Christian Spirituality and Science Issues in the Contemporary World

Volume 5 Issue 1 Galileo, Origins and Scripture Article 3

2005

Three Christian Origins Models: Some Theological Implications

Ray C. Roennfeldt Avondale College

Follow this and additional works at: https://research.avondale.edu.au/css

Recommended Citation Roennfeldt, R. C. (2005). Three Christian origins models: Some theological implications. Christian Spirituality and Science, 5(1), 23-37. Retrieved from https://research.avondale.edu.au/css/vol5/iss1/3

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Avondale Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Science at ResearchOnline@Avondale. It has been accepted for inclusion in Christian Spirituality and Science by an authorized editor of ResearchOnline@Avondale. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Roennfeldt: Three Christian Origins Models

Three Christian Origins Models: Some Theological Implications Ray C W Roennfeldt Dean of the Faculty of , Avondale College, Cooranbong, NSW

Introduction It is now generally accepted that In recent times the issue of biblical in- the reader’s own background and terpretation has become increasingly preconceptions have a large impact complex. In the pre-modern era (and on the hermeneutical process and often still today) people picked up on the results. Therefore, I wish to the biblical text and interpreted it state a couple of important presup- “automatically.” That is to say, they positions that I am bringing to this took what appeared to be the “plain study. First, all reading of Scripture reading” of Scripture as the correct requires interpretation. Even a liter- alistic interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is interpretation; the basic hermeneutic still an interpretation. As Fritz Guy being that if it was possible to read points out, “It is always appropriate the text literally, one should do so. to ask of any interpretation even a And, only when the text became literalistic one, what justifies it. No nonsense did the interpreter reach for interpretation has a preferred status, some kind of symbolic hermeneutic. much less immunity to rigorous criti- While some might long for a return cism on literary, factual, logical, or to such an approach, it has to be ad- theological grounds.”2 mitted that even in the past Christian and Christian (or even Jew and Jew) Second, the theological themes or did not always agree on when to al- doctrines of Christianity are intercon- legorise or symbolise. nected. That is, it makes a difference when the theological “chessmen” If the general interpretation of Scrip- are moved on, or removed from, the ture is vexed, the meaning of Genesis theological “board.” A single change 1-3 is even more so. Christians disa- in one arena of doctrine will have gree with each other as to whether impacts on other doctrines.3 How- the world was recently created or ever, one need not hold to a strict was fashioned over a long period of ‘slippery slope’ theory of theological time. They also debate whether the change. While theological innova- Genesis creation account is to be read tion will always have an impact, it as history or as symbolic parable.1 is not necessarily true that every in- And, they argue over whether the novation sends everything out over scientific data can be—or should the ‘edge’.4 For example, while there be—reconciled with the Bible. are biblical connections between the

23 Published by ResearchOnline@Avondale, 2005 1 Christian Spirituality and Science, Vol. 5 [2005], Iss. 1, Art. 3

idea of the primordial Eden and Eden not have a theology. In fact, quite restored5, it does not follow that the contrary; ’s interaction is not adjustments in protology dismantle acknowledged as necessary in order the whole of eschatology. to explain the natural world.

The approach taken in this paper Young Earth is to examine some of the theologi- Definition and Exponents cal implications of three Christian Paul Nelson and John Mark Rey- models (or theories) of origins via nolds rightly point out that “young their influence on the doctrine of earth creationism” is the view that is Scripture, the fall of humankind and most commonly labelled “’creation- the Sabbath. Of course, it would also ism’ by the majority of scientists, be possible to look to some of the educators, and the press . . . .”7 broader, overarching themes such They characterise the recent creation as the character of God, the nature view in the following way: (1) an of humankind and the meaning of approach to science that is open to salvation. However, I’ve chosen a the possibility of God’s design and narrower approach which fits better interaction in nature; (2) a belief that the scope of this paper and provides “[a]ll basic types of organisms were the possibility of viewing more spe- directly created by God during the cific details. In addition, the three creation week of Genesis 1-2”; (3) areas chosen arise quite naturally out a conviction that the fall of Genesis of the first few chapters of Genesis. 3 has “profoundly affected every The creation story arouses questions aspect of the natural economy”; and as to what kind of book the Bible is. (4) the concept that ’s flood was And, humankind’s fall into sin and “a historical event, global in extent the Sabbath appear as central themes and effect.”8 So, this appears to be in those early chapters. an approach which reads the Genesis The three Christian models of crea- accounts of origins, the fall and the tion that this paper examines are flood very literally. young earth creationism, old earth The major international proponents (or progressive) creationism and of young earth creationism are 6 . It will be im- the Creation Research Society, the mediately observed that there is Geoscience Research Institute and no intention of dealing with the the Institute for Creation Research, theological implications of the non- although there are numerous other theistic evolutionary theory. While local bodies promoting recent crea- this theory does have theological tionism. implications, the theory itself does

24 https://research.avondale.edu.au/css/vol5/iss1/3 2 Roennfeldt: Three Christian Origins Models

Theological Implications for the However, an overly divine view of Doctrine of Scripture Scripture creates problems of its own. Young earth creationists generally For one thing, God does not appear claim to take the position that their to have exercised that kind of control view—and only their view—takes over other portions of Scripture. We the plain meaning of Scripture seri- are not even told how Moses11 wrote ously. For instance, the genealogies the creation story. Did he write what of Genesis 5 are read in terms of real was already “recorded” in oral tra- years which indicate that the world dition? Did God reveal the events is relatively young.9 Thus, the text of the creation week in visions or is interpreted literally even if such a dreams? And how could anyone, reading provides one with conflicts including Moses, write a completely in regard to how to fit the scientific “accurate” account of the awesome data into the Genesis account. Pro- events we have described for us in 12 ponents of this view usually follow a Genesis 1 and 2? While it might strict approach to the Bible. Scripture appear like respect for the authority is the authoritative Word of God of Scripture, it seems to me that we demean the God of the Scriptures to which reveals exactly how God made claim that he could not have used the world and everything in it.10 If humans and genuine human modes there is a discrepancy between the in the writing of his Word. Bible and science, science will need to be re-interpreted, perhaps as humans Additionally, it is doubtful that even gain a clearer picture of the facts. the most literalistic interpreter reads the Genesis accounts consistently. What does this say about the divin- For instance, what does one do with ity of Scripture? Often the Bible is the of the creation story? seen as God speaking directly to us. A natural reading of the text sees no If the Scriptures “say it”, God says chronological gap between Genesis it! Little space is given for notions 1:1 and verse 2.13 And, what does one of historical conditioning or divine do with the sun, moon, and stars all accommodation. In fact, it is almost being created on the 4th day; when expected that God would have spo- the text does not really allow the ken about the creation week in terms construal that God “made the stars that are understandable to the 21st also” (KJV) at a previous time?14 It century scientific mindset. After all, appears that even the young earth God is God; and he has given us all creationist viewpoint is an interpre- we need to know about origins (and tation of the biblical text, importing everything else). The role of the bibli- some of its presuppositions from a cal writer is downplayed in favour of scientific world view, while rejecting the true divine author. other concepts of that world.

25 Published by ResearchOnline@Avondale, 2005 3 Christian Spirituality and Science, Vol. 5 [2005], Iss. 1, Art. 3

Theological Implications for salvation. However, the connections the Doctrine of the Fall of are primarily those of contrast rather Humankind than of equivalency. For instance, The young creationist view of Scrip- Paul goes on to say: “For if the many ture leads quite naturally to the idea died by the trespass of the one man, that the fall narrative of Genesis 3 is how much more did God’s grace and to be read literally. and the gift that came by the grace of the were real people. There was a real one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to tree and a real serpent. Eve (and the many!” (vs. 15).17 Adam) took the forbidden fruit and failed the test; thereby bringing It should be observed, however, sin and death on the whole human that such a reading of the fall narra- race. tive comes with what some see as a deficit. Clark Pinnock, for example, There is no doubt that this is the remarks that if we were to read the simplest and most direct way of story of Genesis 3 in any other book reading the story. It is clear that the we would immediately assume that humans who came from God’s hand it is a symbolic story. He points to and mouth as his “image” and “like- such features as the snake, the two ness” no longer completely represent trees and the simple test of mon- or clearly resemble their maker. For strous proportions as indicative of example, the two who had been symbolism.18 Even when one does made to be in fellowship with their not follow Pinnock down this track, creator, in relation to each other and it is necessary to note that those who in solidarity with the rest of the cre- employ the literalistic approach of ated world,15 now find themselves the young creationist viewpoint are hiding from God, ashamed in each possibly more likely to ask questions one another’s presence, and at odds relating to what happened and when, with even the earth from which they rather than those having to do with had come. Yet, while the “image of the existential meaning of Genesis God” has been distorted, it was not 3. Perhaps, we need both kinds of obliterated.16 questions. Further, the story of the fall contains a “seed” of hope for the human race Theological Implications for the (Gen 3:15). Paul intentionally picks Doctrine of the Sabbath up this theme in Romans 5. It is While there are clear lines of con- through “one man” that “sin entered nection between the biblical story the world . . . and death through of the fall and the human need for sin” (Rom 5:12). A literalistic read- salvation, there are also very strong ing of the fall narrative provides the links between a literal understanding clearest connections to the story of of the six days of creation and the

26 https://research.avondale.edu.au/css/vol5/iss1/3 4 Roennfeldt: Three Christian Origins Models

Sabbath. At the same time, though, that what God makes he cares for it is obvious that not all young earth and rescues.20 It remains for us to see creationists believe that the Sabbath what theological implications might has contemporary relevance. arise should one not find the young creationist viewpoint palatable. The Sabbath appears as the climax of the primary creation narrative (Gen Old Earth (or Progressive) 2:1-3). In fact some theologians see Creationism the blessing of the seventh day as the Definition and Proponents point of the story. 19 Yet, Genesis does The Old Earth creationist view- not explicitly state that God gave point—sometimes called progressive the Sabbath to humans. Rather, it is creationism—is the idea that ”God’s God who rests, blesses and hallows. activity in creation occurred in a However, as the representative of progression—a number of steps over God in the world, humans are to do a long period of time in which God as God does. This is certainly the established and perfected each level import of the fourth commandment: of the environment before he added “Remember the Sabbath day to keep a higher level that rests (so to speak) it holy. Six days you shall labor and upon the preceding levels.”21 There do all your work, but the seventh day are, in fact, several versions of this is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. . position. The so-called “gap theory” . . For in six days the LORD made the stands between the young earth posi- heavens and the earth, the sea and all tion and the old earth position. Pro- that is in them, but he rested on the ponents of this view hold that God seventh day. Therefore the LORD created the earth and the universe blessed the Sabbath day and made in the distant past (Gen 1:1), then it it holy” Exod 20:8-11). became formless and void (Gen1:2), possibly as a result of Satan’s rebel- Undoubtedly, six literal creation days lion. The remainder of Genesis 1 followed by a literal Sabbath provide then describes “the restoration of the the clearest case for a theology of the earth just a few thousand years ago Sabbath. Just as God worked and in six literal days.” This view, found rested, so humans are to work and in the original Scofield Reference Bible sabbath. In this view, the Sabbath means that “geologists are looking at stands as a “literal” symbol that the original creation and Genesis is points back to God’s activity in crea- looking at the restoration.”22 tion. As such, it is a reminder that we are valuable because we have our Other variations on progressive crea- origin in God; that we have solidarity tionism can be categorised in regard not only with other human beings, to “how the days of Genesis are to but also with the rest of creation; and be understood.” Some see the days

27 Published by ResearchOnline@Avondale, 2005 5 Christian Spirituality and Science, Vol. 5 [2005], Iss. 1, Art. 3

as standing for “long periods of time beings. The sixth day provides for (day-age view).” Others understand the redemption of humankind, while the days as literal, but “separated the Sabbath rest is still future.26 by long periods (intermittent-day view).” And, still other interpreters Theological Implications for the Doctrine of Scripture regard the days as “a literary device rather than an actual chronological It seems to me that the old earth crea- sequence (framework hypothesis).”23 tionist point of view attempts to read The theme that ties these variant the text of Scripture and the findings perspectives together is the concept of science together. Such an approach that the biblical narrative is at least is admirable. However, the costs in somewhat open to the findings of regard to one’s doctrine of Scripture science, particularly in the area of may be too high. This approach to long geologic ages. the Bible is much more flexible than that espoused by the young earth Some of the proponents of old earth creationist camp. Instead of reading creationism include theologians such the creation narratives literalistically, as Charles Hodge, Bernard Ramm they are viewed symbolically. This and Wayne Grudem, as well as surely means that the amount of Gleason Archer (an Old Testament human input into the Scriptures is scholar), not to mention some scien- increased, while divine control in tists of Christian persuasion.24 their writing is decreased. Robert Newman describes his own Science appears to play a key role view as fitting into the intermit- in interpretation and—especially in tent-day type. Before day 1 of the Newman’s case—may even hold the creation narrative, God had formed upper hand. After all, the biblical the raw materials of the universe. text itself does not appear to favour Then each day “opens a new creative long ages or gaps between the “days” period.” The first day “starts the of creation week. As well, one must formation of atmosphere and ocean.” ask what the result would be if all The second day, “the formation of of the Bible were to be read in the atmosphere and ocean.” The third same way. If divine control in biblical day, “the oxygenation and clearing inspiration is loosened, is it not le- of the atmosphere.”25 Interestingly, gitimate for us to amend the biblical however, Newman’s scenario differs text at any point where it might seem from the Genesis account when we inconvenient to read it literally? come to the fourth day. Day 4, for him, sees God forming the air and sea Theological Implications for the animals. Then, on the fifth day, God Fall of Humankind makes the land animals and human Such an approach to Scripture has

28 https://research.avondale.edu.au/css/vol5/iss1/3 6 Roennfeldt: Three Christian Origins Models

large implications for the doctrine By contrast, Christ’s righteous death of the fall. Where, in the old earth was also representative, bringing creationist scenario does the fall benefit to all of humankind. occur? And the question is not just “where?” but what did it mean? Theological Implications for the Doctrine of the Sabbath Newman, himself, obviously places While the old earth creationist stand- the fall inside the creation “week,” for he has redemption within that point might seem to lose touch with “week” as well. It is more than a coherent doctrine of the fall of hu- likely that one holding to an old earth mankind into sin, the same may be creationist viewpoint would also see said for the doctrine of the Sabbath. the fall in a symbolic framework. As has been pointed out already, Certainly, it would be seen as aliena- Newman does not appear to hold to tion between God and humankind, a literal Sabbath. Rather, the eternal between humans and humans, and rest to which the creation narrative between humans and their envi- points is in the future. This position ronment; but what the basis of the does not take seriously enough the alienation actually was, we probably text itself which speaks of God rest- do not know.27 ing after finishing his work. Nor does it take account of the explicit It almost goes without saying that commands for human beings to keep when one modifies one’s doctrine of the Sabbath, because of God’s com- the fall, there are ramifications along pleted creative work (Exod 20:8-11) the theological “track.” Nowhere is and the re-creation of humankind in this more so than in the intersection his rescue of his people from Egypt of the doctrine of humankind and (Deut 5:12-15). the doctrine of salvation. Old earth creationism leaves us with large Still, it should not be thought that the questions regarding the nature of old creationist standpoint rips away the fall. Did it occur with an original any theological basis for the Sabbath. ? If not, in what way For instance, some of the other vari- were a later pair or pairs or groups, ants of the view are more consonant representative of all of humankind. with a literal weekly Sabbath than is And, what, then is the nature of sin? Newman’s perspective. The “gap Was it, in some sense, a “fall” up- theory” would allow the Sabbath to wards? In contrast, the New Testa- fit into its scenario without any dif- ment perspective of the fall seems to ficulty. And, perhaps even the “day- be based in the idea that Adam was age” concept might be “stretched” in representative of the whole human order to accommodate the Sabbath. race, and that his fall into sin was It could be argued that the Sabbath disastrous for the whole human race. itself is symbolic; that is, it points

29 Published by ResearchOnline@Avondale, 2005 7 Christian Spirituality and Science, Vol. 5 [2005], Iss. 1, Art. 3

to something beyond itself and In fact, the Genesis narratives are symbols—by their very nature—do read through the spectacles of evolu- not require an absolute equivalency tion. What is interesting—and even between the symbols and what they ironic—is that some very conserva- symbolise. For example, baptism tive Christian scholars allow for this is a symbol of the death, burial and approach. Such was the case with resurrection of Jesus and our own Benjamin B. Warfield, the father of death, burial and resurrection in him the doctrine of the inerrancy of the (Rom 6:1-5), yet it is obvious that original autographs of Scripture baptism is analogous to death, but and one of the leading lights in early not equivalent to it. Fundamentalism.30

At the same time, though, it seems to Howard Van Till, professor of phys- me that the connections between the ics at Calvin College, Michigan, Sabbath and creation are made more provides a well-argued case for tenuous as views of creation week theistic evolution. Van Till claims become more symbolic. Why, for (with Christians of every age, he example, should we keep the seventh believes) that he (1) holds “to the day? Why not any day or days of our historic and biblically informed own choosing? Of course, it could Christian doctrine of creation.” That be argued that Christians are to do is, he believes that everything that what Jesus did. He kept the Sabbath, is not God has been given being by so we should! For me, this is a very God. (2) “Atoms, molecules, cells, persuasive argument; in fact, it is and organisms . . . posses not only with the example of Jesus that I begin properties but also the capabilities to my own case for the Sabbath. Yet, it act and interact in a remarkably rich seems inescapable that the meaning diversity of ways.” (3) Such “crea- of the Sabbath and Sabbath-keeping, turely capabilities” were instilled in for Jesus, were based squarely in a lit- matter and organisms by God. (4) 29 eral reading of the Genesis story. All Every scientific discovery of these too often an overly symbolic view of capabilities engenders praise, but not the Sabbath ends in no view, and that surprise. Van Till expects a wealth of leads to losses that are heavy in terms capabilities. (5) Creation has “been of theology and Christian life. gifted with all of the capabilities Theistic Evolution that would be necessary to make something like biotic evolution pos- Definition and Proponents sible . . . .”32 While old earth creationism aimed to narrow the gulf between Scripture From the theistic evolutionary stand- and science, theistic evolution has point, the conflict between creation- attempted to close the gap entirely. ists and evolutionists is the result

30 https://research.avondale.edu.au/css/vol5/iss1/3 8 Roennfeldt: Three Christian Origins Models

of a “misunderstanding” that the conclusions, for Van Till they mean only possible positions are “special that he can read the Genesis creation creationist theism and evolutionary narrative as “storied theology” or naturalism.” Van Till rejects both!33 inspired parable. And, again, the most careful biblical scholars have Theological Implications for the acknowledged that the creation ac- Doctrine of Scripture counts are theology, not science.37 It must be stated that theistic evolu- tionists do not build an explicit case Van Till’s theology of creation has the for their views from Scripture itself. effect of loosing almost entirely the Van Till, for instance, does not pro- tension between human freedom and vide any of Genesis 1-3. Yet, divine sovereignty in the production he does have a doctrine of Scripture. of the Scriptures. For him, inspira- He states: “I believe the Scriptures to tion becomes the “fossil records” of be divinely inspired and therefore a divine-human encounter. As with to be ‘useful for teaching, rebuking, neo-orthodox theology, the focus is correcting, and training in righteous- not on the Holy Spirit’s “carrying ness, so that the man [and woman] of along” of the writers of Scripture (2 God may be thoroughly equipped for Pet 1:21), but on the Spirit’s work every good work’ (2 Tim.3:16-17).”34 in “inspiring” us as the readers to For Van Till, the Bible is “an authen- engage in similar encounters. Some tic account of the divine-human of Van Till’s critics point out that encounter”, but it does not provide his theology proper is deistic.38 My inerrant, binding information to us own perspective is that his doctrine on all subjects. What does this mean? of Scripture is deistic as well. God First, it implies that Christians wish- initiates the encounter with humans, ing to interpret Scripture should take and then leaves his writers to “do adequate account of the “historical their own thing” while he remains and cultural context of the Scriptures totally at a distance. The result is that as first written.” Second, it means Scripture appears to be just one of the that we must guard against the “fail- ways that God communicates with ure to acknowledge and appreciate humankind and is perhaps equiva- the rich and varied literary artistry lent to natural revelation. Certainly, found in the Scriptures.” And third, Van Till’s current understanding it forces us to the conclusion that of science appears to dominate his the Bible constitutes “but one of the interpretation of the Bible.39 sources provided for our intellectual Implications for the Doctrine of growth.”35 the Fall While most conservative Christians While Van Till’s theistic evolution would agree somewhat with these impacts his view of Scripture, it must

31 Published by ResearchOnline@Avondale, 2005 9 Christian Spirituality and Science, Vol. 5 [2005], Iss. 1, Art. 3

also have influence over the doctrine Jesus Christ. of the fall of humankind. Again, Fritz Guy comments in regard to Genesis 3 could only be read in terms how we could maintain “the spiritual of a parable. And, along with that validity and theological significance arise the same sort of questions that without affirming a literal six-day faced us in regard to the old earth process of creation followed by a creationist standpoint. However, day of divine rest”: the “Sabbath is there are other implications arising important to us first of all because from Van Till’s view. For instance, it was important to him [Jesus]. To if God has fully gifted his creation, understand the nature of Jesus’ Sab- were humans predestined in that bath, we then go to Genesis 1 and “gifting” to self-destruct? the Fourth Commandment, noting What sort of “gracious” gift was that the Sabbath is a symbol not only that? Were sin and death “built into of creation, but also of liberation the system” as it came from God’s (Deut.5:15).”40 “hand” (so to speak)? Of course, Conclusion the very idea of theistic evolution The three Christian origins theories must imply a “falling” upward with have differing, but dramatic, implica- consequent problems for the usual tions for theology. Especially, is this evangelical doctrine of salvation, not the case for Seventh-day Adventist to mention theology proper. theology. The young earth creation- ist viewpoint has provided a strong Implications for the Doctrine of the Sabbath biblical foundation for many of In the theistic evolutionary view Adventism’s most distinctive theo- of creation, there is no concept of logical emphases. Yet, at the same a “creation week,” let alone days time an unquestioning literalistic of creation. So, connections be- approach to Genesis 1-3 may “set tween the Sabbath and creation are us up” for a view of Scripture that stretched almost to breaking point. does not take adequate account of While not agreeing with Van Till, I the creative tension between divine take seriously his claim that his view control and human freedom in the is a doctrine of creation. It is not process of inspiration. And, perhaps while finding a strong basis for the the same as naturalistic evolution. doctrines of the Fall and the Sabbath Therefore, one might build a case in Genesis, we may merely ask the for Sabbath observance as a symbol “when,” “what” and “how” ques- of God’s creative gifting of matter tions, while ignoring the question as and organisms with evolutionary to what these things “mean.”41 capabilities. Again, as with old earth creationism, one might begin with The old earth creationist viewpoint

32 https://research.avondale.edu.au/css/vol5/iss1/3 10 Roennfeldt: Three Christian Origins Models

appears to offer some respite to those ing of the Genesis account, yet the caught in the line of fire between awesome mystery of the events of the biblical creation account and creation point to symbol and meta- scientific evidence for the age of the phor as the only means of descrip- earth and life on it. However, while tion. Therefore, it is best to remain doubting (as a scientific neophyte) open to further insights from both that it provides adequate answers to Scripture and science. In the mean- the scientific dilemmas, progressive time, it is vital to remember that creationism also has some major im- while not everything is lost when plications for theology. How is one to we change the “when?”, “how?” and “get around” the biblical text? Where “what?” on the origins playing field, is one to fit a coherent view of the fall the consequent changes in meaning into such a scenario? And, can one are dramatic; and perhaps, depend- maintain a doctrine of the Sabbath ing on the scope of the changes, if the story itself is only symbolic or dire! metaphoric? Questions for discussion Again, the theistic evolutionary 1. How might a theistic evolution- perspective appears to hold some ist construct a viable biblical attraction for those wishing to bring theology of the Sabbath? science and the Bible together. But, 2. What practical strategies might what impact will such an approach one put in place so that personal have on our reading of Scripture faith can be sustained while when we leave the ? acknowledging the role of sci- And, will we have any basis for a entific enquiry? view of the fall of humankind, except a general feeling of bewilderment 3. What picture of God lies at the and unease that humans can be so foundation of the three origins amazingly good and so devilishly models discussed in this arti- bad (and often in the same person)? cle? Then, what of the Sabbath when seen 4. Where might a Christian begin in relation to theistic evolution? Will a conversation with a person it retain its value only to those who who espouses a naturalistic can think abstractly in terms of sym- evolutionary viewpoint? bols and metaphors? At the same References time, though, symbols and meta- 1 For convenience sake, I will phors only have meaning because usually refer to the creation they have some basis in reality. “story” or “narrative” (singular), The young earth viewpoint appears although I am very aware of the to be the one closest to a literal read- various documentary theories.

33 Published by ResearchOnline@Avondale, 2005 11 Christian Spirituality and Science, Vol. 5 [2005], Iss. 1, Art. 3

2 Fritz Guy, “Interpreting Genesis models. For instance, it is obvi- One in the Twenty-first Cen- ous that not all young earth crea- tury,” Spectrum 31/2 (Spring tionists agree in the details. See, 2003) 7. for instance, the diversity appar- ent in the materials produced 3 For an example, examine the by (www. differences between Clark H answersingenesis.org/intro.asp) Pinnock’s two works on the and the Adventist Geoscience inspiration and authority of Research Institute (www.grisda. Scripture: Biblical Revelation: The org). Note that I will be using Foundation of Christian Theology extensively the portrayals of the (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian views as expressed in J P More- and Reformed, 1971) and The land and John Mark Reynolds, Scripture Principle (San Francisco, eds., Three Views on Creation and CA: Harper and Row, 1984). Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: And, for an analysis of Pinnock’s Zondervan, 1999). This work is shift in soteriology which seeped easily accessible and provides into his doctrine of Scripture the views of well-known expo- (and other doctrines) see my nents of the three positions. own Clark H Pinnock on Biblical Authority: An Evolving Position 7 See Paul Nelson and John Mark (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews Reynolds, “Young Earth Crea- University Press, 1993). tionism,” in J P Moreland and John Mark Reynolds, p41. Note 4 This seems to be implied in John also the reticence with which T Baldwin’s (ed.) Creation, Catas- Nelson and Reynolds accept trophe, and Calvary: Why a Global the label of “young earth” or Flood is Vital to the Doctrine of the “recent” creationism (ibid). Atonement (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000). See 8 Ibid, p42. For an explanation of what is meant by an “open phi- especially Baldwin’s chapter: losophy of science,” see pp43-44 “The Geologic Column and and 56-62. Calvary: The Rainbow Con- nection—Implications for an 9 This is not to say that various Evangelical Understanding of textual difficulties and discrep- the Atonement,” pp108-123. ancies are not acknowledged. However, among young earth 5 For instance, Gen 1:1 and Rev creationists, there is agreement 21:1. that Genesis is describing real 6 There are, of course, many per- history. For a convenient discus- mutations within these three sion of the Genesis genealogical

34 https://research.avondale.edu.au/css/vol5/iss1/3 12 Roennfeldt: Three Christian Origins Models

material see “Did People Live 1958] 22). to be Hundreds of Years Old 13 Turner and others see Gen 1:1 as Before the Flood?” in Ronald a summary statement for the rest F Youngblood, ed., The Genesis of the passage (see Turner p21). Debate: Persistent Questions about Creation and the Flood (Grand 14 Some commentators, in fact, Rapids, MI: Baker, 1986, 1990) stress that the almost off-handed 166-83. The “Yes” case is taken reference to the stars is an im- by James A Borland, while the plicit denial of the power of as- “No” case is explained by Duane trology in Ancient Near Eastern L Christensen. civilisations. See, for instance, Nahum M Sarna, Genesis, The 10 For instance, the Creation Re- JPS Torah Commentary (Phila- search Society Statement of delphia, PA: Jewish Publication Belief #1: “The Bible is the writ- Society, 1989) 10; and Bruce K ten Word of God, and because Waltke with Cathi J Fredricks, it is inspired throughout, all its Genesis: A Commentary (Grand assertions are historically and Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001) scientifically true in the original 62-63. autographs. To the student of na- ture this means that the account 15 See Gen 1:26-28 and 5:1-2. of origins in Genesis is a factual 16 See such texts as Gen 5:3; 9:6; 1 presentation of simple historical Cor 15:49; 11:7; and Jas 3:9. truths” (see www.onthenet.com. au/~winckle/creationbelief. 17 See also Rom 5:16-19. htm). 18 Clark H Pinnock, Tracking the 11 I do not ignore the debate re- Maze: Finding Our Way Through garding the authorship of Gen- Modern Theology from an Evan- esis, but am most comfortable gelical Perspective (San Francisco, with treating the book from the CA: Harper and Row, 1990) 194- perspective of a “holistic final 6. Note that Pinnock refers to the form.” See Laurence A Turner, doctrine of the fall as “the most Genesis (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield empirical of all the Christian Academic Press, 2000) 12. doctrines” (p195).

12 Ellen White is correct in describ- 19 Turner remarks that “This final ing the language of Scripture as day, unique in its content and breaking down under the large- narrative form, forms the apex ness of the ideas being presented and goal of God’s creativity” (Selected Messages, book I [Wash- (p35). See also Gerhard von Rad, ington DC: Review and Herald, Genesis: A Commentary (London:

35 Published by ResearchOnline@Avondale, 2005 13 Christian Spirituality and Science, Vol. 5 [2005], Iss. 1, Art. 3

SCM, 1961) 59-61. tion of the Genesis narrative.

20 See Deut 5: 12-15. 27 While not holding to the old creationist viewpoint, myself, it 21 See, for instance, Robert C New- is instructive to remember that man, “Progressive Creationism,” even those who read Genesis 3 in Moreland and Reynolds, literally, do not have a full pic- 106. ture of why sin arose. Note Ellen 22 Ibid. White’s view that the rise of sin is a mystery and could reasons 23 Ibid. for its existence be found, it 24 Ibid. According to Newman, would be excusable (The Great scientists holding to an old Controversy [Mountain View, earth creationist view include CA: Pacific Press, 1888, 1950], geologists Davis Young and 493). Daniel Wonderly; biologist Pat- 28 Rom 5:12-21. tle Pun; chemist Russell Maat- man; physicist Alan Hayward; 29 For instance, Mark 2:27-28 prob- and astronomers E W Maunder ably refers to God’s giving of the and Hugh Ross. Old creationist Sabbath to the first human be- works published in recent years ings and hence to all following. include Alan Haywood, Crea- Note also the breadth of Jesus’ tion and Evolution (Minneapolis: Sabbath sayings in Matt 12:3-8, Bethany House, 1995) and Hugh 11-12; John 5:17; Luke 13:15-16; Ross, The Fingerprint of God, 2nd Luke 14:3; Mark 3:4; John 9:13- ed. (Orange, CA: Promise, 1991). 16, 37-41. Bernard Ramm’s The Christian 30 Benjamin B Warfield, in a 1911 View of Science and Scripture statement, says that “’evolution’ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, cannot act as a substitute for 1954) was a watershed work creation, but at best can supply within evangelicalism. only a theory of the method of 25 Newman, 106. divine providence” (Biblical and Theological Studies [Philadelphia, 26 Ibid. While there are some at- PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, tractive features to Newman’s 1952] 238). perspective, I have difficulties with the amending of the biblical 31 Observe that Van Till does not text from day 4 onwards. While choose to label his view as the- determined to fit the biblical text istic evolution because, for him, to scientific findings, Newman the emphasis is on the wrong has ignored the literary construc- dimension. “God” is only an

36 https://research.avondale.edu.au/css/vol5/iss1/3 14 Roennfeldt: Three Christian Origins Models

adjective describing evolution. 39 I acknowledge that this judgment Thus, Van Till prefers the term may be somewhat unfair. It may “Fully Gifted Creation.” SeeVan be that Van Till allows Scripture Till’s chapter, “The Fully Gifted the primary voice in matters of Creation,” in Moreland and theology and Christian living. Reynolds, p172. But, doesn’t the doctrine of crea- tion rate as theology as well? 32 Ibid, 170-171. 40 Fritz Guy, “Interpreting Genesis 33 Ibid, 161-64. One in the Twenty-first Cen- tury,” Spectrum 31/2 (Spring 34 Ibid, 206. 2003) 13. 35 Ibid, 208-11. 41 For instance, it seems to me that Adventist theology has 36 Ibid, 210. moved past (but not beyond) 37 See Gerhard Hasel’s “The Po- the question of “Which day is lemic Nature of the Genesis Cos- the Sabbath?” to “What does mology,” Evangelical Quarterly 46 the Sabbath Mean?” Observe (1974): 81-102, which makes the the difference in perspective point that Genesis 1 is written between J N Andrews’ and L with a view to deconstructing R Conradi’s, History of the Sab- Ancient Near Eastern creation bath and the First Day of the Week mythology. (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1912), and Samuele Bac- 38 This is the view of Walter L Bra- chiocchi’s, Divine Rest for Human dley, “Response to Howard J Van Restlessness (Berrien Springs, Till,” in Moreland and Reynolds, MI: Samuele Bacchiocchi, 1980). 224; and Vern S Poythress, “Re- Perhaps a similar personal pil- sponse to Howard J Van Till,” in grimage might be traced in the Moreland and Reynolds, 237. writings of Bacchiocchi.

37 Published by ResearchOnline@Avondale, 2005 15