Westminster Seminary's theological war
In recent months, we've reported on the theological splits at Wycliffe Hall, the evangelical theological college in Oxford. Now, it emerges that one of America's best-known conservative evangelical colleges is so divided over a doctrinal dispute that it has suspended one of its professors. The trustees of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia to suspend (pictured), an Old Testament professor, following the controversy triggered by the publication of his 2005 book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. (See Peter Enns's personal website .)
In this book, Professor Enns proposes an incarnational analogy in an effort to make sense of the Bible. Just as Jesus was both divine and human simulaneously, according to the professor, the Bible is also divine and human. This analogy, he thinks, is useful in understanding how the Bible was composed by human beings under the direction of the Holy Spirit. You might think this is a fairly conservative stance -- and by most standards it certainly is -- but it was evidently too much for some of Professor Enns's colleagues on the faculty. His opponents argue that the professor's views are inconsistent with the Westminster Confession of Faith, the seventeenth century Reformed creed to which all Westminster staff are required to subscribe, which says nothing of any human dimension in the formation of scripture.
According to a report in , Stephen Taylor, a New Testament lecturer at the Seminary has now decided to leave Westminster because "he feels the seminary is too restrictive in its reading of the Westminster Confession."
The debacle at Westminster is yet more evidence of the theological debate currently taking place within the evangelical world about what it means to be an evangelical today. In the case of Wycliffe Hall, that debate concerned disagreements about principally ethical and social matters; in Westminster's case, as one might have expected, the debate concerns the nature of scripture.
Incidentally, here's an additional bit of journalistic colour for Northern Irish readers. , the minister of First Portadown Presbyterian Church, who was recently embroiled in a very public controversy about the exclusion of a local female minister from his church's pulpit, is a graduate of Westminster Seminary and previously served as the Seminary's Executive Vice-President (between 2000 and 2005).
Comments
Sorry to have to point this out, but these controversies over divine/human duality could be quite easily resolved by the recognition that Jesus of Nazareth was just a human, and the bible is just a collection of texts by humans.
Why make a simple problem complicated? ;-)
-A
Stafford's having graduated from Westminster certainly gives a good indication of its theological temperature. I find it astonishing that these institutions still hold to a 400 year old document like the Westminster Confession of Faith for their standards of faith and practice (all while claiming that sola scriptura, the bible alone, occupies that place). The Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI) still requires subscription to the Westminster Confession when ordaining ministers (and elders?), and if you've ever read the Confession you'll be privy to just why that's such a ridiculous idea.
You'd have thought some of the fundies presently pontificating on the Blueprint thread would be here giving us their views on something they maybe know a bit about?
I don't think the fundies would be interested in this thread - they are much more comfortable fighting with atheists than with other Christians. Indeed, I've always thought it a bit odd that many liberal Christians (from whom my own position would be not too distant on many matters) reserve such spunky ire for us atheists, while they are so lukewarm and pathetic about the creationist nutters who tar them all with one particular shabby and nasty brush...
Curious.
you're both a liberal Christian and an atheist!!
the mind boggles!!
On the issue of 'fundies' and interest in this thread, Amenhotep's use of the word helps us understand who the fundies might be. Understanding this might help explain their apparent silence.
On the basis however that god doesn't exist, I'm sort of wondering why you guys are worried.
Anyway Amenhotep, thankyou for your simple answer to theological controversy. Maybe you are interested in another one. (simple answer I mean) Why don鈥檛 we go on and solve every problem related to meaning, morals, being and knowledge while we鈥檙e at it? I can do metaphysics and epistemology in 53 words or less.
Nothing made everything.
Everything in made of atoms, or some other 鈥榮tuff鈥 (remember it鈥檚 simple answer day)
Atoms are impersonal and amoral.
Man is made of atoms. So is everything else
Man is impersonal. So is everything else.
The particular has no meaning.
Personality does not exist. There鈥檚 no point to nothing.
Don鈥檛 you just love it? Oh no, you can鈥檛, love does not exist.
It might explain however why people seek to understand and interpret the bible in its historical and contemporary context, which is what this controversy appears to be about. Specifically on the point of the professors views being inconsistent with the Westminster Confession of Faith; it would be odd indeed if Reformed Christians placed more emphasis on adherence to the confession than on adherence to the bible.
Notwithstanding the comments here about the westminster confession, which is a peerless statement of classic Christian doctrine, I would like to applaud the trustees of WTS for their courageous stand for biblical truth in the face of modernism. The bible is the work of one Author, who used human agents to express His divine revelation. It is not a cooperation between humans and God. Those who support this theory of scripture have abandoned one of the most basic theological doctrines. Once you start there, you will soon be arguing that salvation is a divine-human cooperation. It isn't. It is entirely the work of God and the bible's composition is the same: entirely God's work, free of error entirely, free of contradiction, and wholly reliable on every question from science to ethics. Those who do not believe this have no place teaching in theological colleges. Liberals may celebrate free thought, but at what price? Once you give up basic scriptural teaching, you open the floodgates to every kind of heretical teaching and start allowing any lifestyle as ethically acceptable. Westminster are right to take a stand. I hope they will also suspend any professor who teaches that the world is 4.6 billion years old.
Peter, morality is a higher-order phenomenon, and cannot be reasonably applied to atoms. It is relevant to the behaviour of certain assemblages of these atoms (i.e. us). Things like "love" and "beauty" only make sense in this context, and sense they do make. The Mona Lisa is made of atoms, but none of those atoms has an enigmatic smile.
People, lest there be any confusion, I *am* an atheist, but I have a strong moral compass that is based not on the whim of some imaginary sky pixie, but on interaction between people. *We* take responsibility for our actions; it is other people and ourselves who hold us to account, not fictional gods. You don't add value to moral statements by pretending there is some sort of goddy thing that is going to whip your butt over it.
My point was that there are a lot of issues on which I agree with liberal Christians, and it would be nice to see such liberal Christians practice a bit more mental hygiene. I'm not trying to convert them.
Greetings Amenhotep. Thank you for solving another complicated problem. I didn鈥檛 know about higher-order doings. I hope you鈥檙e not digging though, because the sand in Mitsrayim is often soft and dry and has a habit of collapsing.
I鈥檓 really interested in how you get to 鈥榟igher-order phenomenon鈥 out of nothing. Unless you鈥檙e starting with something, in which case that would be something. (In more ways than one)
Anyway, let鈥檚 assume we have either, something out of nothing or something out of something, and let鈥檚 call the something atoms. I have to say though, I like the word 鈥榮tuff鈥 too.
Now, take me along the route from atom to higher-order phenomenon/personality/beauty etc. which, incidentally, cannot be 鈥榬easonably applied to atoms鈥; unless the atoms are, perchance, reassembled.
It seems to me that you are saying that sometimes, atoms plus atoms equals atoms, and that sometimes atoms plus atoms equals a really good night out.
Or maybe it鈥檚 like straw. Sometimes an assemblage of straw is a straw-bale, and sometimes it鈥檚 a straw-stack, and then again sometimes it鈥檚 the most beautiful 1st little pig鈥檚 house you鈥檝e ever seen.
Now that really would be an enigma...and people accuse me of believing in fairytales.
Re:the Westminster confession of faith: As a member of the Presbyterian Chrurch in Ireland , and someone who is defintely not a YEC (I have absolutely no problem with conventional science) I have been reminded by David Anderson on his blog "BCSE revealed" that the Westminster confession of faith holds to a young Earth creationist viewpoint. Anderson pointed this out to me when I said (on the BCSE forum) that I was advised by an elder in a neighbouring Presbyterian congregation, to raise matter at the church's general assembly (apparently this is not difficult to do) if i had problems with the general stance of the denomination. I have been told, four times now, that as long as a Christian believes that God created the heavens and the Earth how and when he did it is for you to decide). So I would imagine that the official position of the church is that it accepts all views, from flat Earth creationism through to theistic evolution (my own position). According to Anderson the Westminster confession of faith is definitely YEC and I'd be wasting my time should I deciude to try and raise this at the general assembly. Groups like Answers in Genesis (which now appears to be active in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland ) definitely do not accept other viewpoints.
It wuold be intersting to see what Wycliffe Hall's position is on this. If they adhere so strongly to the Westminster confession of faith then they are probably YEC. Which could explain why Ken Ham has attracted such large crowds of supporting Christians in Liverpool (500) and Bedford (600) on his current tour. It would seem that the evangelical church in the rest of the UK has addopted a YEC position. I do wonder if this is partly due to the stances of seminaries such as Wycliffe.
Hi Peter!
Good to see you hear! I posted on the BCSE website awhile ago and I think we conversed? If it is indeed you how is the radio show going?
Anyway hope you are well and good to see you here.
DD
Hi DD.
Yes, indeed we did converse over on BCSE. Radio show went well (apparently my lunchtime show had a cult following in Larne....not sure if that's a good or bad thing !). Since we were an RSL (we were only on for 2 weeks) it's finished now but we hope to be back next Christmas for 1 month this time.
It's the first time I've posted here and I wasn't sure if I had been successful or not but it seems i have.
I think William's show is really good. I still have that excellent interview he did with Ken Ham in March 2005 (are you planning anything for Ham's return visit in May William ?).
The elder that I spoke of had Stafford Carson as his minister at one stage and I've been along to hear him (Carson) preach on a number of occasions. Carson doesn't really come over as being extreme and I was cetainly surprised that he was involved in the gender row in Portadown.
W.C.F. 4:1
It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Gen_1:2; Job_26:13; Job_33:4; Joh_1:2, Joh_1:3; Heb_1:2), for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness (Psa_33:5, Psa_33:6; Psa_104:24; Jer_10:12; Rom_1:20), in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good (Gen 1:1-50:26; Act_17:24; Col_1:16; Heb_11:3).
Theistic evolution is nothing more than a man made sham of a theory, Frankenstein theology opposing the God of creation and His Word, it is a marriage of convenience between the humanistic theories of modern science with biblical theism so that sinful man can feel comfortable in the world when he is faced with opposition which might threaten his credibility, to believe in the literal Genesis creation as it is written might undermine their academic reputation, they put evolution on the throne of God making the Bible the servant of evolution removing the foundations of the Christian faith, they build their house upon sinking sand.
Gullible and misguided Christians should awaken up and out of their slumber and realise that what is being passed off as science is nothing more than a satanic faith based worldview that is hostile to and undermines the perfect Word of God. Christians who have surrendered their birthright for the pottage of an evolutionary chemical soup have fallen for the lies of Satan eating the forbidden fruit of secular humanism making man sovereign over God making man controller of his own destiny, instead Christians should be opposing and exposing the blasphemous evolutionary lies of Satan which have crept into the mind of some Christians unnoticed creating theological confusion within the church.
When the theistic evolutionist waters down the literal truth of God鈥檚 Word in the first three chapters of Genesis he also waters down the rest of God鈥檚 Word and cuts the scarlet thread that runs through Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 the theistic evolutionist needed to understand that there are 1189 chapters of literal truth and not just 1186 in their cherry picked Bible, when science crosses the path of God鈥檚 Word, the Bible is supported and not contradicted.
As Jacques Monod put it: [Natural] selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species鈥..The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethic revolts鈥.I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.
"If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
I鈥檝e not yet heard of a building site without a builder, the difference between me and the theistic evolutionist and their congregation of atheistic secular humanists is that I know the architect and builder of the universe who is God. who Created the building site The Universe, the Master Builder, It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, Who gives the sun for a light by day, The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, Who disturbs the sea, And its waves roar (The LORD of hosts is His name): 鈥淚f those ordinances depart From before Me, says the LORD, Then the seed of Israel shall also cease From being a nation before Me forever.鈥 Now tell me who the builders of the theistic evolutionary building site are .In case you have trouble let me remind you, it is Satan using the brick nothingness + time + chance = nothing, what can you build out of nothing, nothing but 鈥渦tter darkness鈥
The vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science. Werner von Braun.
[Aargh! Pesky comments bot! Last post got chewed!]
Peter (Morrow), you're so close! You have correctly discerned that the "nature" of something is not determined by what it is made of, but in its interactions with other systems. Well done.
The interesting thing is this - those interactions can be described mathematically, meaning that everything in the universe is essentially mathematics in action.
How can something come from nothing? Where does Pi come from? What caused the number 2? Did Benoit Mandelbrot cause or discover the set that bears his name? There is a very interesting viewpoint (to which I subscribe, incidentally, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise) that our universe simply *is* a mathematical structure, and needs no creator or external reality (other than mathematics itself) in which to reside.
It's from a chap called , and you can find it .
Will, if you're stuck for guests on SunSeq, you should see if you can get Max on some time :-)
Peter Henderson: the problem with the Westminster Confession of Faith is that it's based on "Faith", as if faith were a virtue. By all means accept the WCOF, but like any good scientist, you should do so provisionally, with the additional proviso that some of it is known to be incorrect (assuming it does indeed promulgate the YEC nonsense). Hey ho - even theological luminaries can't be right all the time, can they? ;-)
-A
Amen
Sounds like much of your thinking depends on the work of Newton, on whose foundation Einstein proceeded.
An athiest visited Newton once and saw a fine model of the solar system in his study and asked him who made it.
Newtown told him "nobody".
The athiest said "dont be ridiculous" to which Newton said: "Well why do you find it ridiculous to believe that the universe had a creator?"
In other words, mathematical patterns in nature do not support your argument at all, in the view of Newton, who spent much of his life studying theology.
Incidentally Amen, you said you left your faith after reading the bible through yourself.
I see a few problems with this;-
1) I have never seen you give a truly credible demonstration for why you came to this conclusion.
2) Many much better qualified scientists than you come to the oppositie conclusion with the same data.
3) Apparent contradictions in science do not cause scientists to resign from science. eg look at the debate among physicists about whether light was waves or particles! This is just one example.
You would really need to demonstrate some more consistency and substance to stand your position up Amen. But only if you wish to be dogmatic!
PB
PS Did you ever tell us whether you actually had any qualifications in genetics or whether it was just an interest?
Re:Billy and theistic evolution. The problem is Billy that certain fundamentals in science are beyond any doubt. For example, the age of the Earth and Universe. Cosmic distance measurements alone show that the Universe is not 6,000 years old. The information contained in rocks show categorically that the flood wasn't global (I hope you've been watching the excellent "blueprint land"). So what are Christians to do ? The so called proofs of a young Earth so often claimed be YECs are nothing short of being fraudulent. They have been refuted time and time again (check out the talkorigins website www.talkorigins.org). Surely in the bible it states that christians shouldn't lie ? Like most YECs Billy, I get the impression that you feel that if a Christian does not accept a literal Genesis then he/she is not really a Christian at all. Surely this is heresy ? Since you claim the TE's "cherry pick" the bible I assume you would agree with the following:
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can鈥檛 I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don鈥檛 agree. Can you settle this? Are there 鈥榙egrees鈥 of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may ! not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn鈥檛 we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Somehow I don't think you would advocate the above. Even YECs pick and choose.
PB, yes, I did tell you. Now your turn - what qualifications do *you* have in science?
Interestingly, there is . Maybe you should get into the habit of checking your sources, eh? Also, Newton did not believe in the Trinity - do you agree with him now? Your argument seems to be that because Newton didn't come up with the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, it must therefore be false? What a strange view. Newton is not a final authority on science or mathematics - a lot has happened since then. Me, I stand on the shoulders of giants ;-)
Regarding mathematics, perhaps you would like to read and critique the Tegmark paper I linked to?
I would also point out that the conclusions I came to regarding the fact that Christianity is untrue are not based on my qualifications as a scientist, but simple appraisal of the evidence.
If you're interested in this (and I'm pleased that you are now starting to be a bit more sceptical of the bible - it's a first step -well done), have a read of the website:
Enjoy :-)
Hi Peter,
Glad to hear that you are well and that the radio show went well and that you even have a cult following!
Will show is indeed great and I actually listened to all the Ken Ham interview very recently on podcast-great stuff! Did you know on the Wiki article about Ken Ham the Will interview is listed under those articles 'critical of Ham'!
Stick around Peter! see Billy has replied to you, just ignore him he will go away.
DD
Amenhotep.
Thank you for your praise and encouragement. Sort of of reminds me of being in Primary One. I really feel I've achieved something.
Anyway I鈥檓 off the read the Maths paper you so kindly linked to. I鈥檓 particularly looking forward to the proofs for consciousness and personality.
Nice to see that the interview uis still available DD. It really is excellent and it's the first time I've heard Ham tied up in knots, and not just on one occasion either.
The problem i have with Billy's views is that like most YECs he doesn't accept that Christians can have different positions. In my opinion the great antiquity of the Earth/Universe has been proven beyond doubt now, despite fraudulent YEC claims. The fact that evolution has occured is not disputed by 99% of all scientists. Why is it that YECs now expect Christians to ditch all science from the last 150 years in order to prove their salvation ? I get the impression now that many YECs dont really think that Christians who accept conventional science are really Christians at all.
As for cherry picking the bible, i assume Billy would not be in agreement with the following:
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can鈥檛 I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don鈥檛 agree. Can you settle this? Are there 鈥榙egrees鈥 of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may ! not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn鈥檛 we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I doubt very much if Billy would practice the above. YECs pick and choose just like everyone else.
nice sidesteps Amenhotep
your point above was that maths exists in its own right in patterns in nature and you were inferring that this undermines the case for God.
Newton and Einstein both unequivolcally saw God as responsible for the universe and its maths.
And Einstein built much of his work on Newton. (Of course Einstein was not a Christian but still believed in God).
Those are the giants whose shoulders you stand on.
(A red herring - but..I would never expect to agree on all things with all the Christians I mention any more than you would agree with all scientists on all matters.)
And as for implying that I am doubting the bible - I have no idea where you got that from.
Lastly, I have no qualifications in science (or religion) but unlike you I dont propose to give forth dogmatic truths on both - or issue personal attacks on those who hold different views.
I generally give a biblical apologetic explanation to the best of my current understanding and let others make their own minds up.
BTW Peter Henderson
very questionable to ask Christians why they dont live by Leviticus.
Hebrews says the new covenent is "better" and warns Christians not to return to it.
Galations teaches that man is justified "by faith" and warns them not to return to try to keep the OT law. It also says the law is the schoolmaster to point man to Christ.
Romans covers similar themes.
The OT law was fulfilled by Christ, if you read the above three books.
PB
For Christ is the end of the law: Rom 10:4
And surely the same would go for the book of Genesis pb. We are not saved by a belief in "Adam and Eve". "Believe on the Lord Jusus Christ and thou shalt be saved" the bible states, not "believe on Adam and Eve". How Christians interpret Genesis 1-11 is irrelevant with respect to their salvation.
PB!!!!
Is there no ends to your hypocrisy!?!?
"Lastly, I have no qualifications in science (or religion) but unlike you I dont propose to give forth dogmatic truths on both - or issue personal attacks on those who hold different views."
WHAT!?!? is this the same PB who has done nothing BUT give us dogmatic "truths" about science!?!? from day 1!?
From the guy who dogmatically told us...
"QM is undermining science"-Lie
"QM has little respect for the laws of science"-Lie
"Catastrophism is now mainstream"-Lie
"Judge Jones at no time said ID was not science"-Lie
"It is a fact that the fossil record supports Genesis and is a better explanation"-Lie
And of course...
"I am beating everyone on the facts"!? Wha ha ha ha
These are just a small selection!
Oh and talking about "sidesteps" PB, you have done quite a few yourself! eg every time someone asks you to back up your dogmatic views on science!
Talking about what the Bible says PB are you? why do never seem to read the bits about hypocrisy? nor telling lies? nor about not bearing false witness?
Priceless PB, absolutely priceless!
Luv ya!
DD
Hi Peter,
See you have met our oldest and dearest friend here PB! He is a long time poster here and you will find out if you stick about that PB takes a very pick and choose attitude to the Bible!(see my last paragraph to him)
regards
DD
OK then Billy, if Jesus has superseded the Old Testament, please explain why you folks are so damned sure that Genesis has to be true? One would have thought that you'd be keen to drop the nonsensical creation myths like a hot potato.
Also, your forced quotation of Romans sits at odds with Matt5:17 - clearly Jesus is to be viewed as the *objective* (i.e. "end") of the law, not the *termination*.
Peter H, your input here is highly welcome. Genesis (and indeed much of the bible) is presented in Christian circles largely as historical fact (in the fundie creationist zone) or as allegory (in the more progressive zone). It has often struck me that no-one in the Christian camp (if I might call it that) views the bible as "cultural context". In other words, much of the bible is clearly counter-factual - it didn't happen. But it provides us with evidence of the mindset of the people who came later, and helps us interpret their culture.
That could even be said about the bible today - it is one element of a rich set of cultural influences that have set up where we are right now.
The Adam factor, it is because of Adam that we need a saviour, but if you don鈥檛 believe in Adam then how can you believe in Jesus, if there was no fall you have no need of a redeemer. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive? The relevancy of Genesis 1-3 is vital to salvation for without a literal believeth in CREATION there is no need for a literal redemption. Adam and Jesus are inextricably linked through the fall and salvation. Sin the cause, Christ the cure!
The Adam factor, it is because of Adam that we need a saviour, but if you don鈥檛 believe in Adam then how can you believe in Jesus, if there was no fall you have no need of a redeemer. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive? The relevancy of Genesis 1-3 is vital to salvation for without literal believeth in CREATION there is no need for a literal redemption. Adam and Jesus are inextricably linked through the fall and salvation. Sin the cause, Christ the cure!
[Chewed posts again!]
Billy, so essentially what you're saying is that if one part of it is rubbish, the whole thing is rubbish.
Can't fault your logic there. Nice going! You're nearly there.
Perhaps you need to open your mind to the possibility that Christianity isn't true at all...
I've just read through some of the above. Interesting discussion guys; Peter, nice to 'meet' you. Let me pick up on a couple of points for sheer sport.
1) Peter, the PCI position on the Westminster Confession of Faith, as I understand it, is that ministers must subscribe not to the Confession directly but to a 'formula of subscription' which permits them to dissent from it on those issues which are not essential to the faith. Neither the Confession nor the formula state which doctrines actually are essential and which ones aren't, so could a minister, in good conscience, reject anything he wants from the Confession because, even though the strong majority of his denomination feel that it's essential to the faith, he doesn't? I don't see why not.
2) Can anyone point me to the Ken Ham interview?
3) Amen says "It has often struck me that no-one in the Christian camp (if I might call it that) views the bible as 'cultural context.'" *Hand up* I believe that the bible is basically a window into the things the authors believed rather than a window into the things that God wants you to know. Of course, I'm in the minority.
John: Thanks for thst explanation. So Anderson isn't quite correct and that would explain why certain Presbyterian ministers are taking a YEC line and others aren't (some are merely avoiding the issue). I still think the leadershiop need to be a bit clearer on what the position actually is. If you look at AiG's (and indeed CMI's) website they would appear to somewhat out of step with the Presbyterian Church in Ireland because neither organisation accept different viewpoints on cration.
The YEC Presbyterian minister that I spoke to a while ago used the excuse that AiG were getting results (i.e. people were being saved) in his decision to use AiG material. However, in my own case I would say that had I encountered either AiG or CMI before I became a Christian I would now be an agnostic.
John: Thanks for thst explanation. So Anderson isn't quite correct and that would explain why certain Presbyterian ministers are taking a YEC line and others aren't (some are merely avoiding the issue). I still think the leadershiop need to be a bit clearer on what the position actually is. If you look at AiG's (and indeed CMI's) website they would appear to somewhat out of step with the Presbyterian Church in Ireland because neither organisation accept different viewpoints on cration.
The YEC Presbyterian minister that I spoke to a while ago used the excuse that AiG were getting results (i.e. people were being saved) in his decision to use AiG material. However, in my own case I would say that had I encountered either AiG or CMI before I became a Christian I would now be an agnostic.
John
First of all sorry, I am another 'Peter'. I hope it doesn't get confusing. In terms of sport, here's a return ball!
I'm more interested in what you said about the bible being a window into the things the authors believed rather than a window into the things that God wants you to know, than I am about YEC.
In this context are you saying that Jesus was, a man who *believed*, (as in thought of himself) he was divine and therefore cast himself in that role, rather than actually being God incarnated as a human, *knowing* and explaining who God is?
This raises the question of who Jesus thought he was and how he knew. Personally I think that a Jesus character who *believed* he was God but possibly wasn't sure (for want of a better phrase) poses more difficulties than an old earth.