I don't see why ex nihilo creation is a problem for [you]?"

It's not. Neither would be the fiat, ex nihilo deliverance of Israel from Egypt, but God took time and displayed his power among the nation. Absolutely, He could have made the world in a breath, in an instant. But I've seen the handiwork of God, and I see no reason to question its reality.

"Because of some rocks and chemicals that sinfully corrupted men who presuppose there is no God (i.e. fools) claim are billions of years old?"

I may be sinful, but I don't presuppose the absence of God. I am often foolish, but God is gracious. For the record, I never said the Genesis account was problematic for me. I have no trouble accepting it for what it says—your objections notwithstanding.

Remind me why you think all scientists—including professing Christians—necessarily presuppose atheism? And why you accuse me of atheism, above all things? Why do you resort to character assassination rather than dialogue?

Steve,

I see no reason to reject the historicity of Adam, so I'm not entirely on board with Collins/Giberson in this regard. But Adam's historicity aside, I think the main thrust of the Eden narrative is not to teach naked history but to place the reader into the highly symbolic story (as Paul so eloquently does in Romans 5). The author of Genesis is obviously a deep theological thinker, wrestling with the prevailing thought of his day, yet offering a faithful alternative by God's providence.

JB

Steve Drake said...

Chemostrat1646, you wrote:
"I think the main thrust of the Eden narrative is not to teach naked history but to place the reader into the highly symbolic story (as Paul so eloquently does in Romans 5)."

Many of us would not agree with you here, but rather taking the grammatico-historical hermeneutic and applying it to these early chapters of Geneses as the Church has done for millennia. As Albert Mohler, in his blog of Aug. 22 has said:
"At this point, we are looking at a repudiation of the Bible’s account of beginnings. We are not talking about an argument over the interpretation of a few verses or even chapters of the Bible. We are now dealing with the straightforward rejection, not only of the existence of Adam and Eve, but of both Eden and the Fall."

He goes on to write:
"The implications for biblical authority are clear, as is the fact that if these arguments hold sway, we will have to come up with an entirely new understanding of the Gospel metanarrative and the Bible’s storyline."

Turretinfan said...

I think almost everyone can easily distinguish between the historical narrative genre of Genesis (throughout) and the explicitly didactic genre of the Pauline epistles.

That doesn't mean that the historical narrative is bare history. It does mean, though, that it is history.

Steve Drake said...

If Adam is historical, and as to when you want to place him on an historical timeline, I think it does have bearing on bare history. Or maybe you can define what you mean by 'bare' history if I'm not understanding you correctly.

ChaferDTS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ChaferDTS said...

"If Adam is historical, and as to when you want to place him on an historical timeline, I think it does have bearing on bare history."

Adam and Eve did exist. Adam is the federal head of sinful man. Sin is traced through Scripture to him and passed down to the entire human race except Jesus. The existance of Adam was confirmed by Jesus in the Gospels. Human beings did have a start and that is with Adam and Eve. We are not specifically told the exact date for the creation of Adam and Eve. It is very difficult to trace the exact time line from the period of time of the creation of Adam until the call of Abraham. The creation account is the foundational belief in the existance of God and Him as creator of all things. Scripture explains God's creatative order of things in each of the six days of creation. From a reading of Scripture both atheistic evolution and so called theistic evolution are excluded. The theistic evolutionalist is in a serious bind. They would have to attack the authority of Scripture in order to uphold their position. Their position does not hold up exegetically and would have to attack any and every method of Biblical interpretation that allows for a literal grammatical historical interpretation. I view so called theistic evolutionalist as nothing more than functional agnostic who are unsure if " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth " as it says. Theistic evolutionalist can't provide no sound proper verse by verse exposition of Gen. 1. That is my personal experience of those who hold to it. When all is said and done they ending up attacking Scripture.

Coram Deo said...

Chemostrat1646 said: Remind me why you think all scientists—including professing Christians—necessarily presuppose atheism? And why you accuse me of atheism, above all things? Why do you resort to character assassination rather than dialogue?

I have no idea where you got such a notion, but I do find it ironic that by making such unsubstantiated accusations about me that you're demonstrably guilty of doing what you merely assert that I'm guilty of doing.

Pot, meet kettle...

It's not. Neither would be the fiat, ex nihilo deliverance of Israel from Egypt, but God took time and displayed his power among the nation.

Straw man.

Absolutely, He could have made the world in a breath, in an instant. But I've seen the handiwork of God, and I see no reason to question its reality.

I see. So your fallen noetic equipment and sinfully corrupted reasoning powers lead you to conclude that God's own eyewitness account of His creation fiat simply didn't occur in the manner to which He testifies that it occurred.

That's interesting.

And again: "I think the main thrust of the Eden narrative is not to teach naked history but to place the reader into the highly symbolic story (as Paul so eloquently does in Romans 5)."

Which sounds really good when one is trying to avoid the plain-sense meaning of the text and eisegete/spiritualize an alternate meaning that comports with one's personal predispositions, however the structure of the Hebrew used in the Genesis account of creation isn't mythical or poetic language, it's representative of a standard historical accounting, just like the other standard historical accounts reported in Genesis.

Not to mention the NT authors consistently take it foregranted that the Genesis accounts of the creation and fall are literal, historical accounts of literal, historic events and people.

One would expect this, of course, since the entire Bible is internally consistent, being the product of One divine author.


In Christ,
CD

Steve Drake said...

ChaferDTS, you wrote:
"It is very difficult to trace the exact time line from the period of time of the creation of Adam until the call of Abraham."

If it is generally agreed, even by secular historians, that Abraham lived circa 2000-1900 B.C., then it is quite easy to use the chronogenealogies in Gen. 5 and 11 to get an approximate date B.C. for Adam.

Very good points though, agreed.

ChaferDTS said...

"If it is generally agreed, even by secular historians, that Abraham lived circa 2000-1900 B.C., then it is quite easy to use the chronogenealogies in Gen. 5 and 11 to get an approximate date B.C. for Adam. "

It would still have some hard aspects in it. It would be mostly guess work. It would relate at least for me on the genealogical listings. I do affirm the listings there . The confusion would be on if it is strict or not on the begotting parts in it. Like it can state one name and skip down to list a grand son as being begot. I do hold to a young earth view I just dont think it is 6,000 years as some claim. I think a higher number than that would seem to be demanded by Scripture. Possibly maybe 10,000 years old give or take for creation. I consider it speculation since Scriptue does not come right out and tell us how old creation is. I do hold to a literal 6 day creation. :)

"Very good points though, agreed."

Thank you very much. :)

Steve Drake said...

ChaferDTS,
There's really no guess work involved. You can add up the years yourself. There is a rather set mathematical formula involved, X begot Y, and lived Z number of years after he begot Y. It doesn't matter if Y was the son or grandson or great-grandson, the formula still holds. Have you taken the time to take out a piece of paper and calculate the number of years here? If not, I encourage you to do so.

I notice the DTS in your moniker. Does it stand for Dallas Theological Seminary?

Steve Drake said...

TurretinFan,
I notice the time stamp on all posts is way off the mark, not even close.

Steve Drake said...

turretinFan,
Correction. The time stamp is not associated with PDT, MDT, CDT, or EDT. Are you in England?

ChaferDTS said...

"ChaferDTS,There's really no guess work involved. You can add up the years yourself. There is a rather set mathematical formula involved, X begot Y, and lived Z number of years after he begot Y. It doesn't matter if Y was the son or grandson or great-grandson, the formula still holds. Have you taken the time to take out a piece of paper and calculate the number of years here? If not, I encourage you to do so. "

I am able to do the math numbers. :) After all, as a cook in the Navy I had to do recipe conversions for the food which involved a lot of numbers. :) lol The main area of trouble is the name listing and their relationships for each and every one of them. The relationships can cause an issue of the exact numbers. :) I would only get one of several possible numbers at most.

"I notice the DTS in your moniker. Does it stand for Dallas Theological Seminary?"

Yes it does. I use a number of theological books from professors there. I reject the false teachings of Zane Hodges on sanctification and his false interpretations of passages most noted in Hebrews 6, 10 and James 2 though others can be stated. He was also very deceived when it came to the issue of repentence. I reject the 4 point Arminiansm of Norman Geisler with his so called " determinately knowing ( what is really a prescience determined by God in election/ predestination ) who will by an act of their will though prevenient grace will chose to come to faith in Jesus " . He fails to see the true meaning of what foreknew and foreknowledge really means. His other failure to to properly see what efficacious drawing and calling really are. Takecare.

Steve Drake said...

Brother ChaferDTS,
Thank you for your service in the armed forces to this country. May your service not go unappreciated by this denizen of representative democracy. May your children's children rise up and praise you in the gates, giving honor to your service.

Let not our intramural disagreement on 6000 or 10000 years be an impediment to the fact of God's fiat ex nihilo creation in six days (Ex. 20-8-11, Ex. 31:17).

Blessings to you my son.

Turretinfan said...

The time stamp is GMT.

Chemostrat1646 said...

CD,

"I have no idea where you got such a notion..."

From your accusation that my conclusions were based on a materialistic naturalism that I possess, as well as the work of scientists who presuppose no God. I am one of those scientists, but obviously I don't make this presupposition. How else am I to take this? It was pretty explicit.

I do not intend to attack your character—I find your defense to be sincere and faithful. But the way you shrug off God's testimony in creation is essentially to say 'those scientists contradict what I think the Bible says, so they must be tainted by atheism and materialistic naturalism.' Nothing could be further from the truth, and those believers who tread the dangerous waters of secular academia to apply their skills to the glory of God will immediately recognize your error.

For the record, it's rather hurtful to have one's life work dismissed as the result of "fallen noetic equipment and sinfully corrupted reasoning powers". If I were to call your biblical hermeneutic a result of the same, would you even bother to respond? My accusation would be equally arbitrary and imprudent as yours.

"...the structure of the Hebrew used in the Genesis account of creation isn't mythical or poetic language..."

Really? The beauty of Genesis 1 is the manner in which offers polemical theology in a structure very similar to the surrounding creation myths (and in semi-poetic prose). Separation of waters, establishment of a firmament (p.s. what is a firmament in your understanding?), the sun after light, seven-day structure? Even the most brief comparative literature study is sufficient to prove that the myth/history question is a false dilemma. Genesis is historical narrative, but not in the sense we derive from Thucydides et al.

The so-called 'grammatical-historical' method tends to be all grammar and no history when it comes to Genesis, at least for those who still fear that modern science may not be a grand conspiracy to undermine our faith.

If you want to respond, please contact me directly. I'd rather not continue this discussion in the comment box (it's already far enough off topic).

Grace and peace,

JB

ChaferDTS said...

Thank you Steve. :)

ChaferDTS said...

"The so-called 'grammatical-historical' method tends to be all grammar and no history when it comes to Genesis, at least for those who still fear that modern science may not be a grand conspiracy to undermine our faith."

It has history. It deals with the historical context of when it was written and what each individual author intended to communicate to it's readers. I have no problem with science at all. I happen to like science very much. My thing is science can error whereas Scripture can not error. Theistic evolution wont deal with Genesis 1 exegetically. God has communicated to us using human language which is to be understood by the people of God. You are asking people in not so many words to not believe what is stated to us in Genesis 1.

Coram Deo said...

You might give this series a listen, Chemostrat1646.

It seems to me that you're doing a lot of leaning on your own understanding at the expense of taking God at His Word.

In Him,
CD