Creation Confusion.

You may also like...

No Responses

  1. janelle says:

    I believe that God created the world in 6 days. If I believed otherwise, I would be denying Gods sovereign power and ability to do what seems so impossible to man. He is my God, He can do anything. Who am I, to doubt what scripture clearly states,
    “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, th.” (Genesis 1:5 ESV)

  2. janelle says:

    Sorry the text didn’t fully paste “the first day.”

  3. Thanks for the opportunity to continue to engage this matter. You refer to confusion about “the creation account.” Let me suggest a few reasons for this confusion.

    1. There are several creation accounts in Scripture. Genesis 1, Genesis 2, Psalm 74:13-17, Psalm 104, Job 38-40, John 1. Each has a different structure, some have different sequences, all have their particular emphases and contexts (literary, historical, cultural, theological).

    2. Many in the evangelical community have been led to believe that the plain-sense meaning of Genesis 1 is the only acceptable understanding a non-compromising Christian may have. Extremely well-funded organizations have for the last few decades propagated such views, and these views have found their way into Canadian Reformed publications as well, perhaps more so in recent years, but already for a couple of decades.

    3. Many in the Canadian Reformed community are unaware of the history of our own denomination’s openness to alternative interpretations of Genesis 1. The assumption that Genesis 1 is all about sequence, timing, accuracy, and/or scientifically-verifiable geological and astronomical claims has been questioned by Augustine, Calvin, Kuyper, Bavinck, Schilder, Ohmann, Faber, DeJong. These last three were professors at our Canadian Reformed seminary, and they objected to desires to enshrine in our confessions claims that the world was created in six 24-hour ordinary days about 6000 years ago. They instead reminded people of the freedom of exegesis within Reformed theology. For an example, see http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/presbyterians-rcus/conversations/topics/205 .

    4. There is an assumption that everyone writing on “creation” falls into a specific category: OEC, YEC, Framework Hypothesis, Theistic Evolution, etc., and so to critique someone’s views one must first figure out which of these categories that writer is in, so then one knows everything about that writer’s views, and can identify where that school of thought “naturally” leads or identify some trusted critic of that idea. If someone simply points out problems in the concept of starlight being created before stars, or that there is an abundance of scientific evidence of an ancient earth and cosmos, this doesn’t need to make people confused about that person’s legitimate Christian belief. [FYI, I do not hold to any of the views mentioned above.]

    5. There is an assumption that every Christian must have a fully-complete easily-communicated package to explain everything about creation. Such a package already exists, thanks to the folks over at Answers in Genesis, so why doesn’t everyone just accept that? Perhaps it is somewhat unsettling to find out that things are not quite as simple as AiG claims it is, that there is not any scientific evidence for a young universe, that some of the tactics of that organization are flawed or even deceptive, that Reformed theology has not hitched its horse to that wagon. Now, some people are more comfortable with ambiguity and tension than others. But there are other areas of mystery that we have been able to live with: just think about the doctrine of the Trinity, God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility, why God created a world with the possibility of a Fall. In these areas, we don’t expect people to have such a nicely wrapped up set of answers. Why should we be ready with a full package to reconcile everything we know about the world and the Word, especially given that we are learning more about the world and the Word all the time? Let us proceed in confidence in the Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of the cosmos and of us, not in our neat and tidy interpretations of world and Word.

    I hope my tentative explanations for the confusion do not lead to more confusion. God bless you all today and every day in His service!

  4. Mike says:

    You lost me at. “Are these “old earth creation” people really Christians?”

    Wow! Creation Confusion is an understatement. Only the confusion isn’t about “yec” vs “oec”. It’s about people forgetting the central theme of the Bible, and the center of everything: Jesus.

  5. Walter says:

    One of the biggest implications of not taking the first few chapters of Genesis literally is what we do with Adam and Eve. Were they the first human beings created directly out of dust and a rib? ‘New’ teachings on Adam and Eve are now starting to surface in the church to defend OEC: they weren’t the first humans, they were the first humans but evolved from something, Adam was only made from dust like we are ‘made from dust’, Eve wasn’t really made from Adam’s rib it was only a dream Adam had, etc This is extremely dangerous and clearly contradicts the Bible as even the New Testament refers back to Adam and Eve numerous times.