Al Mohler answers the question, 'Why does the earth look so old?' It's an interesting way to phrase the question as it kind of implies that the answer will be, 'Because it is'. Unsurprisingly that's not where his line of thought leads.
"Great caution is in order when we begin to cede to science. The assured results of science—what do they tell us about a virgin birth? About a resurrection? About sexual orientation? Are we going to submit special revelation to what science says in all of these areas? The end of this process is theological disaster."
Weird. Does that mean we were wrong to throw out flat-earth theory because we can't allow science to inform us of our erroneous reading of the Bible? It's a weird understanding of sola scriptura.
It's worth noting that these are Challies' notes of Mohler's talk. I'd guess Mohler makes a more detailed case for each point. (Though perhaps not.) Mohler's main contentions flow from systematic theology (which is out of favour in Sydney circles).
Though while no doubt there was more said, Challies' notes seem to capture a fairly particular line of thought which isn't that contentious.
I think Nathan over at St-Eutychus made some helpful points (which I read after I wrote my post) regarding the implications which Mohler via Challies drew, of not holding a literal 6-24hr day-young earth view of creation.
Now while I haven't yet offered personal comment on Mohler's position, for me this highlights again some of the peculiarities between my circles and those in the US. That is, the claim from all concerned is to read the text at face value, even though we might end up at completely different places.
The difference potentially comes in the subsequent action on those different views. To make some sweeping generalisation; in evangelical circles in Sydney there is I perceive a great willingness to accept the method of exegesis with a high view of Scripture can allow people to differ on opinion in this matter while remaining in close fellowship. However, this is less true in the US where your understanding of creation it seems is often the yardstick against which someones liberal tendencies can be measured.
As to arguing from systematics. There are indeed some problems created if there was no literal Adam. I don't think these problems are insurmountable, but there are real valid concerns here. And again they come out of a desire to read the Bible and take God at his word.
I think PDJ helpfully captures the difficulties in reading Genesis, when he says the problem is our first question in Bible reading is usually genre - 'what are we reading', but Genesis is really like nothing else. It's the Genesis genre.
Trouble is, there's nothing in Genesis or the rest of the Bible to suggest that it is meant to be understood as anything other than historical narrative. To arrive at a specific demarcation of Genesis as its own genre (which is variously characterised as chapter 1, 1-3, 1-11 or even the whole thing) you need to bring it under the authority of non-biblical sources.
I do see your point. And please don't hear me necessarily arguing against the young earth view by these comments.
But I would challenge your statement that these observations need to come from comparison with non-biblical sources. Studying Genesis as it presents itself is the best way of studying it and leads to a number of conclusions; Firstly you're right, at a basic level Genesis is clearly narrative. And yet I think you would also say that even with a cursory glance, there are aspects of the way that history is told, especially the highly structured manner of the early chapter/s is a unique way of portraying that narrative. There is a poetic flavour to it. And then of course there is the retelling with the focus on man. Now this isn't unique to Genesis I guess, but the melding of those genres at the start does give a particular nuance to Genesis which is unique.
Also, that Genesis begins by describing the beginning automatically sets it apart from every book that follows it, as its scope is so much larger.
Of course these observations don't favour any one particular view on creation, but it is worth noting that there are peculiarities in the way that early history of Genesis is presented.
These are rough thoughts. Maybe I'm saying I agree that there is nothing in Genesis to indicate its not historical narrative, but there are peculiar ways that history is presented which make Genesis unique.
Sheesh. I liked the answer you thunk of first...
ReplyDeleteThe earth is old. Get used to it, people!
"Great caution is in order when we begin to cede to science. The assured results of science—what do they tell us about a virgin birth? About a resurrection? About sexual orientation? Are we going to submit special revelation to what science says in all of these areas? The end of this process is theological disaster."
ReplyDeleteWeird. Does that mean we were wrong to throw out flat-earth theory because we can't allow science to inform us of our erroneous reading of the Bible? It's a weird understanding of sola scriptura.
The North American church scene really is a whole different beast.
ReplyDeleteI wonder which battles of ours they are more ambivalent to, yet we spill blood over?
Soccer
ReplyDeleteno wait, Rugby
ReplyDeletelol
ReplyDeleteIt's worth noting that these are Challies' notes of Mohler's talk.
ReplyDeleteI'd guess Mohler makes a more detailed case for each point. (Though perhaps not.)
Mohler's main contentions flow from systematic theology (which is out of favour in Sydney circles).
Yeah they are helpful points.
ReplyDeleteThough while no doubt there was more said, Challies' notes seem to capture a fairly particular line of thought which isn't that contentious.
I think Nathan over at St-Eutychus made some helpful points (which I read after I wrote my post) regarding the implications which Mohler via Challies drew, of not holding a literal 6-24hr day-young earth view of creation.
Now while I haven't yet offered personal comment on Mohler's position, for me this highlights again some of the peculiarities between my circles and those in the US. That is, the claim from all concerned is to read the text at face value, even though we might end up at completely different places.
The difference potentially comes in the subsequent action on those different views. To make some sweeping generalisation; in evangelical circles in Sydney there is I perceive a great willingness to accept the method of exegesis with a high view of Scripture can allow people to differ on opinion in this matter while remaining in close fellowship. However, this is less true in the US where your understanding of creation it seems is often the yardstick against which someones liberal tendencies can be measured.
As to arguing from systematics. There are indeed some problems created if there was no literal Adam. I don't think these problems are insurmountable, but there are real valid concerns here. And again they come out of a desire to read the Bible and take God at his word.
I think PDJ helpfully captures the difficulties in reading Genesis, when he says the problem is our first question in Bible reading is usually genre - 'what are we reading', but Genesis is really like nothing else. It's the Genesis genre.
Trouble is, there's nothing in Genesis or the rest of the Bible to suggest that it is meant to be understood as anything other than historical narrative.
ReplyDeleteTo arrive at a specific demarcation of Genesis as its own genre (which is variously characterised as chapter 1, 1-3, 1-11 or even the whole thing) you need to bring it under the authority of non-biblical sources.
I do see your point. And please don't hear me necessarily arguing against the young earth view by these comments.
ReplyDeleteBut I would challenge your statement that these observations need to come from comparison with non-biblical sources. Studying Genesis as it presents itself is the best way of studying it and leads to a number of conclusions;
Firstly you're right, at a basic level Genesis is clearly narrative. And yet I think you would also say that even with a cursory glance, there are aspects of the way that history is told, especially the highly structured manner of the early chapter/s is a unique way of portraying that narrative. There is a poetic flavour to it. And then of course there is the retelling with the focus on man. Now this isn't unique to Genesis I guess, but the melding of those genres at the start does give a particular nuance to Genesis which is unique.
Also, that Genesis begins by describing the beginning automatically sets it apart from every book that follows it, as its scope is so much larger.
Of course these observations don't favour any one particular view on creation, but it is worth noting that there are peculiarities in the way that early history of Genesis is presented.
These are rough thoughts. Maybe I'm saying I agree that there is nothing in Genesis to indicate its not historical narrative, but there are peculiar ways that history is presented which make Genesis unique.