Evidence for God from Science

Authoritative Support for an Old Earth (cont.)

ICBI Response to Scripture & Young-Earth Creationism

At the second summit of the ICBI, the issue of the age of the universe and Earth was discussed. Several papers were presented. Long deliberations followed. The conclusion of ICBI theologians and scholars present were that inerrancy requires belief in creation but not in 24-hour creation days.

Furthermore, Dr. James Sawyer of Western Seminary pointed out that when the ICBI was formed in 1978, “the founding membership held over 30 discrete positions with reference to the interpretation of Genesis 1. Only one of these positions involved a 6-day recent creation.”

That quote was taken from an old bible.org article that no longer exists, however found one with more detail:

• When in 1978 the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy was formed, Henry Morris was present and lobbying to have a statement of recent creationism inserted into the doctrinal statement. The founding council, rather than accede to Morris’ position polled the founding membership consisting of pastors scholars and theologians who affirmed the doctrine of Inerrancy and discovered, despite the popular acceptance of the position, the founding membership held over thirty discrete positions with reference to the interpretation of Genesis one. Only one of these positions involved a six-day recent creation. (Hardening of the Categories: Why Theologians Have Opposed "New Knowledge")

Ken Ham and Terry Mortenson at Answers in Genesis concede in their Special Feature: Hugh Ross Exposé:

• First, while it is true that all the theologians and OT scholars meeting at the ICBI agreed to a printed statement that implied that inerrancy does not require belief in 24-hour days of creation, it is not true that all such ICBI scholars reject the literal day interpretation. Though certainly the young-Earthers were a small minority, the fact that there were long deliberations after the three papers (one of which was written by a young-Earther, Dr Henry Morris) shows that young-Earthers were there raising their voices against the old-Earth majority.

"Small minority" might be an understatement. Apparently, most felt that the book of God's words did not demand that the days of creation be considered standard 24-hour days. Many, who like you, also endorse the Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation. And yet, they believe an Old Earth is an acceptable belief.
In fact, Norman Geisler points out:

• [T]he founders and framers of the contemporary inerrancy movement (ICBI) of the 1970s and 80s explicitly rejected the Young Earth view as being essential to belief in inerrancy. They discussed it and voted against making it a part of what they believed inerrancy entailed, even though they believed in creation, the "literal" historical-grammatical view of interpreting the Bible, a literal Adam, and the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis.

I said it previously, but I’ll say again. ICBI helped draw a line in the sand against liberal theologies watering down Scripture and Christian churches who valued it as a source of truth. Furthermore, I’m sure one reason many learn of Historical-Grammatical method during seminary (if they do) is in part thanks to the work of ICBI taking a stand on it. Such weight of this should not be so quickly pushed aside.

Let me put it this way. If this same council declared that belief in an old Earth was incompatible with Scripture, then I’d seriously consider my position as being an invalid literal interpretation of Genesis 1. The weight of this authority in my own eyes would outweigh my opinion – such that I’d believe I must be wrong if they said Scripture demanded a young Earth belief.

Me, one individual, versus a whole council consisting a great many respected evangelicals – the ICBI reads like a who’s who of many prominent conservative theologians. SO, if they declared that YEC was the only acceptable literal interpretation, then I’d concede that I am in all probability wrong in my interpretation.

BUT, ICBI in fact declared that an old Earth was an acceptable and consistent literal reading. Radmacher supported this. Archer support it. Geisler also supports it – further noting that much earlier on at the turn of the 19th century theologians who stressed the inerrancy of Scripture like B. B. Warfield, Charles Hodge and J. Gresham Machen did not accept YEC.

@Jac, I'd seriously suggest you reconsider hammering young Earth belief as a criteria of Scriptural orthodoxy.

As for those who believe in an old Earth — whatever your reasoning — you can be greatly reassured that you stand squarely upon solid Scriptural foundations backed by many powerful conservative Biblical scholars. Despite what your pastor might say, brothers and sisters who accuse otherwise... you easily have a greater weight of authority than those who normally appeal to Answers in Genesis.

___________________

Post-note: My next post shall be my last. Yay!

K,

I noticed in your last post, that a literal Adam was mentioned. Just out of curiosity, do you know if they determined if a belief in a literal, historical Adam is needed?

RickD wrote:K,

I noticed in your last post, that a literal Adam was mentioned. Just out of curiosity, do you know if they determined if a belief in a literal, historical Adam is needed?

Yes:

• CSBI: Over and above God's self-disclosure in the created order and the sequence of events within it, human beings from Adam on have received verbal messages from Him, either directly, as stated in Scripture, or indirectly in the form of part or all of Scripture itself.
  When Adam fell, the Creator did not abandon mankind to final judgment but promised salvation and began to reveal Himself as Redeemer in a sequence of historical events centering on Abraham's family and culminating in the life, death, resurrection, present heavenly ministry, and promised return of Jesus Christ. ...
  (http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html)

• CSBH Article XIII ... The Denial is directed at an illegitimate use of genre criticism by some who deny the truth of passages which are presented as factual. Some, for instance, take Adam to be a myth, whereas in Scripture he is presented as a real person. Others take Jonah to be an allegory when he is presented as a historical person and so referred to by Christ (Mat. 12:40-42). This Denial is an appropriate and timely warning not to use genre criticism as a cloak for rejecting the truth of Scripture. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html)

I'm not really sure how it could really be avoided personally since he is also treated as a real human being in places other than Genesis 1 & 2.
Paul builds one of his arguments for our being in Christ based upon Adam being real for example.

However, I'd like to add that we'd all hold inconsistent beliefs. We just may not be aware.
So if another Christian believes otherwise, I'll disagree sure and encourage them towards what I see as true, but I'm not going to hammer them over it (in the past I perhaps would have).
I'd much rather prefer they take the bulk of Scripture seriously, especially on spiritual matters, rather than force a stumbling block across their path.
"Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." (Col 4:6)

Thanks K,

That leads me to my next point. If only one of the members at the summit was YEC, then the remaining members had to have at least some Theistic Evolutionists, right?

Then, would these TEs there have believed in a literal, historical Adam?

From what I've read, TE beliefs about Adam, range from one end that believes he was a literal, historical person, created specially by God, but not the first human. To the other end of the range of beliefs, that says Adam was just symbolic.

Paul builds one of his arguments for our being in Christ based upon Adam being real for example.

Indeed he does.
Of course Paul is using a comparative structure, basically claiming that if you believe that sin and death came via one man ( Adam) then One Man ( Christ) can save us from sin and death ( even more so since He is far above Adam) and that structure doesn't NEED Adam to be a real person, simply that If the people that Paul was writing to believed it to be such then they should have no problem in believing that Christ can save all who believe in Him.
That said, I doubt that any person in the OT or NT though that Adam and Ever were anything BUT real people.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Paul builds one of his arguments for our being in Christ based upon Adam being real for example.

Indeed he does.
Of course Paul is using a comparative structure, basically claiming that if you believe that sin and death came via one man ( Adam) then One Man ( Christ) can save us from sin and death ( even more so since He is far above Adam) and that structure doesn't NEED Adam to be a real person, simply that If the people that Paul was writing to believed it to be such then they should have no problem in believing that Christ can save all who believe in Him.
That said, I doubt that any person in the OT or NT though that Adam and Ever were anything BUT real people.

Along those lines then, does Christ NEED to be a real person? According to your argument, Why or why not?

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Paul builds one of his arguments for our being in Christ based upon Adam being real for example.

Indeed he does.
Of course Paul is using a comparative structure, basically claiming that if you believe that sin and death came via one man ( Adam) then One Man ( Christ) can save us from sin and death ( even more so since He is far above Adam) and that structure doesn't NEED Adam to be a real person, simply that If the people that Paul was writing to believed it to be such then they should have no problem in believing that Christ can save all who believe in Him.
That said, I doubt that any person in the OT or NT though that Adam and Ever were anything BUT real people.

Along those lines then, does Christ NEED to be a real person? According to your argument, Why or why not?

Not my argument at all AND the argument is that If you believe that one person can cause the fall of man then one person can save man.
It is an argument that address the issue of "How can anyone save all of mankind"?
Like I said, Paul and his contemporaries most certainly believed that Adam was real.

We always need to remember that Paul addressed specific theological issues as well as general ones in his letters.


Now, the question of does Christ need to be real if Adam wasn't is a fair one of course for those that believe that Adam was not real BUT only if the believe the fall NEVER happened.
Adam not being a real SINGLE person usually means that Adam is used as a representative of MAN so we still have a need for Christ because the fall is VERY real , even if the story of Adam is viewed as Adam being representative of ALL men.

PaulS wrote:
Now, the question of does Christ need to be real if Adam wasn't is a fair one of course for those that believe that Adam was not real BUT only if the believe the fall NEVER happened.
Adam not being a real SINGLE person usually means that Adam is used as a representative of MAN so we still have a need for Christ because the fall is VERY real , even if the story of Adam is viewed as Adam being representative of ALL men.

Why not just believe Christ is just a representative of of Man? Why can't Christ just be the potential that all humans can attain? We can be gods!

RickD wrote:Thanks K,

That leads me to my next point. If only one of the members at the summit was YEC, then the remaining members had to have at least some Theistic Evolutionists, right?

I'm not sure, since Geisler specifically comments that being off the table.
I really can't picture any TE's who would have put their signature to the statements?
They wouldn't have signed on, unless they put their signature to something they didn't believe.

Rick wrote:Then, would these TEs there have believed in a literal, historical Adam?

Is there a reason why the two beliefs must be joined (TE and non-historical Adam/Eve)?
While it might be common, I'm sure many TEs would believe in a historical Adam and Eve.
Just not your kind at this board, eh Paul and neo-x?

Rick wrote:From what I've read, TE beliefs about Adam, range from one end that believes he was a literal, historical person, created specially by God, but not the first human. To the other end of the range of beliefs, that says Adam was just symbolic.

I'd disagree with that. Or, it depends what it intended by "human".

Many use confusing talk of homo sapiens or even "humans" which lead people to think us modern humans.
Whether they even know they're conflating, not properly defining what one means can be confusing.

Some even make a distinction between anatomically same homo sapiens sapiens as being different from "us".
For example, Biologos makes a distinction between the biological and the Imago Dei.

I am intrigued (only intrigued) that anatomically similar humans, according to current scientific knowledge, existed as far back as say 150k years, but only up until 50-60k sophisticated tools, paintings and religious expression.
What makes us special is the image of God. For this reason we're not to kill each other. (Gen 9:6)

So, would not an "Adam" and "Eve" simply be the first hominids that God made in His image?
We often think in purely biological terms, but Scripture is clear that we have something more from God -- the Imago Dei.
Meaning we could be biologically the same, but until God adds something other (Imago Dei), then we're not your creative, moral, spiritually aware human.
So then, would Biologos who are very TE be actually embracing a literal Adam and Eve at some stage?

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
Now, the question of does Christ need to be real if Adam wasn't is a fair one of course for those that believe that Adam was not real BUT only if the believe the fall NEVER happened.
Adam not being a real SINGLE person usually means that Adam is used as a representative of MAN so we still have a need for Christ because the fall is VERY real , even if the story of Adam is viewed as Adam being representative of ALL men.

Why not just believe Christ is just a representative of of Man? Why can't Christ just be the potential that all humans can attain? We can be gods!

Because the NT text does NOT warrant such a view whereas, according to some, the OT text can be viewed in a way that Adam need not be a single individual.
Personally I believe He was.

Is there a reason why the two beliefs must be joined (TE and non-historical Adam/Eve)?
While it might be common, I'm sure many TEs would believe in a historical Adam and Eve.
Just not your kind at this board, eh Paul and neo-x?

Speaking for myself, Adam and Eve were indeed real, historical people.
Genesis 2 is an account of events in the Garden of Eden, events that were happening apart yet within the creation account of Genesis 1.
Why do I believe that?
Because that is what they read to be.
Genesis 1 is general account of the creation of the world.
Genesis 2 is a specific account of events in a specific place, the Garden of Eden.

RickD wrote:
Thanks K,

That leads me to my next point. If only one of the members at the summit was YEC, then the remaining members had to have at least some Theistic Evolutionists, right?

K wrote:
I'm not sure, since Geisler specifically comments that being off the table.
I really can't picture any TE's who would have put their signature to the statements?
They wouldn't have signed on, unless they put their signature to something they didn't believe.

Some TEs do believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve. And, I find it kind of difficult to believe that out of all the members, besides Morris, all were Progressive Creationists of some sort.

Rick wrote:
Then, would these TEs there have believed in a literal, historical Adam?

K wrote:
Is there a reason why the two beliefs must be joined (TE and non-historical Adam/Eve)?
While it might be common, I'm sure many TEs would believe in a historical Adam and Eve.
Just not your kind at this board, eh Paul and neo-x?

From what I've seen in the wide range of TE beliefs, I don't think it's necessary to believe in a non-historical Adam, if one believes in TE.
And I believe Paul believes in a literal Adam. And Neo has said that he doesn't rule out the possibility that Adam was literal.

Rick wrote:
From what I've read, TE beliefs about Adam, range from one end that believes he was a literal, historical person, created specially by God, but not the first human. To the other end of the range of beliefs, that says Adam was just symbolic.

K wrote:
I'd disagree with that. Or, it depends what it intended by "human".

Many use confusing talk of homo sapiens or even "humans" which lead people to think us modern humans.
Whether they even know they're conflating, not properly defining what one means can be confusing.

Some even make a distinction between anatomically same homo sapiens sapiens as being different from "us".
For example, Biologos makes a distinction between the biological and the Imago Dei.

I've seen it both ways from TEs. Some will say Adam was a literal, historical human, just like we are, but was specially created. Others think Adam was a physically evolved modern human which God simply gave a spirit to.

K wrote:
So, would not an "Adam" and "Eve" simply be the first hominids that God made in His image?
We often think in purely biological terms, but Scripture is clear that we have something more from God -- the Imago Dei.
Meaning we could be biologically the same, but until God adds something other (Imago Dei), then we're not your creative, moral, spiritually aware human.
So then, would Biologos who are very TE be actually embracing a literal Adam and Eve at some stage?

I think that opens up a new can of worms. If other hominids existed who were biologically identical to Adam, but without a spiritual nature, then sin wouldn't be a part of their existence. Non-spiritual beings cannot sin.

The reconciliation of Adam and Eve having a spirit and other humans not having a spirit is addressed in a few ways by some:
One is that A&E where the first fully evolved Humans and they were the first to receive the spirit and then others got it too either by virtue of evolving to the right point or by being off springs of "spirit being" humans.
The first humans with a spirit basically out breed and out survived their non-human, non-spirit possessing "cousins".
Some think that ALL humans were given the spirit at the right time and that Adam and Eve were simply the first and that from them came the line of Judah, to which the OT focus on and the other "lineages" of humans did their own thing under the watch of the sons of God ( divine council/angels).
Some view them as being special created as representatives of humans to share in life with God and when they fell, they lost the chance for immortality for the rest of mankind.

There is no gray area that the fall of man presents TE a problem if there is no historical Adam.
Pretty much every TE knows this.

PaulSacramento wrote:The reconciliation of Adam and Eve having a spirit and other humans not having a spirit is addressed in a few ways by some:
One is that A&E where the first fully evolved Humans and they were the first to receive the spirit and then others got it too either by virtue of evolving to the right point or by being off springs of "spirit being" humans.
The first humans with a spirit basically out breed and out survived their non-human, non-spirit possessing "cousins".
Some think that ALL humans were given the spirit at the right time and that Adam and Eve were simply the first and that from them came the line of Judah, to which the OT focus on and the other "lineages" of humans did their own thing under the watch of the sons of God ( divine council/angels).
Some view them as being special created as representatives of humans to share in life with God and when they fell, they lost the chance for immortality for the rest of mankind.

Maybe "some" believe that, but it's ridiculous. Especially if a TE believes Adam and Eve evolved first. Because we all know that life doesn't evolve in pairs, but in groups. At least that's what we're told when they say all humanity couldn't have come from one pair.