A Good and Timely Discussion

Panis Question:

Yes, it is clear that the student was a little confused. As you pointed out, if he truly wanted "balance" as he stated, he would not have had a problem with errancy views being taught alongside inerrancy views. I think that he was trying to sound accommodating in his letter, but ended up inadvertently saying that what he really wanted was for certain viewpoints to be taught. I'll make a few comments about each.

Inerrancy: When it comes to the inerrancy of Scripture, any academic institution which receives money from the SBC has no business undermining the basic doctrine of inerrancy. If the issue at the college is one of whether or not certain professors hold to inerrancy, then it is a viable issue. If there are professors there who do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, they need to be terminated, simply by the virtue that the college is funded with SBC money. This was the crux of the conservative resurgence argument. The money of the SBC constituency was going to pay the salaries of those who did not believe the same way as the majority of Southern Baptists.

Evolution: 1. When talking about the age of the Earth, the truth of the matter is that it does not matter. The Bible was never intended to be a "date book" by which we should try to ascertain the exact age of the Earth. Who cares how old the Earth is, anyway? The bottom-line is that it was created by God. The only reason the 6,000 year-old and 10,000 year-old theories came about was to try to combat an aspect of evolutionist teachings that taught the Earth is millions of years old. Nevertheless, the Bible dating people as well as evolutionist scientists both forget one key thing: both views are nothing more than theories and each are improvable.

2. In terms of micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution, the answer is cut and dry with regards to man. One simply cannot reconcile a belief in macro-evolution with regards to man with Genesis. In Genesis, the fact that man is made in God's image after animals and that man is made with the breath of God clearly are distinguishing marks of man from the animals of the Earth. Saying that man evolved from life forms which God created earlier than man cannot be substantiated with the Genesis account. Clearly in Genesis, man is in a special position in God's hierarchy. Saying that he was formed using already created lower life forms undermines God's purpose of specifically designating him at such a high position of having dominion over the animals as well as the ability to have personal fellowship with God.

Some would argue that the Genesis creation account is not literally what happened, but is rather just symbolic or allegorical in nature, thereby trying to find a way to reconcile scientific theories of man's origins with the Bible. This argument has to simply be rejected, however, for the days of creation in Genesis are clearly numbered. "This was created after this was created after this," etc. With such precision noted, taking the Genesis account as figurative or allegorical is simply bad hermeneutics. Furthermore, the view of the creation account being figurative or allegorical necessitates a rendering of the events in the Garden of Eden as figurative or allegorical as well. As is attested in the New Testament (by Paul), that is simply false.

Can one hold to evolutionist teachings and still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Absolutely. Can one hold to macro-evolution with regard to man's origins and still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Yes, but it seems to create quite a conundrum; for if Genesis says what it says, the macro-evolution of man cannot be true. Yet, if one believes science in regards to man's macro-evolution, then Genesis has to be wrong (unless you try to "fudge" and say that the creation account in Genesis is figurative or allegorical). Most inerrantists who believe in macro-evolution are in such a category.

Thus, Circensis, since you are an inerrantist, do you believe in man's macro-evolution, and if so, do you hold that Genesis is figurative or allegorical?

Circensis Answer:

Inerrancy: When it comes to the inerrancy of Scripture, any academic institution which receives money from the SBC has no business undermining the basic doctrine of inerrancy. If the issue at the college is one of whether or not certain professors hold to inerrancy, then it is a viable issue.

First, we do not yet know that the 25-30 yr old doctrine of inerrancy has been undermined. All we have is a college student making weak allegations. Four sub-points.

A) As we have previously learned, a believer can be faithful, fruitful, Bible-believing, believing the Bible to be true, infallible, inspired, the Word of God, but if he does not hold to inerrancy then he can be dismissed.
B) There are four or five different versions of inerrancy. Very few SBC believers are inerrantists so in the strictest sense. The term has never been sufficiently explained by the SBC. Therefore, anyone can be called an inerrantist at anytime if you probe their beliefs long enough. All you then do is flash the “errantist” label and someone is dismissed.
C) Because inerrancy is such a misunderstood term we then have to distinguish it from the notion that textual variations appear in the Bible. For all we know professors at Carson-Newman simply disputed the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 or John 7:53-8:11. This kid may have heard that and thought it inerrancy. I am hoping that someone set down with him and asked him exactly what he deems to be the errantist teachings at C-N. But 1) since I think this Tennessee Baptist actions are political in nature and 2) the student has not yet demonstrated any evidence to support his claims other than the quickly refuted evolution claim, I, therefore, do not yet believe that such errancy views exist.
D) And this is an important point. None of the Baptist Faith and Messages including the big 2000 BFM says anything about inerrancy. If the Bible Battles of the resurgence was all about the issue of inerrancy then why did they not put inerrancy in the 2000 BFM? All they did was remove a few words that said that Jesus was to be criterion for which the Bible is to be interpreted. They took Jesus out! The only other major thing they did was to codify that women could not be pastors, a completely unbiblical law. That is the reason so many people left in 2000-2001. But inerrancy, not in there.

If there are professors there who do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, they need to be terminated, simply by the virtue that the college is funded with SBC money. This was the crux of the conservative resurgence argument. The money of the SBC constituency was going to pay the salaries of those who did not believe the same way as the majority of Southern Baptists.

Again, we would be firing people for holding a position on inerrancy that the 2000 BFM does not address. But let us trace the history of this issue about SBC money.

1) SBC agency employees were told they had to sign the 2000 BFM.
2) Then seminary employees were told they had to sign the 2000 BFM.
3) Then missionaries were told they had to sign the 2000 BFM.

Now all of these events did not happen at once but over a period of a short time. Now an association in Georgia is requiring its churches to sign the 2000 BFM. Other state conventions are considering the same thing. And, now, we have a state convention considering having its college profs sign the 2000 BFM.
Questions:

1) Are the all of the above events and considerations a good thing? If so, why?
2) Should the SBC require all churches to sign the 2000 BFM? If so, why?
3) And here is a big one. Should the SBC require all seminary students who receive SBC money to sign the 2000 BFM?
a. Why should a seminary student receive SBC money for his education if he will then go out and preach what is contrary to the majority of Southern Baptists and undermine the doctrine of inerrancy? They are the future pastors of America.
b. Should students be allowed to opt out of the SBC money we each automatically receive? Every SBC seminary student receives SBC money.
c. If a seminary student who receives SBC money and signs the 2000 BFM but subsequently comes to believe women can be pastors then can that student be forced to repay the money he has taken or should he be dismissed from his seminary? Perhaps he should be put on some form of probation until he agrees to drop his heresy.
4) Where will this all end? Should all members of a SBC church be required to sign the 2000 BFM?


Evolution: 1. When talking about the age of the Earth, the truth of the matter is that it does not matter. The Bible was never intended to be a "date book" by which we should try to ascertain the exact age of the Earth. Who cares how old the Earth is, anyway? The bottom-line is that it was created by God. The only reason the 6,000 year-old and 10,000 year-old theories came about was to try to combat an aspect of evolutionist teachings that taught the Earth is millions of years old. Nevertheless, the Bible dating people as well as evolutionist scientists both forget one key thing: both views are nothing more than theories and each are improvable.

The age of the earth does not matter? The bottom line is that it was created by God? Okay, then evolution or “creationism” does not matter; the bottom line is that man was created by God.


2. In terms of micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution, the answer is cut and dry with regards to man. One simply cannot reconcile a belief in macro-evolution with regards to man with Genesis. In Genesis, the fact that man is made in God's image after animals and that man is made with the breath of God clearly are distinguishing marks of man from the animals of the Earth. Saying that man evolved from life forms which God created earlier than man cannot be substantiated with the Genesis account. Clearly in Genesis, man is in a special position in God's hierarchy. Saying that he was formed using already created lower life forms undermines God's purpose of specifically designating him at such a high position of having dominion over the animals as well as the ability to have personal fellowship with God.

Some would argue that the Genesis creation account is not literally what happened, but is rather just symbolic or allegorical in nature, thereby trying to find a way to reconcile scientific theories of man's origins with the Bible. This argument has to simply be rejected, however, for the days of creation in Genesis are clearly numbered. "This was created after this was created after this," etc. With such precision noted, taking the Genesis account as figurative or allegorical is simply bad hermeneutics. Furthermore, the view of the creation account being figurative or allegorical necessitates a rendering of the events in the Garden of Eden as figurative or allegorical as well. As is attested in the New Testament (by Paul), that is simply false.

Can one hold to evolutionist teachings and still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Absolutely. Can one hold to macro-evolution with regard to man's origins and still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Yes, but it seems to create quite a conundrum; for if Genesis says what it says, the macro-evolution of man cannot be true. Yet, if one believes science in regards to man's macro-evolution, then Genesis has to be wrong (unless you try to "fudge" and say that the creation account in Genesis is figurative or allegorical). Most inerrantists who believe in macro-evolution are in such a category.

Thus, Circenses, since you are an inerrantist, do you believe in man's macro-evolution, and if so, do you hold that Genesis is figurative or allegorical?

Yes, I do believe in macro-evolution. Do I hold that the first three chapters are figurative or allegorical? Hmmm.

I have heard the term described as figurative, allegorical, or mythical. All of these are loaded words that are good in some cultures and not-so-good in others. “Mythical” is acceptable in German but not so in English. Ask Ralph Elliott. But let us use a term that carries the same function as the above but not the same cultural baggage. I choose to call the first three chapters of Genesis “apocalyptic.” Yes, the term “apocalyptic” is more appropriate.

Look at other parts of the Bible where apocalyptic literature is used. Parts of Daniel, parts of Zechariah and Ezekiel, and most of Revelation. All of these are apocalyptic. Why? Well, look at Revelation. No one is around to see beginning of Glory, the end of the old creation and the start of the new. These events had to be “revealed” to John. The same is true with the beginning of Genesis. Moses (or JE) was not there to see these events and these events had to be “revealed” to the author. In both cases, figurative language is used. Neither are strictly “literal” as we conceive it today, or do we actually believe the anti-Christ is a REAL beast with ten heads and seven heads? Is Satan ACTUALLY a dragon? Or are these simply images and figurative language to express what would be incomprehensible to first century people. No one takes Revelation “literally.” No one.

Now let’s turn to Genesis 1-3. “Apocalyptic” is an acceptable term. God had to “reveal” these events to the author and communicate the theological truths in a way that both people 4,000 years ago and today could understand. Incidentally, however we interpret Genesis 1-3, literal or apocalyptic, the theological truths still come through. This makes the issue a mute point in my estimation, but it shows the power and wisdom of God.

So what evidence do I have that makes me think that Genesis 1-3 are apocalyptic in nature?

First, it is interesting that chapters 1 and 2-3 are separate pieces. Whether you believe they were written by the same person is immaterial. We know these are separate pieces because the creation events in either chapter are in different chronological orders.


1:11 – God creates trees and plants and vegetation (3rd day).
1:20 – God creates fish and birds (5th day).
1:24 – God creates beasts and then God creates man in His own image, male and female He created them (6th day).
2:2-3 – God rested from his creating (7th day).


2:7 – Lord God forms man (adam) from ground (adamah).
2:9 – Lord God creates trees out of ground; no shrubs or plants on earth before man (2:5)
2:19 – Lord God creates beasts and birds from the ground (adamah).
2:22 – Lord God creates woman from man’s rib.


Notice how different the order of creation is in these two chapters. Plants-beasts-man and woman vs. man-plants-beasts-woman. Was man created before or after the plants and animals? To take both as literal is bad hermeneutics.

Notice how in 1:24 beasts and man were created on the same day. Notice in 2:7 and 2:19 that both man and beasts were created out of the same stuff (adamah). Both are called “living creatures or souls or beings.” The exact same Hebrew words are used nephesh hayiyah. What is the difference between man and beast? Man is called adam because he came from adamah, the animals were not so named. Man was created in the image of God, animals were not. Whether you interpret this passage literally or apocalyptically, whether you interpret this passage as instantaneous or a process of millions of years of evolution (directed by God) the result is the same. Man is created in God’s image. Man is not degraded in either interpretation, the exact opposite is true.

I have asked my professors to explain the different chronological orders of these two chapters. They soon admit that the first chapter is probably meant to be taken more figuratively than the second chapter. I ask, why can’t the reverse be true? I do not get an answer.

Notice in verse 2:9 that God “caused to grow every tree.” The trees did not instantaneously appear. There was a process for the trees “to grow”. Nevertheless, God caused the process. Notice in 2:19 that God “forms every beast”. “Form” like “grow” can involve a process. Notice in 2:7 that God “forms man”. In Isaiah 44:2, the same word is used for “form” (yatsar). Notice the Isaiah 44:2 passage: “The Lord formed you from the womb.” Now wait a second. A person is formed in the womb by male sperm and female egg and forms over a nine-month period. Just ask my friend, Travis. Why is God saying he formed someone in one’s womb? Perhaps because he created the process by which all people are formed in the womb. We all say that we are God’s creation despite the fact that we admit that we were created differently than Adam.

We are not quibbling over whether or not God created man and the animals, rather, we are quibbling over processes of that creation. We are quibbling over whether God created man over a long period of time or over a day.

Now, look at the Hebrew words used in chapters two and three. Poetic and figurative language is used. Man (adam) from ground (adamah). Female (ishah) came out of male (ish). Eve (chavvah) is mother of all the living (chay) (i.e. men come from women). The serpent was crafty (arum) and the man and woman are naked (erum). The puns are flying left and right. The author is using this pun language to make theological points about man and his predicament. None of this would make any since if it was written in any language other than Hebrew.

Look at chapter one. In 1:7-8 God is separating waters (mayim) from waters (mayim) and making one the heavens (shamayim).

The deep, the firmament, these are ancient middle eastern cosmogony terms that describe a world that no one believes exists. Are these terms found in the narratives of the Bible? No. They are found in the poetic and apocalyptic sections of the Bible, where they can be figuratively understood.

These three chapters are full of the language that we find in poetic and apocalyptic literature. None of the straight forward language that we find in the Abraham narrative is there.

And let us ask the tough questions: Where did Cain’s wife come from? Where did Seth’s children come from? He must’ve had a wife, where did she come from?

These are reason why I think the first chapters of Genesis are best interpreted as apocalyptic. Nevertheless, a literal interpretation does not necessarily hurt. The same theological truths come forth just the same. You state that “the Bible was never intended to be a ‘date book’ by which we should try to ascertain the exact age of the Earth.” I am maintaining that the Bible was never intended to be a science book by which we should try to ascertain the exact processes by which God created. The bottom-line is that man was created by God in His image.

Now, what about Paul? Nowhere does Paul say that the Genesis 3 story should be taken “literally”. Nowhere does he directly say that this story should be taken “figuratively”, except in Romans 5:14 where he says that Adam was a “type” of Him who was to come. Paul is fond of typology; he uses it extensively in Galatians 4. Paul has no problem using typology to figuratively speak of Adam. Regardless, whether or not we take Paul to speak of Adam figuratively or literally, the same spiritual truth comes forth. If anywhere in Paul’s writings, he speaks of Adam and events surrounding man, the literal or figurative nature of the story is unimportant. What is important is the theological truth that Paul is preaching. A pastor preaches upon the apocalyptic truth of the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel. A pastor preaches upon the apocalyptic truths in the beast and whore in Revelation.

I believed in the figurative or apocalyptic view of Genesis 1-3 a long time before I believed in evolution. I came to the conclusion that these chapters were apocalyptic and not “literal” from reading the Bible itself and not from science. Only some time later after I came to realize what the author of Genesis 1-3 was doing did I subsequently read Christian authors and scholars (many who were/are SBC leaders) who approached evolution in a manner that appealed to me and coalesced with my understanding of Scripture.

Actually, I do not care at all whether someone believes or disbelieves in evolution. I have never attempted other believers to see it my way. Whether someone believes in evolution or not is as relevant as someone believing in Einstein’s general relativity. My only beef comes when people like this student and others attempt to get others in trouble for their beliefs. Only then do I step up. My interest is not that others believe my way on this issue but that others allow others to have differences of opinion on evolution.

This student and those who are backing him have grabbed the wrong end of the stick. I am afraid they are going to use evolution (1925 BFM), Genesis (1963 BFM), and inerrancy (2000 BFM) to force professors to adopt the 2000 BFM. I think all of this is about power and control. Why? Because neither the 1925, 1963, or the 2000 BFM address evolution, Genesis, or inerrancy. These are just hot-button issues in the SBC that people use to get more control over others. Not me.