Three Christian Origins Models: Some Theological Implications

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 Theology, 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 literalistic 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; God’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 Creationism 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 Noah’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 theistic evolution . 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 cosmology 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.

Load more