I heard something interesting the other day while talking to another pastor I know. He related that at a national meeting of a conservative denomination a few years ago, they ruled on their official position on the Genesis account of creation. They saw four positions acceptable. One was that the creation took place in 6 literal days and the others were that the days were long time periods in one way or another so that the Lord could have created the universe by some “process”. So while they were willing for Christians to hold to some form of evolution or another, they did draw a line in which they believed if you crossed this line you had moved into heresy.
The line they drew was that you couldn’t hold to Adam and Eve as being a result of evolution. So basically the means God used to create the material universe could be a process but when it comes to man, this had to be seen as happening at once, as the Bible relates. So the sixth day has to be literal, not necessarily the first 5 (my interpretation). Now let me say that long ago I realized that not every Christian believes in a literal 6 day creation. It was hard to accept but I know that it is the case that some good solid saints have bought into some type of evolution and this doesn’t make them heretics. So while I am not crazy about the position this denomination took, I realize that such things happen among people who love the Lord.
But what interests me is where they drew the line in the sand. You could hold to evolution of some sort as long as you don’t see man as evolving. Now I certainly agree that the line had to be drawn here if you going to draw one. If Adam and Eve had an ancestry behind them, there are all kinds of theological implications that would end up undermining the Bible, original sin, etc. But what bothers me is that we are willing to hold fast to the fact that God had to make Adam and Eve with the appearance of twenty or thirty years of age, but because the universe has an appearance of age, we simply cannot buy into the fact that he could have just as easy created the universe and the natural order to have the same appearance. ( For those who say that the fossil record sometimes seems to discount the Genesis record, I would say that it is much harder on evolution than it is on the Genesis record.)
Macro evolution has never been seen in nature, it has never been proven in the lab, there has never been any missing link found of which there should be countless millions and yet for some Christians it seems impossible to stand up to this world and say that the 6 day account is every bit as plausible as any evolutionary position. To say that evolution couldn’t have happened except with humans to me is an inconsistent position. If we insist it couldn’t have happened with humanity but could have with every other life form begs the question, why would God not have created everything else just as he did man on the sixth day? If he used ages to create the universe, then was the sixth day also an age? It would have to be if the others were which again begs the question, why would he need an age to instantly create man? One might say, that before he created man he used the age to develop animal life which also came on the sixth day (which had one morning and one evening by the way). But anyway we slice it, we are admitting that God could have instantaneously created everything and he did do so with man, but he chose to create life in two different ways but then not let us in on this at all.
I guess my main thought is this: I doubt the lost evolutionist is impressed with such Christian positions that both hold to some from of evolution and creation; I know I don’t. I know that no matter what position you take, even the six day position, there are questions that cannot be answered to anyone’s satisfaction. But if God can create some life instantaneously, he can create everything just as he said in Genesis. If we ask ourselves what position gives the Lord the most glory, then the answer is obvious. That might not be final proof of this issue but it is one I am willing to use to guard my thinking. I know there are people out there who can point out problems with my position that I cannot answer, but the problems with other positions seem to have far more serious problems.
The line they drew was that you couldn’t hold to Adam and Eve as being a result of evolution. So basically the means God used to create the material universe could be a process but when it comes to man, this had to be seen as happening at once, as the Bible relates. So the sixth day has to be literal, not necessarily the first 5 (my interpretation). Now let me say that long ago I realized that not every Christian believes in a literal 6 day creation. It was hard to accept but I know that it is the case that some good solid saints have bought into some type of evolution and this doesn’t make them heretics. So while I am not crazy about the position this denomination took, I realize that such things happen among people who love the Lord.
But what interests me is where they drew the line in the sand. You could hold to evolution of some sort as long as you don’t see man as evolving. Now I certainly agree that the line had to be drawn here if you going to draw one. If Adam and Eve had an ancestry behind them, there are all kinds of theological implications that would end up undermining the Bible, original sin, etc. But what bothers me is that we are willing to hold fast to the fact that God had to make Adam and Eve with the appearance of twenty or thirty years of age, but because the universe has an appearance of age, we simply cannot buy into the fact that he could have just as easy created the universe and the natural order to have the same appearance. ( For those who say that the fossil record sometimes seems to discount the Genesis record, I would say that it is much harder on evolution than it is on the Genesis record.)
Macro evolution has never been seen in nature, it has never been proven in the lab, there has never been any missing link found of which there should be countless millions and yet for some Christians it seems impossible to stand up to this world and say that the 6 day account is every bit as plausible as any evolutionary position. To say that evolution couldn’t have happened except with humans to me is an inconsistent position. If we insist it couldn’t have happened with humanity but could have with every other life form begs the question, why would God not have created everything else just as he did man on the sixth day? If he used ages to create the universe, then was the sixth day also an age? It would have to be if the others were which again begs the question, why would he need an age to instantly create man? One might say, that before he created man he used the age to develop animal life which also came on the sixth day (which had one morning and one evening by the way). But anyway we slice it, we are admitting that God could have instantaneously created everything and he did do so with man, but he chose to create life in two different ways but then not let us in on this at all.
I guess my main thought is this: I doubt the lost evolutionist is impressed with such Christian positions that both hold to some from of evolution and creation; I know I don’t. I know that no matter what position you take, even the six day position, there are questions that cannot be answered to anyone’s satisfaction. But if God can create some life instantaneously, he can create everything just as he said in Genesis. If we ask ourselves what position gives the Lord the most glory, then the answer is obvious. That might not be final proof of this issue but it is one I am willing to use to guard my thinking. I know there are people out there who can point out problems with my position that I cannot answer, but the problems with other positions seem to have far more serious problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment