Driscoll: Creation Sorts...

The scriptural data on creation has several views described by Mark Driscoll in his book Doctrine.[1]  This is a critical analysis of those views within the framework of what I hold to be true regarding the testimony of scripture.  I hope to show not only what I believe is in accord with scripture, but also why it is the most reliable position, and to demonstrate a mature and well-considered analysis of the text.

            If I am to be honest to my convictions and transparent regarding my beliefs, I testify here that I am an adherent to “young-earth creationism”.  I hold this belief because of the clear evidence of scripture taken in context with consideration for the possibility of other interpretations.  Other interpretations have failed to sway me for various reasons.  For example, Historic creationism falls on it’s face when we consider that the text certainly may allow it, but the author most likely did not mean for a breadth of time to be considered when he wrote “beginning.”  Why?  No I do not read or speak Hebrew, but if we look at the word re’shyth (translated beginning) we see that its semantic domain contains beginning, first, chief, choice part.  If we look at the flow of thought and realize that even though “it does not connote any specific length of time, nor does it necessarily mean that the next thing stated follows immediately”[2], the narrative does.  This is most likely why the translator used “beginning” for this occurrence of this word, knowing that the word “beginning” for the western mind connotes a sequence.  The narrative here is sequenced and therefore re’shyth here is aptly used as the beginning of said sequence, where the next occurrence is God commanding light into existence.  There are places where one could impose a lengthened period of time on the text, but this is only allowed by what the text does not say.  This is the same approach espoused by William Lane Craig[3] and the adherents to his form of philosophical molinism where God looks down the corridors of time and foreordains only that reality which has the potential to yield the most people restored to God, as God chooses not to impose His will upon a supposed form of human libertarian free will.  That is a mouth-full, but it is in the same predicament as historical creationism.  Scripture never states anything remotely close to molinism, but the text doesn’t deny it either.  What the adherent to these axioms finds themselves doing is playing a dangerous game of dancing in the areas where scripture is silent, and somehow verifiably defining them.  That is one example of my objection to one of the listed positions on creation posited by Mark Driscoll; my objections to the others are similar and based on the same sort of scriptural analysis.

            What of the “biblical difficulties” Driscoll projects onto the young earth view?  There are some distinctions that must be made, which Driscoll seems to gloss over.  This first difficulty is Driscolls treatment of the creation of light as synonymous with the creation of the sun.  These two are separated intentionally in the text.  Driscoll imposes “Biblical difficulty” by assuming that the sun was the only thing having the ability to emit light and therefore no light could have existed before the creation of the sun on the fourth day.  Further “difficulty” is enumerated in the related error that morning and evening couldn’t have existed without the sun and moon.  If we allow the sequencing of the text to speak for itself it becomes clear that evening and morning where descriptive of the waxing and waning of light and dark, and not so much the heavenly bodies called sun and moon as of yet, for they hadn’t yet been created.  If anyone is able to separate the sun and moon from the light and the dark, it is our God who is the One who causes them to shine, who gives source to their light.  As is evident by my examples of how I interpret these texts, my approach is more literal than Driscoll is prepared to accept.

            One issue I had not yet considered is the treatment of re’shyth as an extended period, thereby allowing for an old earth and young humanity.  I have not been persuaded by this view of the creation account, as I have already explained.  This brings itself to bear on the topic of the age of the universe in the same manner as molinism relates to the text of scripture: scripture merely allows it.  Scripture far from intends it.  It is more reliable and scripturally sound to assert that “the heavens” effectively means “all else outside of the earth.  This is supported later in scripture when “the Heavens” are enumerated, including the entire universe.  This too is not outside of the semantic domain of shamayim (the heavens) and in fact is a more likely treatment of the word in context.

That being said, I also find issue with the suggestion that all of this must be reconciled with an old-earth view.  An old-earth view is certainly not the measure of relevance and meaningful commentary on creation.  To the contrary, an old-earth view is an adaptation for supporting an evolutionary view.  A discussion on this topic should rightly address what God’s creating “every creature according to its kind” means, as well as an analysis of the opposing data regarding micro/macroevolution and the effective limitations and realms of observable operation of each.[4]

As can be seen by my stated position, the issue of Biblical authority in this debate is one that is manifest throughout but hardly addressed in an adequate fashion.  Or perhaps it seems that we never hear from the folks who can adequately handle the scriptures in such a capacity as to display the foolishness of any other position besides the Biblical one.  This is the true power of scripture.  Not that every word is true.  To be sure it is!  But the power of the text is in the fact that a learned approach, with insight into the subject at hand fundamentally asserts the impossibility of the contrary and leaves the one asserting the negative to be grasping for proof, while the word is found to be a never-ending well spring.

 

Bibliography

1.     Driscoll, Mark Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe

Wheaton Ill.,: Crossway 2010

2.     Lane Craig, William Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics

[S.I.]: Pearl Pub. 1995

3.     Alpha and Omega Ministries. “Evidence for Special Creation From Scientific Evidence.”

http://vintage.aomin.org/specialcreation.html (accessed August 24, 2011)

---

[1]           Mark Driscoll, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe

(Wheaton Ill.,: Crossway 2010)

[2] Ibid, 90

[3]             William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics

([S.I.]: Pearl Pub. 1995)

[4]           Alpha and Omega Ministries, “Evidence for Special Creation From Scientific Evidence,”

http://vintage.aomin.org/specialcreation.html (accessed August 24, 2011)

J. Daniel Hays: "Principlizing" or Sound Exegesis?

        In his article “Applying the Old Testament Law Today” J. Daniel Hays presents what I would assert is the most profoundly revealing method of Bible analysis academia has ever produced.[1]  Founded not upon what one may arbitrarily think a verse is saying, nor upon what is keenly new from an old text, but from a well informed position of history, literary analysis, and contextual consideration.  Presented here is no “new” method, and neither is this rightly called “principlising”, as the author terms it.  What this is called is no less than sound exegesis of the text, where one reads from the text and not into it (eisegesis) seeking to uncover that which is hidden by the expanse of time, that which is separated from us by the rift of culture: the author’s (both earthly and heavenly) intended meaning.  Only from this stand point can we come to the proper, and same conclusion Hays does when we find a universal principle, bridging the old and new testaments, which Hays rightly points out, “These universal principles will often be related directly to the character of God and His holiness, the nature of sin, the issue of obedience, or concern for other people.”  Truly the only weakness in this method is from that of the one using it, as we all have presuppositions to which we are sometimes blind, or those by which we are blinded. This method effectively gives the user the best chance at neutralizing their bias, and least chance of emotionalizing or misinterpreting scripture.  Why?  Because the “universal concepts” are inductively revealed by word meaning, sentence structure, history, culture of the time, etc. in the best and most consistent manner, the author’s message is thereby preserved and honored while the reader’s own ideas of what the text is saying are thereby minimized and he/she is brought into submission to the true meaning of the text.[2]

            So, bringing all of that to bear on the subject of the Old Testament’s validity today for the New Testament Christian; it is evident that the text is not in contradiction but harmony.  When the text says that the law shall not pass away (Matt 5:17) and then seems to contradict itself when it says that believers are no longer under the law (Romans 7:1 - 6; Galatians 3 - 4), and given the well exegeted treatment of the text by Hays, it is clear that what the law displays of God’s character and holiness will never pass away.  That is how the law itself can be no longer valid and yet we turn to it to understand who God is in His immortal qualities; not seeking to obey laws, but seeking to know and love God as we are empowered to do so by the spirit.

            This method put to task on Leviticus 26:1-11 brings us into a conditional covenant between God and the people He has freed from slavery, whom He provided for in the desert, a people known by God’s own name.  In nationally bearing the name of God there are requirements placed on this nation which may have seemed odd to others, but the Lord merely explains them here by saying “I am the LORD your God.”  This is to say that the universal principle is one of God’s decree and righteousness.  Merely by virtue of who He is, He is able to command in righteousness that His people do “xyz” no matter how ludicrous it seemed on the surface.  He is God, and what He decrees to be pleasing unto him is what will ultimately please Him, and what He decrees to be an abomination is exactly that.  These things exist as either good or bad by virtue of God’s decree to make them so.  So God expressly states here, do what I tell you because I say so and I am righteous and holy, or you will not reap my blessing.

This is expressly stated by God to be a conditional covenant, so the conditional clause “if” is the portion of this that no longer applies.  For later, as in the past, we see that Israel at no time lives out the terms of the covenant.  However, God is merciful and later extends a Royal grant to a people who have no other hope and who merit only destruction, a covenant where His own character is at stake if this covenant is to be broken.

This is where the personal application is found; in realizing that any one of us, at any time, according to our own covenants, would be found damnable, and God by virtue of His holiness wields such mercy as to provide a way of restoration for those who could not otherwise survive His righteous judgment.  I realize this in my own life as I am unable to live a day without sin, and yet God has cast my sin upon the kipper that I may live and glorify my father in heaven.[3]

  

 

Bibliography

1.  J. Daniel Hays, “Applying the Old Testament Law Today” Biblical Studies.org.uk

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_law_hays.html (accessed September 7, 2011)

2.  Duvall, J. Scott and J. Daniel Hays. Grasping God’s Word. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005.

3. LaSor, William Sanford, David Allan Hubbard, Frederic Wm. Bush. Old Testament Survey. Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, UK: Willian B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.

---

[1]           J. Daniel Hays, “Applying the Old Testament Law Today” Biblical Studies.org.uk

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_law_hays.html (accessed September 7, 2011)

[2]           J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s Word (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005), 87-96

[3]             William Sanford Lasor et al., Old Testament Survey (Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, UK: Willian B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 96-97.

Why is she autistic?

My wife brought up an interesting question today which prompted me to be only distantly present during our lunch as my mind raced with the makings of this blog post.

She asked me:

With reformed theology's focus on God's holiness, where is His love?

To put this question into context, we (my wife and I) were saved using the sinner's prayer administered by the pastor of the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) church we were attending at the time. As I have pursued my education (BS in Religion, and soon an MDiv) and sought to be consistent in my view of reality and understanding of Biblical doctrine, as spiritual head of my family I have lead us into Reformed Theology (note: we do not believe in infant baptism), which I understand as the only Biblical position one can hold and remain logically, epistemologically, and existentially consistent. Such a system entirely relies on who God is first and foremost. Only then can one glean a proper understanding of His work, in light of His character and attributes. On the basis of this, I will answer the question.

God is holy. No other characteristic of God so totally and entirely describes His being and essence. So consuming is this attribute of God that it defines every other aspect of His character. His will is a holy will; His wrath is holy wrath; His love is holy love; etc. Assuming that you already know what holiness is (otherness: i.e. the consuming uniqueness of God by virtue of His perfection and existential self-reliance), it follows that one would wonder what, or who that makes us (His creatures). In more places than is wise to list here the Bible clearly tells us that man is exceedingly wicked. We don't even have the capacity for good apart from the work of God, who alone is good and imparts such goodness unto His people as He sees fit.

So the reality of human existence is such that God is holy, and we are, by His sovereign decree, wicked and deserving of punishment. You say, "that makes God the creator of evil." Indeed. And here we come to the crux of my writing. What is the purpose of evil, if any? Why do we go through trials even while praying for mercy, only to continue to endure the same thing, as if we weren't praying at all? There are serious implications to how one answers these questions, and others of similar nature.

Did God create sin? YES! If you answer no, then you inadvertently imply that there is a force at least equal to God, the likes of which He can only hope to influence, but never actually succeeds. If you answer yes as I have , you are met with another question. Why would God create sin and then punish people for doing it? This is really two questions. The first is answered by realizing that God has a clear purpose for even sin and evil. Sin and evil and the punishment thereof, as created by God becomes purposeful as the means by which God displays His justice. The second is answered by understanding that God created sin and its punishment so that he would display himself to be just and the justifier (Rom 3:26). He created rules, defined the punishment, then created vessels of wrath for destruction, and vessels of mercy for glory (Rom 9:19-24). Truth be told, both (vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy) end up glorifying God. Vessels of wrath are destroyed, making God just; vessels of mercy are glorified, making God graceful.
The objections to this position illustrate an unwillingness to allow God to be autonomous and instead limiting Him to what we (those who know no good) consider good. This bears itself on my personal situation in a way that only now, with the full force of a reformed perspective, makes sense.

As most of you probably know ( and if not you do now) I have an autistic daughter, and one borderline son, and the probability of more to come as we continue to have children. My wife and I have wrestled with the big questions in this. Did we do something wrong? Why did God do this? Did God do this, or is it Satan, or neither? What if we pray, will things change? I could go on but I think you get the point. The same questions can be asked in the loss of a child or loved one, an unforeseen debilitating circumstance, and on, and on. Again, you get the idea.

The type of theology which starts with human free will has no meaningful ability to stand up to such inquiry. Not only will it require the undue misinterpretation of scripture, but what you end up with is a conclusion you can't live out, or one which doesn't comport with reality. Without tearing that position down, I will here tell you how the Bible guides us to deal with situations like this.

So my daughter is autistic, which is the result of original sin in the Genesis account. It definitely is not a perfect state and therefore is aptly classified as evil, as in not good; not that my daughter is doing anything bad, but the condition itself is a sign of evil in the world, or at least a less than favorable situation. My wife's question was "where is God's love in reformed theology" in the context of our daily hurt in dealing with autism.

If God is sovereign in the sense that there is absolutely nothing He is not in control of, and more so, there is nothing of which He did not foreordain, then this autism could be seen to be caused by God, in an ultimate sense. How does the believer deal with God seeming to be cruel and sadistic? If we believe the Bible when it says that God is Holy (Isaiah 6, amongst others), and we believe that God has planned this by virtue of His sovereignty, then there is only one question left to ask. Can I believe God is good even in this? The answer is, and must be yes. For God's love is found perfected so much the more through a reformed perspective in that, God, the one who alone is holy and sovereign, has declared the believer to be clean through the payment of another. The essence of the gospel is that Christ died on our behalf, therefore God remains just as the sins of those He has elected are paid for, and loving in the sense that He would have been perfectly just if He freely chose to destroy everyone by virtue of their sin. God did not have to save any, but He saved some to glorify himself. This is love as the Bible describes it.

Understanding the nature of the one who has saved us by understanding the nature of first ourselves, and second our salvation we may then understand our trials and the discomfort God produces in our lives.

Why is my daughter autistic? I don't know. But I trust that the sovereign God who spared me from destruction according to the riches of His grace (not the riches of my merit) has a holy purpose for such a situation. Romans 9 handles this situation beautifully. Do I judge God for creating Stephanie as she is? Certainly not. Instead, I realize that He is judge and has judged her state to be pleasing to Him somehow. I don't understand it, just as I wouldn't understand it if I lost a child, but I understand my sin enough that His love displayed in my salvation through faith in His son trumps the discomfort He may put me through. I, the pot, may not look to the potter and ask "why did you make me this way?" Likewise, I, a pot, may not look to the potter and ask "why did you make this other pot as you did?" For if I did beloved, I would surely be satisfied by His holiness, and terrified by the same, saying as Isaiah did "woe is me, for I am undone! I am a man of unclean lips, and I live amongst a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." Or again, if I presume to confront God as Job said he would "as a Man" then I will surely be brought low when confronted by the one who laid the foundation of the earth, who commands the dawn, who knows the dwelling place of the light, and surely I shall answer "once have I spoken, I speak no more" lest God challenge me to "adorn yourself with eminence and dignity, and clothe yourself with honor and majesty." Let it not be so LORD.

Let it never be said LORD that you don't answer prayer, for prayer is not meant to let us receive anything (for what more could you give than our salvation) but instead to bring our disobedient hearts into submission under your will through the power of communion with the in dwelt holy spirit. Amen.