Just a Bit Confused

Worldview is extremely important. Your worldview determines how you will interpret events and circumstances in the world around you. Your worldview governs how you think, act, and respond. Your worldview is part and parcel of who you are.

So it should come as no surprise when someone who has a Christian worldview and someone who has an atheistic worldview butt heads. Christianity and atheism are completely opposing worldviews and cannot be reconciled with one another; one is right, and the other is atheism. One has God, and the other claims not to. The atheist worldview has several problems that only the Christian worldview can solve, such as the origins of the universe; the existence of absolute truth, logic, and reason; and the manifold evidence for a Designer in nature. The atheist worldview often assumes certain things to be true without giving any thought to whether their worldview can give sufficient explanations for why those assumptions can be made.

One area that I’ve been having difficulty with lately is the idea of evolutionary biology and an old earth model, and if and how that model can be reconciled with what the Bible has to say. Perhaps they can’t. I’m not sure. But my world has been rocked a bit by what I’ve been learning lately that it’s becoming hard to ignore the massive ramifications of the interpretation of some of these biblical texts.

Modern scientists aren’t stupid. Many of them are godless, yes, and many of them will choose to refuse to see evidence for a Creator because of their worldview. But what of those Christian scientists who think that evolutionary biology and the biblical account can indeed be reconciled to one another? Certainly their presuppositions are not governing their rejection of a literal, 6-day creation and a worldwide flood. The burning question in the back of my mind has been, what if it was not God’s intention for Genesis 1-11 to accurately represent actual events? Even if that is the case, none of the theology is lost. Man is still fallen, God is still sovereign.

I don’t claim to be able to read the mind of God. In fact, anyone who does ought to be labeled a heretic. God and his knowledge and wisdom are infinitely above our own finite understanding. I am not a scientist, but many people who are tell me different stories; I just want to know the truth.

We’ll see where I land. I’ve got several issues that I have to think through. Maybe I just won’t stand firm on certain issues. Science isn’t my area, and therefore, I’ll leave it to scientists to explain God’s creation as best as they can. But like I said, we’ll see.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Just a Bit Confused

  1. HI ACe – You know me from #Pros. So, let’s see if the htm tags work in here…

    Certainly their presuppositions are not governing their rejection of a literal, 6-day creation and a worldwide flood.

    Actually, our presuppositions govern our entire worldview – and the scientific worldview(s) are and have been fairly consistently applied according to their presuppositions.

    It’s not possible to take our glasses off.

    The burning question in the back of my mind has been, what if it was not God’s intention for Genesis 1-11 to accurately represent actual events?

    Going to take a different tack here: What *biblical* teaching requires this? If there isn’t any, than Deuteronomy 29:29 and the biblical passages on human nature apply Jeremiah 17:9, along with the swarms of passages speaking of how God has literally made the wisdom of this world foolishness. This is not incuriosity or anti-intellectualism – it’s allowing God to direct our curiosity and intellect. In fact, before the recent bout with ugly fighting fundamentalism, christians used to be accused of being *too* intellectual.

    It is very good for man to exercise stewardship/dominion over the physical world and the animals; we know it is because God commanded it – so this wouldn’t even be a “pack up the bags and quit doing.”

    The primary issue at play here is not whether you end up in theistic evolution, OEC, YEC, or gap theory – even though that question is extremely important – the PRIMARY issue is whether or not we will allow what is not God’s revelation to control what God’s revelation can say; that’s the pharisee’s leaven which will work it’s way through the whole lump.

    What follows is not my assessment of you – rather it is I think a pretty concise statement of the problem that we all wrestle with and are found to be on one side or the other of:

    B. B. Warfield: “It is very plain that he who modifies the teachings of the Word of God in the smallest particular at the dictation of any ‘man-made opinion’ has already deserted the Christian ground, and is already, in principle, a ‘heretic.’ The very essence of ‘heresy’ is that the modes of thought and tenets originating elsewhere than in the Scriptures of God are given decisive weight when they clash with the teachings of God’s Word …”

    Schaffer had some things to say in this field: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXvzvivdVlA

    So, we acknowledge and pursue intelligence, dominion, and etc – but we do so biblically:

    Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper (rational) worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world (the thinking of this age), but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Why wouldn’t it be God’s intention for Genesis 1-11 to represent actual events? Furthermore, where in Genesis do we draw the line when it comes to what is recording actual events?
    Didn’t Jesus refer the first chapters of Genesis as history (“male and female He created them)?
    Forgive me, man, but this seems fairly straight forward.

    Like

        1. Right. God created us male and female. No theistic evolutionist (or evolutionary creationist; whatever term you wanna use) denies that.

          Like

      1. I gotcha.
        I don’t know man. I think the first few chapters of Genesis are pretty black-and-white, but that’s just me. Not looking to argue, but I hope you’ll come to a good conclusion that is based on Scripture 🙂

        Like

  3. As you can see, I don’t get onto the net very regularly …:P

    Jay Nelsestuen
    March 26, 2016 at 3:01 am

    Right. God created us male and female. No theistic evolutionist (or evolutionary creationist; whatever term you wanna use) denies that.

    Um, theistic evolution – evolution of *any type* requires one kind of life changing into another type of life (which includes sex) – Don’t forget that biblically life reproduces after it’s own kind – this breaks evolution of any stripe.

    It’s an either-or thing. God didn’t make humans so that male and female could turn into whatever; and didn’t make humans so that they could turn into (insert scifi ref here).

    So, while evolutionists of any type might not deny male/female/human, evolution itself requires that such can and will change. In fact, this pretty much opens the door to the transgender/homosexual/queer etc revolution; because it offers an “easy way out” for the theistic evolutionist – “but these people have evolved.” This isn’t a necessary result, more of an open road for otherwise bible-affirming evolutionists, and there is massive public pressure for them to go that route.

    As for sola scriptura – people can be inconsistent with their basic worldviews (I think we all are – not that this excuses being inconsistent) and hold to concepts and conclusions that their worldview contradicts – this is another either-or … either the inconsistent idea goes, or the worldview goes.

    Like

    1. “Um, theistic evolution – evolution of *any type* requires one kind of life changing into another type of life (which includes sex) – Don’t forget that biblically life reproduces after it’s own kind – this breaks evolution of any stripe.”

      Interesting point. One that has repeatedly come up.

      Like

      1. Don’t forget that Biblically life reproduces after its own kind—this breaks evolution of any stripe.”

        No evolutionary theory I’ve ever heard of suggests that a fish will give birth to a frog. Each generation’s offspring will be almost entirely like its parents. Neither does the quote ‘after its own kind’ suggest that each offspring must be identical to its parents —indeed, we know that they are not.

        This looks to me like an invented contradiction.

        Like

  4. Methinks for good reason too 😉

    BTW the quote tags for the combox in here is “blockquote” “/blockquote” inside of with no spaces; regular old HTML code.

    Like

  5. Nice post. I think it’s important to keep in mind that God has given us both his revelation in nature and in Scripture. When we want to find answers to questions about nature e.g., how old nature is, we should look to…nature. St. Augustine says in his work On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis that “our authors did know the truth about the shape of heaven, but that the Spirit of God, which speaking though them, did not want to teach men these things which are of no use to salvation” (Book 2 Chapter 9). Scripture is not a science textbook. If we want answers about the natural world, look to science. When it comes to faith and morals, look at Scripture. The two, since both have come from God should never contradict. Thus, when they appear to contradict (as in the case of the age of the world) we must closely examine both out interpretation of Scripture and the science itself to see where the error lies. Just my thoughts. btw this is christiandefender19.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s