Category Archives: protology

Pardon the Dust

And you thought Rethinking the αlpha and Ωmega was retired.

I’m well aware it’s been a while since my last blog post.  I was less aware of actually how long it’s been:  over one year!  I got burned out a bit making the transition from Blogger to WordPress, and then I had to focus my energies on work and family for a spell.  However, I’ve recently begun to find some balance.  For what it’s worth, I’ve begun reformatting posts, creating categories, adding tags, etc., in order to make Rethinking the αlpha and Ωmega a more pleasurable reading experience.

And that’s not all:  I’ve begun writing again!  My first series for The BioLogos Foundation just hit the streets today; so enjoy the first of five installments on confronting fears one may experience when considering an evolutionary creationist paradigm.  Be sure to look for the remaining installments over the next few weeks.

If you like what you read, feel free to throw out some ideas of what you’d like to see me write about next.  Keep in mind that I intend to continue blogging here about the Ωmega side of things for a while in order to balance out the website, but more αlpha-related material will likely be forthcoming at BioLogos.  I will, of course, direct the faithful reader (if there are still any out there!) to BioLogos when additional series are published.

2 Comments

Filed under evolutionary creationism, general

Seeing Evolution Through New Covenant Eyes

Last Sunday, I had the pleasure of conducting a 90-minute radio show with New Covenant Eyes Church (Ft. Meyers, Florida) staff Alan Bondar and Bob Lucas.  (It can also be downloaded directly.)  Since New Covenant Eyes Church is a thoroughly preterist congregation, the opportunity was absolutely well-timed considering I had that weekend just revamped my Creation of an Evolutionist blog into its current format with the intention of discussing my journey from premillennial eschatology to preterism.

It was an eye-opening experience for me because I was interacting with some of my preterist brethren who hadn’t yet been exposed to the concept of evolutionary creationism.  In fact, the congregation is much more familiar with covenant creation, as detailed in the book Beyond Creation Science:  New Covenant Creation from Genesis to Revelation by Timothy P. Martin and Jeffrey L. Vaughn (Whitehall, Montana: Apocalyptic Vision Press, 2007), a publication with which I was involved quite intimately during my transition away from young-earth creationism. (Instead of being theistic evolutionists, Martin and Vaughn are merely old-earth creationists and, taking cues from 19th-century biblical scholar Milton Terry, propose that Genesis 1 is apocalyptic literature that finds its primary prophetic fulfillment in the book of Revelation.  According to covenant creation, Genesis 1 is not an ancient Hebrew account of material creation that uses mythological language, as I believe, but rather a purely literary account, with anchors in what is thought to be actual human history, of God’s original covenant with man, filled with symbolism intended to find one-for-one correspondence with various elements in the New Covenant instituted by Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry.)

I must admit, it is a challenge to explain to someone why it is that I, as an evolutionary creationist, believe Genesis 1 to be a material creation account (vice purely functional/teleological a la John Walton) at the same time that I reject the foundational, pre-modern scientific cosmology that pervades the Hebrew account.  The “secret” to my approach, as I explained in a pre-broadcast discussion with Alan, is the fine balance of intellectually rejecting Genesis 1’s ancient Hebrew cosmology and respecting the literary genre in which Genesis 1 was written and the ancient Near Eastern worldview with which the account is infused.  With this literary appreciation in hand, it becomes an academic exercise in separating the infinitely more valuable theological message of Genesis 1 and the fallible literary vessel in which the theology finds itself.  We are, in essence, to avoid keeping new wine (theology) in old wine skins (ancient cultural paradigm) for too long, or else the wine skin may burst and you find yourself spending valuable time and money trying to remove the wine stains from the plush carpet that is our faith.  It is better, then, to store new wine (theology) in new wine skins (modern cosmology), to adopt new techniques of applying our theology within modern scientific paradigms, and allowing our theology to expand and reform along with new scientific discoveries, all the while keeping Jesus Christ at the center.

As a result of this interview, I’ve decided to create a new Q&A page that will address what I believe Genesis 1-3 to be teaching.  Therefore, I invite my readers (both old and new) to submit questions about Genesis 1-3 for inclusion into a permanent Q&A page, answers for which I will provide over the course of time.  Even if you agree with my approach to Genesis 1, I still invite you to submit questions that you struggled to answer during your own scientifico-theological journey.

9 Comments

Filed under ancient Near Eastern (ANE) cosmogony, eschatology, evolutionary creationism, preterism, protology

Expanding Beyond the Event Horizon

Yes, it’s been some time since my last post (and the one before that).  But change is afoot.  Or should I say that this blog is evolving?

When it comes to Christianity, there is a definite connection between that which was, that which is, and that which is to come.  In other words, how we Christians view origins has a phenomenal impact on how we live in the present and how we view the future.

As my blog’s new title suggests, I’m incorporating my long-standing view of eschatology into the mix.  Of course, I expect to receive either (1) a standing ovation for bringing another contentious issue to the forefront of the discussion of what it means to be an Evangelical Christian, (2) a second cry of “heresy” to match the one typically associated with an acceptance of evolutionary theory, or (3) lengthy yawns by those who really don’t care to hear what I have to say on the issue.

In the case of option (1), I greatly appreciate your support in my effort to move beyond the “event horizon” of the creation-evolution debate into territory I’ve rarely seen treated in theological circles:  consistency in one’s protology (the study of origins and first things) and eschatology (the study of last things), especially when one’s protology consists of the aforementioned acceptance of what The Truth Project host Del Tackett labels “imago goo.”

In the case of option (2), I greatly appreciate your prayers in my pursuit of both truth and my own intellectual honesty.

In the case of option (3), I urge you to stick around.  At the very least, you’ll be entertained by a bunch of Christians arguing about whether Jesus is ever going to come back, and if so, when.  And if not, why.

Stay tuned.  There’s much more to come …

PS – Like any major move from one household to another, the transition from Blogger to WordPress software has had its hiccups.  Please be patient while I restore categories to each of my 100+ posts; add “about me” and “statement of belief” pages; and add various widgets, bells, and whistles.  I may, on occasion, reach out to my WordPress brothers for advice.  (For example, how the heck do I choose a particular font and right-hand justify my posts?)  Last, but not least, I want to personally thank my good friend Matthew Raymer for helping me make the transition to my own domain.  Couldn’t have asked for a better and more patient partner in the effort!

7 Comments

Filed under eschatology, protology

A Response to Tim Keller’s “Killer Argument” Against a Mythological Adam

Several weeks ago, Christianity Today published the cover story of their June 2011 issue online.  As a subscriber to the magazine, I decided to wait for my hard copy to arrive before delving into Richard Ostling‘s article “The Search for the Historical Adam.”  Although it took me several breakfasts to get through the article, I eagerly anticipated the conclusion, hoping for a positive sign that certain prominent Christian pastors and scholars (beyond the usual suspects) were exercising their God-given reason and giving science a chance to illuminate the historical reality surrounding the origin of our species, all the while retaining belief in the spiritual reality in which our species has found itself since the beginning of our interaction with the Supreme Creator and His moral law.  As I read the final paragraphs this morning and swallowed my last spoonful of Frosted Mini-Wheats, the milk seemed to suddenly sour.  I was wrong.

While I greatly admire the ministry and works of Tim Keller, I was taken aback considerably when Ostling quoted a paper Keller wrote for a BioLogos workshop:  “[Paul] most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures.”  My spider-sense (courtesy of a distant evolutionary cousin) manifested itself as a tingling at the base of my skull.  Was Paul’s discussion of Adam in Romans 5:12-21 really meant to instruct his audience in the historicity of Adam and Eve?  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Although living in Rome, the historicity of Adam and Eve was already something assumed by his Jewish audience.  There was no need for Paul to remind his readers of something that was part and parcel of their culturo-religious milieu.  They did, however, need to be reminded of something much more important:  the reality of their spiritual condition and their dire need for a savior, Jesus the Christ.  That, Mr. Keller, is the focus of Paul’s teaching.

If that wasn’t enough, Keller went on to write, “If Adam doesn’t exist, Paul’s whole argument — that both sin and grace work ‘covenantally’ — falls apart.  You can’t say that ‘Paul was a man of his time’ but [then say that] we can accept his basic teaching about Adam.  If you don’t believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul’s teaching.”  Once again, nothing could be further from the truth, specifically in regard to our salvation hinging on the historicity of Adam and Eve.  While the scientific evidence of our primordial heritage is clearly recorded in our DNA and argues forcefully against a historical Adam and Eve — traditionally understood to be the first pair of human beings created de novo approximately 6000 years ago — our collective observations and human experience argue just as forcefully that we are spiritual victims of our own genes.  We are subject to some of the same primal instincts that caused our particular evolutionary lineage to survive and thrive.  We are driven to eat, drink, and sow our wild oats.  We are compelled to protect that which is ours, desire that which isn’t, and bond together in a society for utilitarian purposes.  Despite all the survival benefits that our genes have conferred upon us, we still envy.  We still murder.  We still commit adultery.  We still bite the hands that feeds us.  Our motives aren’t purely altruistic.  It is clear to me that we human beings, as enlightened as we are as a species, are still quite in need of God’s power to transform our minds, allowing us to transcend that which makes us human and move us to new stage in human evolution:  adopted children of God with truly transformed spirits, destined to experience a new dimension of relational living with each other and the Creator who made us.  Destined, as heirs of eternal life, to survive in some fashion beyond the grave, no longer subject to the gene-ridden flesh which made us sinners unable to move beyond ourselves by our own power.

Both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures declare unerringly the truth that is the crux of Paul’s argument:  We are sinners in need of salvation.  Salvation from ourselves and the propensity to sin that is inherent in our species, from the moment of our conception to the moment fog no longer graces the mirror in which we see clearly our imperfections.  To paraphrase the Mexican bandit in Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles,* “Adam?  We don’t need no stinking Adam.”  To prove our need for Christ, all we need is to be ourselves.  To be human. For example, if I were to develop cancer, it would concern me much less as to the cause of my condition than the fact that I was suffering from a deadly disease.  In the same way, how and when the human race became sinful is infinitely less important than recognizing our sinful state and seeking out a way to remedy it.

The “core of Paul’s teaching,” Mr. Keller, is that we are sinners who require redemption from the bondage of sin — inescapable sin brought on by our inherited flesh — through recognition of the loving, faithful-unto-death act of the very historical personage of Jesus of Nazareth.  While we don’t need the First Adam, we still need the Second Adam in order to make us more human than human.  To deny that fact, Mr. Keller, is to deny the “core of Paul’s teaching.”  That would crumble the foundations of the Christian faith.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, yeah … I almost forgot.  I’m back!  😀

* Which, in turn, paraphrases a line from the 1948 film adaptation of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

UPDATE:  At Joel Watts’ suggestion, I’ve changed the title of this post for the sake of accuracy from “A Response to Tim Keller’s ‘Killer Argument’ Against Theistic Evolution” to its current title.  Thanks, Joel!

21 Comments

Filed under protology

Does Evolution Require Atheism?

Over at Parchment and Pen, Vance McAllister continues to wax eloquent regarding the all-too-common misconception that evolution requires atheism. Here are a few excerpts from the conversation:

. . . there is nothing atheistic about evolution or an old earth. That is the basic disconnect going on here. It is not some atheistic conspiracy, or some anti-religious agenda. It is just straightforward science that provides the best explanation from the data, and that is something that is put together by scientists of all theological positions, from Christians to Jews to Muslims to, yes, atheists.

Evolution is not something that atheists came up with to explain things without God, it is not the “atheistic alternative”, anymore than photosynthesis or gravity are some atheistic way of explaining those phenomenon without God. We, as Christians, have accepted the thousands upon thousands of scientific concepts and theories that make no mention of God, without a blink. Yet, these handful of concepts somehow become “atheistic,” even though they are presented by the same community of scientists we trust entirely regarding everything else.

All because these particular concepts happen to conflict with one particular interpretation of portions of Scripture. The Bible says that God created the rainbow and put it in the sky as a message to us. Is it thus an “atheistic” concept that these rainbows are created by light refraction? Is the message from God any less clear, is it any less of a miracle or less likely to be “of God” just because we now know exactly how God did it?

It is ultimately philosophical naturalism that is the true foe here, not evolution, since [evolution, whether macro- or micro-] is merely a scientific theory that says nothing at all about God . . . . It is that ATHEISTIC approach to origins that we should be engaged in combat with, and the Creationist[s’] battle with the mere mechanisms [of evolution] simply distracts from that primary battlefield and, ultimately, weakens the Christian position.

I couldn’t have said it any better! You go, Vance!

 

3 Comments

Filed under atheistic naturalism, protology

Dr. John Walton & Genesis 1

Instead of summarizing Dr. John Walton’s treatment of Genesis 1, I figured I’d post Walton’s own hour-long online presentation. If no one has the patience to watch this outstanding flash presentation, let me know and I’ll sum up some of his best take-aways . . .

2 Comments

Filed under ancient Near Eastern (ANE) cosmogony, protology

Spectrum of Beliefs on Evolution, Creation and Literalism

Vance McAllister has done an excellent job of laying out the different positions in regard to evolution, creation, and biblical literalism. After reading his spectrum, head on over to Reclaiming the Mind Ministry’s Parchment and Pen blog and The Submerging Influence blog for additional discussion. Of course, feel free to discuss on this blog as well!

**********************************

Here is the spectrum generally, you can review the descriptions further below to see what each refers to:

1. FE
2. Geo
3. YEC
4. Gap (OEC)
5. Progressive (OEC)
6. TE1
7. TE2
8. TE3

(note: the Intelligent Design position could apply to any of these, other than possibly TE 3).

So, let’s look at the spectrum! See where you land:

1. Flat-earthers – believe that a plain reading of Scripture indicates that the earth is flat. Very few still hold onto this belief.

2. Geocentrists – believe that the sun and all the stars literally revolve around a fixed and unmoving earth. Still a surprising number of these around, although it suffered a major setback after the late 60’s. They have a plethora of Scripture and theological bases to argue from, however, and insist that a literal reading of Scriptures requires geocentrism.

3. Young-Earth Creationists – believe that the earth and universe are both young (less than 10,000 years old) and that all the diversity of species is the result of special creation, based on a literal reading of Scripture (even if not AS literal as those above).

4. Gap Theorists (a form of Old-Earth Creationism) – believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that God created Man and all the animals at the “young earth” time frame (with a huge “gap” in between. Some believe this is a “re-creation”, God having scrapped an earlier version (dinosaurs, etc).

5. Progressive Creationists (aka “Day-Age Creationists”, another form of OEC) – believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that each “day” in Genesis referred to an indefinite period of time. Genesis is an historically and scientifically literal account (using that alternate form of the word “day”), just that it happened over a VERY long time period.

6. Theistic Evolutionists (with a literal Adam and Eve) – believe in an old earth and universe, and accept that God used evolution as part of His creation, basically as science describes it. But they feel that there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal Garden. Some attribute this Adam and Eve to an instance of special creation, others to election as “representatives,” etc. Also believe in biogenesis, not abiogenesis.

7. Theistic Evolutionists (no literal Adam and Eve, but biogenesis) – believe that Man evolved along with the other species (pursuant to God’s plan), but that the initial spark of life was immediately God induced. Some even push this forward to some mass special creation of a variety of “kinds” around the Cambrian period, with all the species evolving from there.

8. Theistic Evolutionists (abiogenesis) – God created everything and established the full system of natural laws upon with the universe and the earth would work. And it did work, entirely naturally, as God intended. With life arising at the time and place He had known it would, etc. So, here the “abiogenesis” would not mean that life arose without God, only that God built how life would first arise right into the “program.” This is not “deism,” however, since it says nothing at all about God interacting with and even directly intervening in His creation at any point in time (such as a particular event 2000 years ago, for example).

A bit of a side category is the Intelligent Design movement of recent years. This asserts that whatever you accept about creation, there is firm evidence that the universe and the earth in particular were designed with specific intelligence, by a designer, and not happening entirely naturally. Those holding this opinion come in each of the flavors mentioned above (other the last one, presumably), although the most recent and influential of these have been essentially Theistic Evolutionists of the first or second variety (whether they would claim that title or not). Also, some Theistic Evolutionists prefer the term Evolutionary Creationists.

12 Comments

Filed under atheistic naturalism, evolutionary creationism, intelligent design movement, old-earth creationism, protology, young-earth creationism

Evolutionary Creationism (EC) vs. Theistic Evolution (TE)

In one of my previous posts, Steve asked a question regarding my use of the term “evolutionary creationism,” or EC. I figured I’d let Denis O. Lamoureux from St. Joseph’s College, University of Alberta, speak to the differences between EC and “theistic evolution” (TE) in his outstanding essay “Evolutionary Creation”:

The term ‘evolutionary creation’ to most individuals seems like a contradiction in terms. This would be the case if the words ‘evolution’ and ‘creation’ were restricted to their popular meanings. That is, if the former is bound to an atheistic world view, and if the latter refers exclusively to literal 6 day creation. However, evolutionary creation moves beyond the common use of these terms and the simple ‘evolution vs. creation’ debate. The most important word in this category is the noun ‘creation.’ Evolutionary creationists are first and foremost thoroughly committed and unapologetic creationists. They believe that the universe is a created reality that is absolutely dependent for its every moment of existence on the will and grace of the Creator. The qualifying word in this term is the adjective ‘evolutionary,’ indicating the method through which God created the world. This view of origins is often referred to as ‘theistic evolution.’ However, that categorization places the process of evolution as primary term and makes the Creator secondary as only a qualifying adjective. Such an inversion in the order of priority is unacceptable to evolutionary creationists.

 Clearly, some may use the two terms synonymously, but I prefer Lamoureux’s distinction. Even Howard J. Van Till, in Zondervan’s Three Views on Creation and Evolution, prefers not to use the term “theistic evolution”:

Although the author of this chapter finds this label [“theistic evolution”] to have serious shortcomings, the editors have nonetheless chosen to employ it. . . . the author asks that his position be known, not as theistic evolution, but as the fully gifted creation perspective. (p. 161; emphasis in the original)

I believe the EC term to be fairly recent, and considering Van Till’s use of the term “evolutionary naturalism” to describe atheistic evolution (pp. 164-165), I feel justified to assume his approval of the term “evolutionary creationism.” In fact, in the same chapter, Van Till states:

. . . I have sometimes used the label evolving creation for my perspective. I think it’s a much better term that theistic evolution . . .

However . . .

. . . but it still has the problem of having to deal with all the negative attitudes that a majority of Christians have toward anything that even sounds like “evolution.”

Van Till has a point, but his term “fully gifted creation” does not succinctly describe his view very well. But back to what makes EC, well, EC. Lamoureux writes:

. . . evolutionary creationists claim that through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process God created the entire universe and all of life, including human beings. . . . God’s actual creative method is found through scientific discovery and not by reading the opening chapters of Scripture. . . . Three features distinguish evolutionary creation from other positions on the origin of the universe and life. This view of origins firmly: (1) believes in a personal Creator and the evolution of the world, (2) upholds the foundational principles of conservative Christianity and modern science, and (3) rejects the ‘God-of-the-Gaps’ [i.e., Intelligent Design —Mike Beidler]. . . . evolutionary creationists predict that as biology advances, fine-tuning arguments for the evolution of life will be discovered. Therefore, instead of looking for ‘gaps’ in nature where God purportedly intervened to create living organisms, these Christians see the Creator’s glory expressed in the robust continuum of life from the first cells to human beings. The faith of evolutionary creationists is strengthened with every new finding in biological evolution because each discovery declares the faithfulness of God to His living creation.

 

21 Comments

Filed under evolutionary creationism, intelligent design movement, protology

Thank “God” for Evolution?!?!

Pardon the brief interlude . . .

I was very excited when I came across this article yesterday. Those who have traveled the path that I’m currently on would surely get pumped over sound bytes like:

“We don’t try to show evangelicals or young earth creationists or intelligent design people that we’re right and they’re wrong. Evolution gives me a bigger God, an undeniably real God.”

I even thought that he might favor preterist or postmillennial eschatology:

“If somebody believes that Jesus, the cosmic janitor, is going to return on a cloud and clean up the mess we made, they’re more likely to have a less responsible way of thinking about the future and handing on a healthy, sustainable world.”

The article, for the most part, sounded quite encouraging. When I visited the Rev. Michael Dowd’s website and began surfing some of the video clips, I began to grow wary. Could I be misunderstanding who the Rev. Dowd believes God to be? I figured I would hold off judgment until I read his book, Thank God for Evolution! How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World, a .pdf version of which he is offering for free from his website. (The website will show it as out of stock; simply request to be emailed when it arrives and await several emails that send you back to the website to provide contact information as well as the webpage from which you can download the file.)

My suspicions appeared to be confirmed when I skimmed the several pages of endorsements beyond those of the Nobel laureates quoted first: pastors from the Unity Church of Christianity, the Unitarian Church, and the Unitarian Universalist Church; an individual from the Association of Global New Thought; new-agers Matthew Fox and Barbara Marx Hubbard (no relation to L. Ron Hubbard but just as New-Agey); and the list goes on . . .

We’re certainly not off to a good start. I figured that the best place to start skimming the book would be to search for the name of Jesus:

“The core teachings of Christianity will remain foundational. The marvels of public revelation will not unseat them. Jesus as ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ will still be central in an evolutionary form of Christianity, just as the backbone of our common ancestor who swam in the sea more than 400 million years ago is still within us, providing vital support. Moreover, Jesus as “the way, the truth, and the life” will be universalized.” (p. 67)

“Simply, get that you are part of the Whole, and then commit to living in deep integrity—and follow through with it. By being and doing this you will effortlessly express your creativity, take responsibility for your life and your legacy, and listen to your heart for guidance from the source of your existence. You will naturally love Reality (God) with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind. You will love your neighbor as yourself. And, yes, this is ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ that the early Christian gospels portray Jesus the Christ incarnating.” (p. 112)

“Christian leaders and laity alike have long recognized that it is not beliefs about Jesus that will save Christians. It is, rather, faith in him (i.e., trust in the values he incarnated, the integrity he enfleshed). The key to salvation is committing to Christ-like integrity. Being ‘in Christ’ and being ‘in evolutionary integrity’ (or, deep integrity) are different ways of saying essentially the same thing.” (p. 169)

“As a creaTHEIST, I choose to regard as no coincidence that the mythic stories of Jesus the Christ so well match what we now know both experientially and experimentally through the public revelations of science. ‘Getting right with God,’ ‘coming home to Reality,’ ‘abiding in Christ,’ and ‘growing in evolutionary integrity’ are different ways of saying the same thing.” (p. 179)

All I can say is that this will be an interesting read . . .

11 Comments

Filed under protology

My Evolving Views on Creationism

Several years ago, I introduced my children to the world of dinosaurs through BBC’s fabulous Walking with DinosaursDVD series. I enjoyed watching their jaws drop as the computer animators brought the extinct animals “back to life,” but I cringed every time the concept of evolution was mentioned, or whenever “XXX million years ago” popped up on the screen. The only reason I allowed those things to be viewed was that I felt I owed my children the benefit of grappling with the same questions I had as a child. It would surely do no good to shelter them from the creation/evolution controversy; I would better serve my children by exposing them to all sides of the issue, thus allowing them to work things out for themselves.During the course of my life as a Christian, I prided myself in looking at every theological issue from as many points of view as possible. I knew that an honest assessment of the facts would require me to know the opposition’s point of view thoroughly and represent it as faithfully as I could. Strangely enough, that approach would make me realize how easy it is to misinterpret Scripture, especially when I (or the opposition) failed to utilize the historico-grammatical method of interpretation and honor the historical and cultural contexts in which the Bible was written.

Using the historico-grammatical method of interpretation in the past, I had tackled the subjects of soteriology and eschatology with vigor, firmly grounding myself in Reformed and preteristic theology after agonizing paradigm shifts. For some reason, however, I was not quite ready to apply the same methodology to the debate over origins and the proper interpretation of Genesis 1. My unwillingness to explore these topics began to crumble as a close friend and I began meeting on a semi-regular basis to discuss all sorts of theological issues. Having considerable respect for my friend’s intelligence and knowing him to be a devout follower of Christ, I figured that questioning my YEC position would probably do me some good.

Approximately one year ago, I began reading David Snoke’s A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, which presented a strong scriptural defense of an old earth. I was still unconvinced, however, of Snoke’s method of explaining the six days of creation as anything other than six, 24-hour days, especially considering the use of the phrase “there was evening and there was morning—the nth day.” At the same time, I was asked to critique and copy-edit Tim Martin and Dr. Jeff Vaughn’s Beyond Creation Science (see cover above). Martin and Vaughn’s arguments began to reinforce those of Snoke’s. It wasn’t long before I went for the “90% solution” and accepted the scientific evidence for an old universe. Still, the proper method of understanding Genesis 1 eluded me. I knew that the historico-grammatical method would prove to be the key, but I didn’t know where to look for resources that used this method faithfully.

Perhaps it was God’s hand that I had just purchased Dr. John H. Walton’s NIV Application Commentary: Genesis, which, coincidentally, my good friend had also purchased. After several conversations on the origins debate, we decided to read the book together. What I read in those first few chapters blew me away. I had discovered the key to resolving (in my own mind) the YEC/OEC controversy!

More on this book’s impact in my next post . . .

7 Comments

Filed under hermeneutics, old-earth creationism, protology