David Diaz Sonnen says: So, when a person says that he “simply does not know whether creationism or theistic evolution is true,” it’s understandable given all the philosophical assumptions clouding the issue. Trying to sort through the maze and layers of presumed philosophies can justifiably overload the mind.

>>> Well I (Brian Lang) have said that I don’t know which is true. But I think it is due to a lack of knowledge on my part. I also do not know which team won the Superbowl in 1980. I think I could find out the answer (and I think there is an objectively true answer)—I just happen to not know what the answer is.

I think the same is true with the various versions of theistic evolution and creationism. I think that there IS an objectively true answer (it is whatever actually happened in the real world in the past). I just don’t know what that answer is (yet). I do know some things—for example, I am certain that atheistic evolution is not true (because God exists and thus atheism is false).
So (in my case) I don’t think the issue is “philosophical assumptions. “ Rather, I’m simply not well enough educated to know what the actual objectively true answer is.

David Diaz Sonnen says: And if someone says, “I don’t really care which one turns out to be true,” the person’s philosophical predispositions are quite apparent – agnostic relativism.

>>> Hmm… I (Brian Lang) have also said that I don’t care which is true. But I wouldn’t call myself an agnostic relativist in general…

I AM agnostic about all the things to which I don’t know the answer. I’m agnostic about who won the superbowl in 1980 (I don’t’ know). I’m agnostic about the answer to calculus problems (I was terrible at calculus). But I’m NOT agnostic about things that I do know. I know that my wife’s name is Lisa. I know that God exists. So I guess you are right that I’m an agnostic about Theistic Evolution / Creationism—I don’t yet know the answer.

I AM also relativistic about things that are relative. For example, the speed limit is RELATED to what road I’m driving upon. It is 75 on the interstate and 25 in a school zone. There is no “one true” speed limit for all roads at all times. I’m also a relativist about the price of a cup of coffee. The price is RELATED to who you are buying it from. It costs a certain amount at Starbucks and a different amount at McDonalds. That said, there are plenty of things that are NOT relative. The truth is not relative. God and religion and morality are not relative. Whether evolution or creation occurred is not relative. All of these things are objective. They have one answer that is true for everyone at all times.

That said, I don’t really care whether evolution or creation is true for the same reason that I don’t really care who won the superbowl in 1980. It just doesn’t seem to have any important impact on my life. I’m sure that sports historians care about figuring out who won the game. And I’m sure that biologists care about whether theistic evolution or creation occurred. But I’m not really interested in football nor am I interested in biology…

David Diaz Sonnen says: Moreover, if the person says that the Text may have multiple meanings, one divine and one human, his philosophical presupposition is also exposed – God has “libertarian free will” which means that God created in man free will but that free will, nonetheless, cannot be ultimately controlled by God Himself (Norman Geisler, Creating God in the Image of Man? [Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997], 74). In other words, God is not sovereign in controlling what He meant in Scripture via human free will.

>>> Hmmm… I think I must have been unclear here. I think that God has TOTAL control/sovereignty over the text of scripture (and that human freewill does not compromise it in any way). But I also think that God can use the same text for multiple purposes. Consider Isaiah 7:14.

1) God used this text to give King Ahaz a sign concerning the Syrian-Ephriamite war.

2) God ALSO used this text to foretell the virgin birth of His Son.

It is one text with two different meanings (due to two different audiences), both under the total sovereign control of God.

David Diaz Sonnen says: If we believe that God created ex nihilo but subsequently does not intervene in the universe (i.e., deism), then theistic evolution sounds pretty plausible.

>>> Hmmm… I guess that would support one type of theistic evolution (i.e. one in which God does not intervene at all). But personally I think that an “interventionist” sort of theistic evolution is much more plausible (i.e. God does miracles at various points during the evolutionary process). And this sort of evolution is totally incompatible with deism.

David Diaz Sonnen says: So, anyone hungry for objective truth? I am. The objective table of truth is set and the main course is definitely served.

>>> Amen. I believe some form of theistic evolution or creationism is the objective truth. I’m just agnostic as to which it is. I also don’t really see very many important implications of figuring out which happens to be the objective truth. I don’t care who won the superbowl in 1980 and I don’t really care how God chose to create His creation.

To speak univocally of God is to actually affirm that our understanding of God is entirely the same as God actually is. But how can the creature be equal to the Creator? How can the temporal be the same as the Eternal? Hence, to speak univocally about God is impossible contrary to what John Duns Scotus, Plato and Augustine.

To speak equivocally of God is to affirm that our understanding of God is entirely different from the way God actually is. But this is self-defeating. For example, the statement “God is Simple because He is 100% Pure Act” is, in fact, a statement about God. If equivocal God-talk is true, I should not even be able to say that!

The remaining alternative is analogous God-talk which is the belief that predications or statements can be made about God in a similar or analogous way. That is, we can say things about God (e.g., not finite, not composed, etc.) that are similar to the way God actually is.

So, does God have libertarian free will? Our mutual friend, Clark Pinnock, gives us the answer to your question: “God does not possess exhaustive knowledge of exactly how we will utilize our freedom, although he may very well at times be able to predict with great accuracy the choice we will freely make” (Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker and David Basinger, The Opennes of God [InterVarsity, 1994], p. 156 quoted in Norman Geisler, Creating God in the Image of Man? [Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997], p. 75). Given your constraints of non-exhaustive knowledge (“non-omniscience”), then, no, God is does not exhibit libertarian free will simply because God does not will or know discursively like man does; God is simple because He is 100% Pure Act, remember? And because He is simple, He is unable or incapable of having “libertarian free will” which would necessitate Him knowing or willing discursively. In other words, Open Theism is false as is process theism along with panentheism. Free will libertarianism makes God temporal and complex because, accordingly, God is both Actuality and Potentiality (hence the “openness”). As such, God would necessarily have qualified omniscience which means that He doesn’t know for certain all future free acts. In other words, the Open God can learn something (change and think discursively) which means that His nature must change – something clearly contrary to orthodox Christianity.

God is not like man in having libertarian free will. He can’t. It’s literally impossible both philosophically and logically. The larger question could be, “In what way does man participate in the ability to will or choose something like God does?” Now THAT would be a cool article!

Comments herein have given me the idea for next week’s article: hermeneutics. If OK with you, I would like to incorporate your comments into next week’s thoughts and in greater detail. Nonetheless, suffice it to say for now that the Genesis account is prose narrative, not poetic narrative. Why is this true and relevant? For example, in Gen. 1-11 the writer consistently uses the waw consecutive and the special form of the Hebrew verb to describe the sequential acts. Also evident is the stress on definitions and sequence plus the use of the Hebrew direct object sign (et). This indicates that the Text is not poetic but narrative (prose narrative to be specific). “Poetic narratives would provide for forms such as myths, sagas, legends, anecdotes, and various other types of tales, but Genesis 1-11 does not give any of the indicia that would allow for these types of narratives” (Walker C. Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001], 81). This is from looking at the Text itself, an evidential perspective.

From an a priori perspective, the metaphorical approach to the Genesis account is fraught with the anti-supernatural presupposition of rationalism (e.g., Klaus Scholder, early Eta Linneman, et. al.). This will be addressed next week. But for now, if the Bible is guilty a priori (i.e., not true) before proven innocent (i.e., true), then we definitely have a tragedy of justice. This is exactly how the higher critic approaches the Text: guilty until proven innocent. And it is primarily for this reason that I reject the metaphorical interpretation (unless the Text and context deems so) for, in essence, the Bible must not be historical unless it can be proven to be. In contrast, I afford the same respect and opportunity to you as I read your comments: I assume that what you say is actually what you meant. What I could easily do is this: Brian didn’t really mean that Genesis should be taken metaphorically. Moreover, what he meant to say was that Clark Pinnock (who wrote The Most Moved Mover) was speaking metaphorically in his very assertion that God can change in His very essence. As such, I can take both Brian’s and Clark’s assertion as mere data points but not necessarily seriously much less literally. Thus I can dismiss both Brian’s and Clark’s assertions in good conscience. If I approach your doctoral dissertation with the idea that your hypothesis is already wrong from the onset or that what you say is not meant to be taken literally, have I been fair to you? Isn’t it reasonable that I should take what you say at “face value” unless you deem otherwise as the Bible does (i.e., historical grammatical method is true)? Indeed when you hoped to receive your doctorate, I would imagine that you demanded exactly that from your committee, that the historical grammatical method is, in fact, true.

More next week.

I interpret verse X in a certain way.
You interpret it in another way.
I quote the verse and say “God says my intepretation”.
Then I point out that God never lies/changes.
Thus I win the argument.

In this case your view is that when it says “God created man from the dust of the ground” a literal interpretation = truth and a metaphorical interpretation = lie. But that is called “begging the question.”

WHY should we treat this text as literal rather than a metaphor?

To give you some idea what I’m looking for check out
http://science.drvinson.net/gen1-intro

I don’t know if I agree with these guys but they do offer a set of _reasons_ why we ought to prefer a metaphorical interpretation.

Again, I’m not trying to convince you to reject Creationism. I guess I’m just hoping that you can see the strengths of the other side of the issue so that it doesn’t become something divise between you and your Theistic Evolutionist brothers and sisters in Christ.

God bless you David.

1. Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being (Gen. 2:7).
2. By the sweat of your face you [Adam] will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it [the ground] you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return (Gen. 3:19).
3. Remember now, that You have made me [Job] as clay; and would You turn me into dust again (Job. 10:9).
4. All flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust (Job. 34:15).
5. You [God] turn man back into dust and say, “Return, O children of men” (Ps. 90:3).
6. For He Himself knows our frame; He is mindful that we are but dust (Ps. 103:14).
7. You [God] hide Your face, they are dismayed; You take away their spirit, they expire and return to their dust (Ps. 104:29).
8. All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust (Ec. 3:20).

As the axiom goes, “Text without Context is Pretext.” So, we must not only view the individual verse/text itself (e.g., Gen. 1:27; 5:2), but we must also take into consideration the larger text and context of the chapter and book (Gen. 2:7; 3:19) as well as the text and context of OT Scripture (e.g., Job 10:9; 34:15; Ps. 90:3; 103:14; 104:29; Ec. 3:20) plus the text and context of NT Scripture (e.g., Matt. 19:4). Since it is impossible for God to lie (Num. 23:19) and in God there is absolutely no confusion or disorder (Deut. 32:4; 2 Sam. 22:31), then one part of Scripture (Gen. 1:27; 5:2) must necessarily agree with another part of Scripture (Matt. 19:4). Either “the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground” (as Jesus affirmed in Matt. 19:4; cf. Gen. 2:7) or He didn’t (and thus Jesus lied). Please choose.

Some comments:

- I fail to see how Jesus’ quote of Genesis that “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female” supports either creationism or theistic evolution. Both sides agree that God is responsible for the male and female genders. The issue is whether “the beginning” refers to “the literal beginning of the planet ~6000 years ago” or “the beginning of scripture as recorded in the story of Genesis”. Its unhelpful for the current debate because Jesus didn’t bother to explain whether he viewed Genesis as the “literal temporal beginning” or the “beginning of the scriptural story”. You can prefer the first option, but its hardly required by the text.

- You say that “the Text says that God DIRECTLY created Adam and Eve” (your emphasis) Where? It says “God created man in his own image” (Gen 1:27). It doesn’t say whether this was direct or indirect, nor whether the stories in the early chapters of Genesis are to be read literally or metaphorically.

- I’m not a higher critic (nor do I find much of what they say to be very plausible.) I think that the various historical/grammatical hermeneutics are a generally good but overly simplistic way to approach the text. [For example, each text has two authors--God & the human He inspired. And each of these authors might have multiple intended meanings depending on who is reading the text--e.g. one for believers, one for unbelievers, etc.]

- I agree that each section of the Bible should be treated in the way that God wants us to treat it (i.e. history, metaphor, hyperbole, etc.) What I need from you is REASONS why we ought to read early Genesis literally. Saying “it is obvious that it is literal” is not helpful.

- Right now I’m simply do not know whether creationism or theistic evolution is true. I don’t have enough information to push me one way or the other. And I honestly have no agenda—I don’t really care which one turns out to be true.

- That said, I do think that the whole debate is a giant red herring used by the devil to 1) waste the time of Christians who could be using their energies to actually DO SOME MINISTRY for the Kingdom and 2) divide Christianity over a trivial issue. And I’ve heard all the claims that being a theistic evolutionist “could” lead someone down the slippery slope to atheism or Satanism or being a democrat, or whatever. I give those arguments all the respect that slippery slope arguments deserve.