Have you studied theology? The 7 necessary ingredients taken from Genesis 1-11 according to Emadi as he wrote these to a wide audience represented at the Gospel Coalition are PERFECTLY fulfilled by a young earth theology. Now you are telling me that it is indeed a bad theology and you are welcommed here by Peaceful Science in order to promote an evolution based creation view.?? Doesnt pass the smell test.
Would you mind sharing with me what church denomination you prefer that is accepting of your views?
Well I am afraid that is putting the cart before the horse. Just because a particular theology “perfectly” fits a series of ideas doesn’t mean that theology is true. A theology can be very very internally consistent but still be wrong, no?
It is entirely possible to come up with a way in which you can have a historical Fall event involving a single couple whom all persons now living find among their ancestors. It would not, however, have been 33 patrilineal generations before David. You can have good theology whether you take the Fall as history or as parable.
Again referring to this article by Emadi, he says, and i agree, that one of the non-negotiables about the interpretation of Genesis that give integrity to the balance of the Christian faith where God’s atonement is strung through the entire OT and fulfilled in Jesus dying on a cross to absorb Gods wrath for our redemption is this statement:
“Points 5 to 7 all deal with the historicity of Adam and Eve. In short, I’m positing that while evangelicals may charitably disagree on the chronology of [Genesis 1], the historicity should never be up for discussion. The record of God specially creating his own image, giving him dominion, bringing him a spouse, and then exiling that couple from his presence upon their rebellion must be an accurate account of real, historical events. Without the special creation of humanity as God’s image-bearers (Point 5) we lose our sense of worth and identity, not to mention the foundation of theological anthropology. Without the doctrine of humanity’s shared parentage (Point 6) we lose the notion that every human, regardless of race, ethnicity, or social rank, is a fellow image-bearer ([Acts 17:26])—a brother or sister in the human community. Without the historical fall of Adam (Point 7) we lose the doctrine of original sin and we also lose the most essential building block of biblical theology—the Adam-Christ typology ([Rom. 5:12–21]”
So your acceptance of a non historical, more symbolic view of Adam and Eve is in disagreement with Emadi who suggests it is a non negotiable. Thats fine as you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. On the other hand, you told me that my theological perspective is “bad theology” and this is quite disconcerting.
I am familiar with some of the theological bends in the anglican community and have some very strong disagreements. There have been a number of theologians out of your camp that treat scripture like historical evolution from other religious camps instead of a stand alone revelation from the very God who created the universe. They sound more like my secular colleges new age religion professor that spun a perspective w an attempt to debunk Christianity’s legitimacy and less like another brilliant Christian religion professor of mine who knew 12 languages, scrutinixed Scripture as a Hebrew scholar and concluded it as truly sacred text as from the very mouth and heart of the literal God. His name is Edwin Yamauchi. (That was a long time ago)
Greg, try slowing down, reading carefully, and giving some thought to points rather than responding with defensiveness and hostility. You might just find such an exercise fruitful.
Aren’t you playing a little fast-and-loose with one, maybe two of the points?
Point 6, “6. Adam and Eve are humanity’s first parents.” , can’t be correct… unless you are re-defining what is meant by the term “parents”.
Point 5 seems sustainable, if we use Genesis 9 to backfill the silence in Genesis 2 on whether Adam and Eve bore the image of God.
.
.
ADDENDUM:
I just read more of this thread… going UPWARDS… and I see you have already responded to this question… but not any substantive information:
@swamidass, This sounds like your book is going to include at least one exercise in “mental gymnastics”?
I thought I had delivered to you a posting or two that shows the Eastern Orthodox was ON RECORD, prior to 1500 CE, for not having any interest in Original Sin.
This is not quite the same as an interest in “the Fall” (or, to be more correct, the Curse and Expulsion).
Joshua, which part are you skeptical about? I have read through considerable historical treatments of Eastern Orthodox beliefs, and while there was an upsurge against the Roman view after the rise of Lutheranism, I am quite persuaded that this was not a sudden position… and that there is adequate documentation of an anti-Augustinian view regarding Original Sin.
If @swamidass view matches the Biblical view to perfection, then i am enthusiastically accepting and affirming. But there would not be a need for a new book for that, so not really getting my hopes up.
@swamidass is NOT an evolutionist. He is a creationist and subscribes to a Biblical worldview about a God who transcends the natural and i hope that his book will reflect this.
satans greatest work is done on the back of mixing a little truth with lies. (Thats in the Bible for real) So if this book is such a mix, this could be more instrumental for starting a slow ride down the toilet and worse than full blown evolutionism where Adam is not mentioned thus easier to reject by the church.
Listen- im not a killjoy. I love a great party. I love when people interact with integrity and w love and joy. But love delights in truth…we make lousy gods and freedom from this for resting in the truths of Gods word from Genesis to Rev is exhilerating life in Him!
I have heard @swamidass declare to us often that he is NOT an evolutionist, yet that is exactly what you called him. I am anticipating Swamidass’ new resource not to be anything close to the tainted brownies that Biologos serves. I fully anticipate that it will be a book that celebrates the true delicious untanted morsels from the Word of God. Anyone who subscribes to this is impossibly equated with the label “evolutionist” and i would expect swamidass disapprove your use of this semantic being used to describe him ever again.
I was thinking specifically of Augustine. He of course affirmed a literal Adam and Adamic sin, but he believed that sin nature was transmitted and re-affirmed through the vehicle of human sexuality. Sex it self (tainted through a fallen world) was enough to recreate a sin nature in each of us, independent of our lineage to Adam. I live a stone’s throw from the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, reference to doctrine which exists because of this very theology.
I do not believe I have ever met an “evolutionist” per se.
On that note: I remember very well the moment when I realized that if Jesus intends us to read a passage as a parable, and yet I wrongly assume it ought to be read as historical narrative, then I am the one adding human ideas to God’s Word. It was quite a shock. What do you think of that?
Oh, I certainly remember the thread! But I was pretty fuzzy on how you concluded your identity analysis. And now I see why I was fuzzy! You wrote:
“I am, however, a Christian, a person that follows Jesus, one who is unthreatened by evolution. I affirm evolution because it looks like life evolved, and there is no conflict between evolution and a faith grounded in Jesus. That is my position. . . Neither evolution nor creation is my identity.”
I think it goes without saying that you should not moonlight in a job writing Bumper Stickers!
