Why are certain questions forbidden? --Part 2--The authority of Scripture, Part II

This post is exceptionally way too long and convoluted. But I want to post it anyway. I have spent too much time on this relatively small portion of my larger project.

So, recognizing my verbosity, please let me summarize, here, up front, what I attempt to cover and attempt to say. Then dig in!

1. I believe that young-earth creationists "have it right" when they fear that old-earth creationist viewpoints tend to wreak havoc with many traditional statements of faith concerning the authority of Scripture. An old-earth view does not permit followers to look at Scripture in quite the same way they did if they read (or when they read) the Scriptures from a young-earth perspective.
    
2. Young-earth creationists are nothing if they are not passionate to uphold the authority of Scripture!
    
3. Evangelical old-earth creationists, too, are passionate to uphold the authority of Scripture. But they find faults in the old formulas. They are convinced that the formulas need some adjustment. Or (depending on the specific statement of faith under discussion) they sense that certain interpretations of the confessional standards may need to change. (Not in all cases. But some.)
    
4. While young-earthers "man the heights" with their staunch defense of even the narrowest confessional standards when it comes to the authority of Scripture, they fail to realize--or, perhaps, they realize but are unwilling to acknowledge--that they apply their vaunted standards unevenly or inconsistently. So, ultimately, the standards become no standards at all. Not really.

There are some other points, but I think I've hit the main ones.

May you find some blessings in the material I have gathered and commented upon here!

---

I concluded my last post in this series with the comment that I wanted to "get into the details of the Chicago Statement and some of the affirmations of the Coalition on Revival." I'd like to compare these not only with the Westminster Confession (from which I quoted last Friday), but also with some additional documents.

Let me first direct your attention to Chapter 1 of the Westminster Catechism, subsections VI, IX, and X. (NOTE: I included the text and Scriptural "proof texts" for each point in last Friday's post. Rather than take the space to repeat them here, I encourage you to find the "proof texts" via the link above.) Please note the fundamental importance the Confession places upon the Bible and how the Confession tells us the Bible is to be interpreted:

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture. . . .

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. . . .

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

Let me note:

• From Subsection VI:
  
  • We can know the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary
    
    • for God's glory,
       
    • for man's salvation,
       
    • and for faith and life.
    And,
  • We can know these things either because
    
    • they are expressly set down in Scripture, or because
       
    • they may be deduced "by good and necessary consequence."
  Oh, boy!
  
  I am tempted to point out how these words have since been parsed by different readers and confessors. But I think I will hold off. Let us see how these things shake out over the 360-plus years since the Confession was first written and affirmed in 1646.
   
• From Subsection IX: "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself." And
  
  From Subsection X: "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined . . . can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."
  
  To summarize the two subsections: We're talking about the Protestant doctrine of "Sola Scriptura"--Scripture alone must be relied upon not only to tell us what we must know and believe concerning God's glory, man's salvation, faith and life; but Scripture alone--with the aid of the Holy Spirit--must be relied upon to interpret Scripture.
  
  This is fundamental Protestant doctrine. . . . As we can see affirmed, for example, in the Lutheran standards.

I am not Lutheran by background. I have never studied Lutheran theology. But I decided to see what the Lutheran churches might have to say about the Bible . . . and I found the Book of Concord (1580).

The Solid Declaration (SD) of the Formula of Concord (FC) within the Book of Concord (BoC) uses language very similar to what the Westminster divines used:

1. First [, then, we receive and embrace with our whole heart] the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged. . . .

6. . . . [T]he Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine, to which the writings of no man should be regarded as equal, but to which everything should be subjected.

I read these statements and sense they are strong, evangelical, obviously Bible-believing and Bible-affirming, . . . and, depending on how someone parses some of the words, probably affirmable by almost everyone within the broadly evangelical old- and young-earth camps. They are the kinds of statements I was brought up to believe and affirm as a young man.

You will notice that both of these statements of faith (if I may be permitted to call them such!) were written close to 400 years ago--interestingly, this is after Copernicus (1473-1543) did his work but before the most significant portions of his work became accepted in the scientific community. (Galileo Galilei, for example, lived from 1564-1642, and his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, in which he most famously advocated for a heliocentric planetary system--and whose views he was ultimately required to "abjure, curse and detest"--wasn't published until 1632. . . . And the papal see didn't remove its general prohibition against works advocating heliocentrism until 1758! So the kinds of biblical/scientific interpretative issues (does the Bible advocate for a geocentric view?) raised by Joshua 10 were, at best, only faint glimmers on the horizon at the time these confessions were written. And the kinds of issues that seem "hottest" in the evangelical world today--the age of the earth and, even more, the mode of creation--can it possibly be viewed as anything but instantaneous?--were only the very furthest periphery of anyone's imagination.

[NOTE: I am not suggesting that no one was questioning the age of the earth. Obviously, Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656) was concerned enough about the question to do research and write his famous tome on the subject (published in 1650)! But he was by no means alone. For example, Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609) wrote extensively on ancient historical issues in the late 1500s. My point is: Many of the Bible-Scripture issues we confront today were unimagined and unimaginable when these confessions or statements of faith were written.]

But/and/so, then, let us look at some more modern statements of faith.

In my last post in this series, I referenced The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which consists of a one-page "Preface," a (numbered) five-paragraph "Short Statement," and 19 detailed "Articles of Affirmation and Denial."

I would like to draw your attention especially to two of the "Short Statement" paragraphs and two of the "Articles."

From the Short Statement:

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

And,

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

And then from the Affirmations and Denials:

Article XII:

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

But notice Article IX, too:

We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

Question: What makes an “assertion” (Article XII) or a “matter of which [a] Biblical author [was] moved to speak and write”? --We will have to get back to these questions. Let me merely point them out, here, as deserving some thought!

Notice, too, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics Articles XIX-XXII, but especially Articles XIX through XXII:

ARTICLE XIX
We affirm that any pre-understandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture should be in harmony with Scriptural teaching and subject to correction by it.
We deny that Scripture should be required to fit alien pre-understandings, inconsistent with itself, such as naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism.

--How do we identify what, specifically, is a "pre-understanding" and what is not? Don't we all come to the Scriptures with some types of pre-understandings of some type or another? And why do the authors single out "naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism"? What do these words even mean? Are we permitted, for example, to approach the Bible with the understanding that naturalism of a functional (though not ontological) variety is okay? (Or not?) And what about the idea that languages evolve? Micro-evolution occurs? . . . Are these "permitted," according to this statement of faith? . . .

ARTICLE XX
We affirm that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, Biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.
We deny that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.

I can surely understand and want, with all my heart, to affirm the philosophical statement in the first half of the first sentence of the affirmation, but--Wow!--I have difficulties with the second portion of that sentence: "that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else." --What does that mean: "touches on"?

In Matthew 13:32 and Mark 4:31, when Jesus says "a grain of mustard seed . . . is the smallest of all the seeds on earth," is He not touching on a matter pertaining to nature? I understand that the very next sentence in the Statement goes on to note that "in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches," but how do we know whether that is the case here? What in Scripture leads us to confidently assert that, in this case, Jesus clearly was not intending to teach us something about nature? Or, put another way, how can we be sure that, in permitting biologists to tell us there are smaller seeds in the world, we are not also permitting their extrabiblical views to "disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it"?

If you think I am being too nitpicky, then let us move to some of the other issues I raised in my Is truth knowable? post:

• When the Bible speaks of us being "knit together" by God in our mother's wombs (Psalm 139:13), is it not touching on a matter pertaining to nature? Is it, then, not speaking truth? So, then, on what grounds--what biblical grounds can we be sure that it is acceptable for medical personnel to teach us of sperm and eggs, mitosis and meiosis, and all the other details of what they call the "birthing process"? If we listen to them, how can we be sure we are not permitting their scientism or their extrabiblical views to "disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it"?
   
• Or in the case of meteorology: When the Bible speaks of the storehouses for rain and snow and wind and the windows of heaven and so forth (Genesis 7:11; 8:2; Job 38:22; etc.) . . . and when it tells us how God controls these storehouses and windows (Job 38:22; Jeremiah 10:13; and so forth), is it not touching on matters pertaining to nature (as well as, on occasion, history)? And assuming this is the case, then when meteorologists speak of high- and low-pressure systems and evaporation and transpiration and sublimation and precipitation, are they not attempting to "disprove the teaching of Scripture or or (to have their extrabiblical views) hold priority over" Scripture? If someone wants to say that this is surely not the case, then I would like that person to explain, on Scriptural grounds alone, how and why he or she is right and I am wrong!
  
  Finally (for the sake of this post),
   
• When the Bible speaks of a tree reaching up into heaven so it can be seen "to the end of the whole earth" (Daniel 4:10-11), and when it tells us that Satan took Jesus to a high mountain so that he could show Him "all the kingdoms of the world and their glory" (Matthew 4:8), is it not "touching on" something ("matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else")? And, to use the language of the Westminster Confession, must we not, "by good and necessary consequence," conclude that it is teaching that the earth is flat? For how else might a tall tree be seen reaching into heaven? It matters not how tall a tree might be on one side of a globe: people on the other side will never be able to see it; its height makes no difference. And, similarly, it matters not how high the mountain might be: if the earth is globular, no one could possibly see "all the kingdoms of the world." So, therefore, must we not oppose those who, on extrabiblical grounds, insist that the earth is anything but flat? If not, why not? On what grounds can we be sure we are not permitting extrabiblical views to hold priority over Scripture?

Okay. Moving on.

ARTICLE XXI
We affirm the harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of Biblical teaching with the facts of nature.
We deny that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.

ARTICLE XXII
We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.

I just wish we could rejoice with one another on the large quantity of things about which we all agree that the Scripture teaches about creation!¹ But apparently not. According to the authors of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, "scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity" may not be invoked to overthrow any of their preconceived notions of "what Scripture teaches about creation."

I urge you to read the rest of these documents. They are not long. But you can see statements that could be problematic--and probably deserve to be addressed--even if and as you could happily and readily subscribe to them (if you weren’t as aware of the issues as I am attempting to make you right now).

I think of such items as Hermeneutics, Article XIII (“We affirm that awareness of the literary categories, formal and stylistic, of the various parts of Scripture is essential for proper exegesis, and hence we value genre criticism as one of the many disciplines of Biblical study”). --That should create no problem.

But what about part two of that Article? “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly by imposed on Biblical narratives which present themselves as factual.” That, too, doesn't sound bad. But how do we know whether a biblical narrative is presenting itself as factual?

What if we think it is factual in some modern “objective history” sense of that term when it is actually more “factual” in a pre-17th century historical sense of the term . . . or, maybe, even in a kind of “historical fiction” kind of sense? What if the historical narrative is actually tendentious--as modern historians claim all history really is--even history written to convey real facts "as things really were"?

(We will have to return to this subject of tendentiousness at a later time.)

But back to the question of being able to discern if and when a biblical narrative is presenting itself as factual? Is it possible that some portion of the biblical narrative might be a high quality “historical fiction” (to use a modern category). After all, a truly serious work of non-fictional historical narrative in the modern sense should include only explicitly documentable dialog and documentable action. As soon as an author begins "quoting" a protagonist as having said this, that, or the next thing, but even merely paraphrases the actual words, that portion of the work is fiction, isn't it?

But what modern author of historical fiction notifies us in the midst of the narrative that, "this is an approximation of what ______ said," or, "the following dialog is exactly as _____ (one of the participants in the conversation) reported it," etc.?

If any portion of the biblical narrative is, as we might call it, "historical fiction" (or "fictionalized history")--even to the smallest degree--how would we know? Or how would we know the larger narrative did not include such a small piece of fiction (or "fictionalized history")? Because we have predetermined/pre-agreed/precommitted ourselves to the idea that "God is Truth and cannot lie"?

(????)

[While we're on the subject: Is a paraphrase a lie in any conventional sense of the term? Is a translation a "lie"?

Someone says, "[Such-and-so person from the far distant past] said, '_______.'"

"No! There is no way he said that! He spoke a thousand years ago! He would not have used modern [Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, English] to say what you just claimed he said. And for you to suggest he did say '______' is to lie about what he said. Because he didn't utter--he couldn't have uttered--those exact words. Because the words you used didn't exist back then."

"But I have accurately expressed the sense."

Has he? Has he accurately expressed the sense? All the nuances, the connotations, the exact denotations?

I'm sorry. I have taken us a little bit down a bunny trail. I think it is worthy of consideration, but let's get back to the main point of this blog post.]

I was quoting some statements of faith.

Let's look at a few more.

For example, Hermeneutics, Articles XIV, XV, and XVII:

ARTICLE XIV
We affirm that the Biblical record of events, discourses and sayings, though presented in a variety of appropriate literary forms, corresponds to historical fact.
We deny that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the Biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated.

ARTICLE XV
We affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.
We deny the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support. . . .

ARTICLE XVII
We affirm the unity, harmony and consistency of Scripture and declare that it is its own best interpreter.
We deny that Scripture may be interpreted in such a wa[y] as to suggest that one passage corrects or militates against another. We deny that later writers of Scripture misinterpreted earlier passages of Scripture when quoting from or referring to them.

It was in reading these things, especially in light of the historical document by Dr. Jay Grimstead about How the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy Began, that something hit me: I know I have seen many statements of faith that avoid some of the more . . . ahem! . . . “extreme” statements made in these documents.

FOR EXAMPLE, take the statements of faith of the two large evangelical mission associations, the Mission Exchange (formerly EFMA, Evangelical Fellowship of Mission Agencies, a division of the National Association of Evangelicals) and CrossGlobal Link (formerly IFMA, Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association). Concerning the Bible, they say, “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God” (Mission Exchange/NAE) and, “We believe that the Bible, consisting of Old and New Testaments only, is verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit, is inerrant in the original manuscripts, and is the infallible and authoritative Word of God” (CrossGlobal Link). Period.

Whew! Those are short and sweet! But they sure do leave a lot of room for differences in interpretation of different issues, don't they?

But let us keep looking at statements of faith.

I bumped into the Christian Home Educators of Cincinnati (CHEC) while I was looking for the statement of the Christian Home Educators of Colorado (also CHEC!) who kicked our company, Sonlight Curriculum, Ltd., out of its conventions for failing to toe a [poorly defined] theological line. I'll get to the Colorado CHEC in a moment. The Cincinnati CHEC says, “We believe the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, to be the verbally inspired Word of God, the final authority for faith and life, inerrant in the original writings, infallible and God-breathed.”

I believe these are good, strong, valid, evangelical statements of faith concerning the Bible.

But compare them with the “narrower” statements of organizations like the Christian Home Educators of Colorado: “The Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God and constitutes completed and final revelation. The Bible, in its original autograph, is without error in whole or in part; including theological concepts as well as geographical, historical and scientific details.” (!!!!)

Or how about the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches: “We believe in the authority and sufficiency of the Holy Bible, consisting of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, as originally written; that it was verbally and plenarily inspired and is the product of Spirit-controlled men, and therefore is infallible and inerrant in all matters of which it speaks” [Article I] . . . especially as this is further “clarified” in Article V: “We believe the Biblical account of the creation of the physical universe, angels, and man; that this account is neither allegory nor myth, but a literal, historical account of the direct, immediate creative acts of God without any evolutionary process; that man was created by a direct work of God and not from previously existing forms of life; and that all men are descended from the historical Adam and Eve, first parents of the entire human race. Genesis 1; 2; Colossians 1:16, 17; John 1:3.”

Clearly, for many--and the number seems to be growing rapidly under the influence, particularly, of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis--any attempt to “reinterpret” Genesis 1-11 as anything but straight, uninterpreted (and uninterpretable) history flies directly in the face of what the Bible “obviously” says/teaches.

More than that, however--and I believe this is the central point of this post: the authority of the Scriptures is really the central issue as far as AiG is concerned--a truth that is often overlooked/missed/ignored/forgotten, despite Ham’s/AiG’s constant harping on the theme. (After all, their corporate tagline is--or at least was, until very recently: “Upholding the authority of the Bible from the very first verse.” Now it appears they have changed the tag to "Believing it. Defending it. Proclaiming it.")

The bulk of their words seem to address biblical and scientific grounds for believing in a young-earth and an unmediated six-(literal, 24-hour-)day creation. But their motives reside in their desire to uphold the authority of the Bible as they understand it ought to be perceived and believed.

[NOTE: I, myself, was caught in a whipsaw/vortex when I first bumped into AiG back in 1999 because I didn't realize where they were coming from. I was used to the young-earth creationist perspective of Henry Morris and the Institute for Creation Research. I didn't realize Ham had actually been a part of ICR for a while and then split off. And it wasn't until sometime after I realized that Ham had split that it struck me: Ham almost certainly viewed/views Morris’ approach to Scripture and science as compromised or compromising. He felt duty-bound to remove himself from ICR because Morris and company permit science occasionally to stand “above” Scripture. . . .

I just did a search online and can't find any documentary evidence to suggest that this difference of opinion had anything to do with Ham splitting from ICR. But, let us say, it “makes sense” that he would split considering that AiG is adamant that the world is 6,000 years old (plus or minus a few years--dozens, perhaps, but definitely not thousands), whereas Morris and company are willing to acknowledge a world that is 6,000 to 10,000 or even, possibly, 12,000 years old. . . .

Oh. And I just found an email from 1999 in which I reference a phone conversation I had with Ken Ham in which he obviously described the primary difference between the two organizations as the difference between evidentialism (ICR) and presuppositionalism (AiG).

Why would AiG be so adamant about the 6,000 number? To quote Tas Walker, the AiG (Australia) guy with whom I first had contact back in late ’98 and early ’99:

When we consider this question [of the age of the earth], where we start is vital. Since we believe the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God we start with the Bible. God has revealed truth to us through the Bible. He was there when the world was created. He knows everything, does not tell lies and does not make mistakes. Ken Ham deals with this well in his book 'The Lie: evolution'?

The Bible clearly teaches that the world is young. If it taught that the world was millions of years old then we would be OEC. However, the concept of millions of years of death and suffering destroys the authority of the Word of God and destroys the foundation of the gospel. I could develop this more, and will if you like, but the conclusion is that the world is young as described in the Bible.

So, now that we have established that the world is young (6000 years), we are ready to come to the evidence. Evidence does not interpret itself. It is interpreted by people who use a framework. We have just established some constraints on the possible solutions using the Bible. This is a different approach from what people expect. People think we can answer the question about young/old earth by coming to the evidence with an open mind. Unfortunately, as humans we never have all the information. So, starting from this position our conclusions are never secure because one piece of information can change our whole conclusion. However, starting from the Word of God we can know for sure that what is revealed is true, even though we do not yet have all the explanations.

Morris, obviously, also starts with Scripture, but he permits (permitted) additional factors—like the problem of gaps in the biblical genealogical record—to suggest the possibility of some additional years. I don't think you'll find any such looseness with Ham and friends. . . .

Anyway.

One more thing before I move on. Let me note something else Walker wrote to me shortly after the above:

I have not seen an Old Earthers' interpretation of the Bible that is systematic or consistent. Such an 'interpretation' would need to show how the whole biblical world view fits together. It would need to deal with the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, The Tower of Babel and how these relate to why Christ came into the world and what he has done. It would also need to deal with the Second Coming of Christ and the Consummation of all things. When you start asking questions of those who hold this positon you do not get answers because the position is not consistent. That is why people do not hold it for long. . . .

[Thus, a]s you try to make sense of [Hugh Ross’s] philosophy you will find his position logically absurd. His position does not defend the Bible but destroys it. It is an unstable positon and you will not be able to keep it for long. . . . [Same thing with Glenn Morton.] Morton has abandoned faith in an authoritative Word of God. All of his objections have been answered. Have you had time to research them? He is **not** an 'old earth creationist' but wholly a theistic evolutionist. OEC-ism is an unstable position, and few people stay that way for long. For example, Davis Young, one of Hayward's OEC heroes, has become a theistic evolutionist.    --Links in this email are mine. There were none in the original. --JAH

As you will see in a moment, I agree with Walker's assessment of the failure on the part of Old Earthers to provide a full-orbed, thoroughgoing "world view" or theological system.

At the same time, YECists, who obviously want a “solid rock” on which to stand [“On Christ the solid Rock I stand! All other ground is sinking sand!”], they sense they are not going to find it in OECism.

Yet, while they see the potentially precarious situation of their old-earth brothers and sisters, I'm afraid they fail to see how their own young-earth “solid rock” lacks stability--especially for their young people. When and as their children confront well-spoken advocates for an old-earth perspective, these members of the next generation find, too often, that their faith is blown away . . . and they have nothing to cling to, honestly. No alternatives. No intellectual equipment that even begins to prepare them for dealing with such challenges.

(For a nice read on this particular issue, I recommend Steve Douglas’ Undeception blog post Evolution and evangel[ical]ism and, perhaps more pointedly, Black sheep bleat “sibboleth” which, in turn, is built from some comments in a stunningly insightful blog post by one of Steve’s friends. One more on the general theme: Doubt and certainty: a fork in the road.)]

I think it is probably past time that I bring this post to a close.

To summarize: I think the fundamental theological issues raised by and the personal aspirations pursued by young-earth creationists are admirable. They accord well with what is in my heart and--if the statements of self-confessed evangelical old-earthers are to be believed, the aspirations and sentiments of the young-earthers accord well with what is in the hearts of their old-earth creationist brothers and sisters as well.

However. As far as I can see, no old-earth creationist has written anything halfway useful to speak to these specific, broad-based and far-reaching theological issues.

No old-earth creationist whose work I have found confronts the broad issues concerning the authority of Scripture. Rather, they attempt, lightly, to touch on a few verses, here or there, that have to do with their particular interests. (I think of Young and Stearley’s The Bible, Rocks and Time, for example), or they go into more depth on issues rather directly related to old-earth and/or evolutionary creation (I think of Gordon Glover’s Beyond the Firmament and Gorman Gray’s The Age of the Universe: What are the Biblical Limits? and, even, David Snoke’s A Biblical Case for an Old Earth . . . not to mention most of Hugh Ross’ books . . . and so many others), or--and this rather “blew me away” and I have still not gotten around to writing about it the way I had promised and intended some two years ago when I first read his book--they “simply” declare themselves evangelical but approach Scripture from a decidedly non-traditional, text-critical manner (I think particularly of Denis Lamoureux in his Evolutionary Creation book in which he seems to assume the truth of the JEDP/Documentary hypothesis and uses that as a significant part of the basis for interpreting Genesis as he does). None of these authors confronts the “firm footing” issues, the issues related to “how should we then interpret the Scriptures overall?”

It is these issues--issues of the heart: what we desire (or fail to desire) with respect to God and issues of fundamental Scriptural authority and interpretation--that I want to address in future blog posts.

As my blog subhead proclaims: this is "For those of us who find ourselves saying, 'Lord, I believe. Help me in my unbelief.' --An attempt to find answers that will satisfy."

---

¹ According to Denis Lamoureux (Denis O. Lamoureux, Evolutionary Creation, pp. 10-11), there are several "basic tenets" that are part of any Christian doctrine of creation. I hope you would agree:

• The creation is radically distinct and different from the Creator (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1-3; Hebrews 1:10-12; Revelation 1:8).
  
  • The entire universe is not God--as suggested by pantheism.
     
  • No part of the world is divine--as proposed by paganism.
     
  • The Creator transcends the creation, yet He is also imminent to His works (omnipresent) and knows their every detail (omniscient). God also enters the world to interact with His creatures at any time and in any way He so chooses (omnipotent).
• The creation is utterly dependent on the Creator (Job 34:14-15; Psalm 65:9-13, 104:1-35; Acts 17:24-28; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2-3; Revelation 4:11). God ordained the universe and life into being and He continues to sustain their existence during every single instant.
   
• The creation was made out of nothing (Latin: creatio ex nihilo. Romans 4:17; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 2:10, 11:3). God did not fashion the universe from eternal pre-existent material.
   
• The creation is temporal (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1-3; Matthew 24:35; 2 Peter 3:7, 12-13). . . . The universe is not eternal. It is bound in time and has both a beginning and an end.
   
• [And more. --JAH]