Centerpoint School of Theology CREATION (1)

Transcription

1 Centerpoint School of Theology [Got Questions? fptheologyschool.com] Facebook: FP Theology School CREATION (1) Here the error of those is manifestly refuted who maintain that the world was created in a moment. For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men. John Calvin Commentaries on the first book of Moses, called Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948), 78 [Genesis 1:5] [Calvin is refuting Augustine s instantaneous creation view.] Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1996), 6 [emphasis his] I can t imagine how nature, in this case the universe, could have created itself. And the very fact that the universe had a beginning implies that someone was able to begin it. And it seems to me that had to be outside of nature. Francis Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project, in an interview with Steve Paulson, The Believer, [Accessed 02/19/2013] 1

2 1. Creation The Doctrine and Its Importance i. A free act of the triune God, bringing into being the entire universe, space and time, out of nothing and subsequently fashioning this material (as in the case of man) into something distinct; all that exists is dependent (providence), but distinct from, his divine will. ii. It is possible that God continues to create by intrusion of power (miracle) on matter, will, and history without calling into question the doctrine of cessationism and its implications for revelation (B. B. Warfield may have overstated the case here). Answers to prayer are within this category. iii. Creator-creature (matter/cosmos) distinction: there is only one God and we are not God. Issues like pantheism, materialism, dualism, eternal matter are outlawed by a biblical doctrine of creation. iv. The essential goodness of the created universe. Matter is not evil per se (as in certain kinds of Gnosticism). v. The basis for morality: our created-ness produces a sense of ought, obligation. Inherent are concepts of sovereignty: dominion dependency. vi. Worship: Psalm 104 as one example: Bless the LORD, O my soul! O LORD my God, you are very great! You are clothed with splendor and majesty, covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. Here is the sea, great and wide, which teems with creatures innumerable, living things both small and great May the glory of the LORD endure forever; may the LORD rejoice in his works, who looks on the earth and it trembles, who touches the mountains and they smoke! I will sing to the LORD as long as I live; I will sing praise to my God while I have being. May my meditation be pleasing to him, for I rejoice in the LORD. (vv. 1-2, 24-25, 31-34). 2

3 vii. Self-worth, esteem: psychological well-being: the very good that God pronounces upon the creation of man (Genesis 1:31) and the redemption of man in Christ who is first-born of all creation (Colossians 1:15). 2. Creation Difficulties i. Relating biblical and scientific worldviews of the nature of the universe a. Origin of the universe: e.g. Big Bang theory: universe sprang into existence as singularity [not technically an explosion but an expansion ] around 13.7 billion years ago. i. Fair to ask: before the Big Bang, what? Options are few: 1. Nothing: before there was something, there was nothing NOTHING not atom, not gas, not electro-magnetism. Out of nothing, everything that is comes into existence. 2. Eternal matter: Hydrogen? Gravity? Space? A lump. No point in getting upset about Hitler or Pol Pot; they just are accidents of the lump. There is an essential absurdity about this presupposition that should cause the intelligent to baulk (but apparently, it does not). 3. GOD (more about this later) b. Age of the universe: Google announces it as billion years in large font size, with an uncertainty of 0.4%. Compare with biblical estimate of the age of the universe (assuming 24 hr/day chronology) 10,000-20,000 years. i. Fair to point out that: 1. We trust the science in part able to predict with extreme accuracy oil deposits based on geological science. 2. The universe looks old few can argue with that. It s a graveyard with relics of extinct species, levels of fossil deposits, and sedimentation indicating that the world has been around for a very long time. Flood geology (catastrophism) can account for 3

4 apparent age issue to some extent, but not the size of the universe (where God would have to create the universe with light from various stars already travelling half way (and more) across the universe. There is also the principle of uniformitarianism (Charles Lyell [ ]; cf. Douglas Kelly and speed of light). The question as to WHY God would do this is an epistemological and theological question and not a scientific one. 3. Science may be wrong. Shifts from Aristotelian to Copernican astronomy (geocentric-heliocentric planetary system); Newtonian to Einsteinian physics (relativity, quantum physics, uncertainty principle etc.). Science is constantly changing and is not to be viewed as a fixed entity. 4. Theology may be wrong. The Bible is inerrant; its interpreters are not. We interpret from presuppositions of our own, imported into the biblical data. Examples within Reformed orthodoxy alone would be: the Pope is the Antichrist; Trichotomy (man is composed of body, soul, and spirit). ii. Relating biblical and scientific views of the origins of man a. Evolution/Darwinism: i. Charles Darwin ( ) ii. Studied in Edinburgh and Oxford. Contemplated Anglican ministry. Evolution: Origin of the Species, Evolution requires a starting point Darwin posited god (deism). God creates a few primal forms. He is not an atheist. iii. Trans-species shift: from fish to flying bird. Genesis taught fixity of species (Darwin assumed). After its kind (Does kind mean species?) iv. All species, including man, descends from other species. Half a dozen progenitors of animals, plants. Darwin 4

5 couldn t prove a single progenitor from which all life evolves. v. Natural selection: survival of the fittest b. Neo-Darwinism: i. Militantly atheistic: Richard Dawkins (1941 ), The Selfish Gene: No origin and no fixed goal. ii. An unbroken line from simple mollusk to man. It is reductionism. It is the most dominant philosophy in modern thought: everything is evolving. c. Theological considerations: i. Any view that calls into question a historical Adam and Eve, specially created out of the dust (not micromanaged alterations to the DNA of a pre-existing hominid) cannot be viewed as compatible with a doctrine of biblical inerrancy. ii. Any view that questions Adamic solidarity / Original sin as Paul understood in Romans 5 (linked to a historical Adam as the first human being) cannot be viewed as compatible with a doctrine of biblical inerrancy (see Enns below). iii. Any view that questions a young human existence cannot be viewed as compatible with a doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Note: it is possible to account for an old earth, and posit a more recent creation of Adam (various gap theories). Genealogical record of the Old Testament cannot account for more 20,000 years (and even this is generous). iv. Differentiate between micro- and macro-evolution. It is one thing to posit changes / environmental adaptation within species; another to posit cross-species transformation. Genetics has changed our view about some this. 5

6 v. Theistic Evolution: God creates, and then withdraws allowing the natural process of evolution to take its course. The exception being the involvement of God in the creation of the human soul/spirit. Intelligent Design models. vi. Bio-Logos Foundation (Francis Collins, Peter Enns, Karl Giberson, Darrel Falk); Peter Enns: The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn t Say About Human Origins (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2012) Note: in adopting a theistic evolution view, Enns concludes that Paul s understanding of an historical Adam from whom all are descended is wrong. The essence of Romans 5 is correct even though the ground upon which he makes his case is not. Evidence can be ignored. We can argue that nothing take precedence over God s Word, and move on. This is possible but not satisfying for those familiar with either the scientific or archaeological data. Ignoring evidence will produce considerable cognitive dissonance. Pete Enns, Creating Adam, [ accessed 02/20/2013]. vii. Francis Collins writes in The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press, 2007) that we lose credibility sharing the gospel if we do not shed antiintellectual stance of denying evolution. viii. Denis Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose [Monarch, 2008]: Surely the best informed, clearest, and most judicious treatment of the question and title that you can find anywhere today (J. I. Packer, front cover blurb.) 6

7 God in his grace chose a couple of Neolithic farmers to whom he chose to reveal himself in a special way, calling them into fellowship with himself so that they might know him as a personal God. ( Accessed 02/20/2013. Alexander is a physicist and director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion at St. Edmund s College, Cambridge, UK.) iii. Relating Genesis 1 and 2 to each other: creation days, genre 1. Day-Age View (Long Days) i. Day (yom) = a long period of time (perhaps millions of years ); geologic ages. Variation in use of day in Genesis 1 & 2: a. Genesis 1:5a day = daytime (not nighttime) i.e. ~12 hours b. Genesis 1:5b day = 24 hours c. Genesis 2:1 day = eternity (has not ended cf. Hebrews 4:3-11) d. Genesis 2:4 day = indefinite (but past) [cf. in my day, we ] ii. Held by Hugh Ross and Gleason Archer in The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, edited by David Hagopian. (Crux Press, 2000); Derek Kidner iii. Helps address the issue of light having travelled so far across space. Millions of generations of life predate human life. Different species arose at different times in response to the changing environment, with many of them becoming extinct. Death exists before the Fall (among plants and animals). Not all animals are vegetarian/herbivore before the Fall. Romans 5:12 refers to death in the human species only. Second Law of thermodynamics (law of decay/entropy) has operated from the beginning of creation (Romans 8:19-21). iv. Problems: the order of the days in Genesis 1 is not the same order as held out by old-earth science (the sun appears on day four) 2. Creation Days View / Gap Theory (24-Hour Days) i. Day (yom) is viewed as 24-hour, sequential days, but separated by lengthy/unequal gaps. 7

8 ii. Genesis 1:1-2: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. [gap] 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. [gap] iii. Held in slightly nuanced ways by: Thomas Chalmers ( ), Donald Grey Barnhouse, Scofield Bible Notes. Writing in 1954, the influential theologian Bernard Ramm, wrote: The gap theory has become the standard interpretation throughout hyper-orthodoxy, appearing in an endless stream of books, booklets, Bible studies, and periodical articles. In fact, it has become so sacrosanct with some that to question it is equivalent to tampering with Sacred Scripture or to manifest modernistic leanings. [The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1954), 135] iv. Some Hebrew scholars have pointed out that the Hebrew definite article is not used with the first five days, but is used for days 6 and 7. A better translation, therefore, would be day one, day two, day three, day four, day five, the sixth day, the seventh day. This allows for lengthy time periods up to the point when man is created. [Attributed to John Gooding, see, John C. Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 52] 3. Analogical Day View (Short Days) i. Similar to Creation Day/Gap Theory but allows for some overlap of days ii. The days are God s work-days, which are analogous, and not necessarily identical, to our work days, structured for the purpose of setting a pattern for our own rhythm of rest and work. iii. It is sometimes pointed out that made in Genesis 1:16 [ And God made the two great lights (Day 4)] in Hebrew does not mean create (ex nihilo) but appointed (implying they already existed) their role as day and night markers. [C. John Collins, Science and Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 95] iv. Held by Dr. C. John (Jack) Collins (Covenant Theological Seminary). Not to be confused with Francis Collins. 3. Literary-Framework View (Long Days) i. Genesis 1 is the literary framework and Genesis 2 the normative account. 8

9 ii. Key text: Genesis 2:5: When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground. Suggests that in Genesis 1 normal providence was at work because the earth was without vegetation due to the fact that it had not yet rained. That means that you cannot read the days of Genesis as chronological. If ordinary providence is at work in Genesis 1, you cannot have light on Day 1 and Sun on Day 4, vegetation on Day 3 and Sun on Day 4. Genesis 1 is not hard science. o Careful: Bible isn t scientific means what exactly? Science is based on facts and the Bible is Fiction? iii. Framework hypothesis for Genesis 1: Day Forming Filling Day 1 Light Luminaries 4 2 Sky/Seas Sea & Winged Creatures 5 3 Seas/Dry Land/Veg Land Animals/Man 6 Some difficulties: Goes against the nature of the literary expectation: The march of days is too majestic a progress to carry no implication of ordered sequence; it also seems over-subtle to adopt a view of the passage which discounts one of the primary impressions it makes on the ordinary reader. [Derek Kidner, Genesis (Tyndale, 1965), 54-55] John Frame argues that Genesis 2:5 is less of a key text than Framework Hypothesis suggests; Genesis 1:11 gives the impression that once rain is available, the land produces mature plants at God s command, just as mature plants were produced on other days. Others argue that Genesis 2:5 points forward to Eden (Keil and Deilitzsch). Others (Cassuto) argue that it foreshadows Genesis 3 and the effects of the Fall. Parallels do not match up as neatly as suggested: o Light bearers are placed in sky, which is mentioned on Day 2. o Sea creatures of Day 5 belong to the seas of Day 3. 9

10 iii. Held by Herman Ridderbos, Meredith Kline, Henri Blocher, Bruce Waltke, Gordon Wenham. a. It has been unfortunate that one device which our narrative uses to express the coherence and purposiveness of the creator s work, namely, the distribution of the various creative acts to six days, has been seized on and interpreted over-literalistically The six day schema is but one of several means employed in this chapter to stress the system and order that has been built into creation. Other devices include the use of repeating formulae, the tendency to group words and phrases into tens and sevens, literary techniques such as chiasm and inclusio, the arrangement of creative acts into matching groups, and so on. If these hints were not sufficient to indicate the schematization of the six-day creation story, the very content of the narrative points in the same direction. [Gordon Wenham, Genesis, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 39-40] b. Rejected by many Systematic Theologians, including R.C. Sproul, Millard Erickson, Douglas Kelly, Ligon Duncan, and Wayne Grudem. 4. Literary Myth View b. Views Genesis 1-11 as a literary myth, similar to other Ancient Near Eastern creation stories, given for the benefit of the young Hebrew nation. c. This view contradicts biblical inerrancy. 5. Regular 24-Hour Days [Young Earth Creationism] i. Days (yom) are to be viewed as sequential, literal, 24-hour days as we know them today. ii. Straightforward reading of the text (if otherwise, should have come with a warning, Do not read this chapter as though it were literal ). Problem: how do we have evening and morning on the first three days when the sun is created on Day 4? iii. The Earth is 10-20,000 years old. Fossilization etc. explained by flood geology or Noahic catastrophism. iv. Held by Creation Research Society; Ken Ham, AnswersinGenesis.com; 10

11 Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb, The Genesis Record (1961): v. If we accept the Romans narrative as positing that the reason for pain, death, disaster in the world (including such things as volcanoes, earthquakes, predation) are the results of the Fall, we have to posit a young human and young earth/universe view. vi. Theological disaster ensues when the book of nature (general revelation) is used to trump God s special revelation, when science is placed over Scripture as authoritative and compelling. And that is at the very heart of this discussion. While some would argue that the Scriptures are not in danger, the current conversation on this subject is leading down a path that will do irrevocable harm to our evangelical affirmation of the accuracy and authority of God s Word. (Al Mohler, Why Does the Universe Look so Old?, given at Ligonier Ministries 2010 National Conference. Accessed 02/20/2013) Select Bibliography: Multi-View: David G. Hagopian (ed.), The Great Divide (Crux Press, 2000) Gap View: John C. Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science (Zondervan, 2011) Framework View: Henri Blocher, In the Beginning (IVP, 1984) Meredith G. Kline, (May 1958). Because It Had Not Rained. Westminster Theological Journal 20 (2): pp (1996). Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony. Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith (48): pp Bruce K. Waltke with Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis (Zondervan, 2001). Young Earth View: [Douglas F. Kelly, Creation and Change (Mentor, 1997)] John Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood: 50th Anniversary Edition 11

12 (P & R, 2011). Old-Earth View Davis Young, Creation and the Flood: An Alternative to Flood Geology and Theistic Evolution (Baker, 1977), The Bible, Rocks and Time (IVP Academic, 2007) No View John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One (IVP Academic, 2009) (Genesis 1 was not intended to give us a scientific understanding of the material origins of the universe. Instead, the seven days of creation are a cosmic temple inauguration ceremony that describe the functional beginning of our world) General Science: Vern Poythress, Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach (Crossway, 2006) 12