None of us do! Some passages are obviously poetic, metaphorical, or prophetic. We don't take everything written in the psalms, for example, literally - otherwise watch out for the eyes of the Lord as they wander the earth!. On the other hand, the exodus is an historical account, as are the gospels and several other books. The question has always been whether the early chapters of Genesis, and some related passages, should be taken literally. Through the centuries, Christian leaders have shifted from one opinion to the other. The current young earth/literal creation movement is quite modern and was a reaction against the publication of Darwin's 'Origin of Species'. Plus, it's mostly a US phenomenon. Young earth creationism (and right-wing politics and patriotism) are largely unique to the church in this country. (Christians in other countries tend to be left-wing, for example.) As you rightly point out, this has nothing to do with salvation. As did previous generations, we struggle to interpret very ancient writing. What's literal and what's not? The main difference in our case is that we have masses of scientific evidence available to us that previous generations did not. Then the debate shifts to whether our analysis of that evidence can be trusted, and whether the results truly reveal how God created the world. Because that's the issue: how did God do it?
I never said it had nothing to do with salvation. I said it isn't my place to judge a person's salvation based on this issue. Maybe it DOES have a great deal to do with salvation; I'll let God deal with it then. And I'll let God deal with it if it DOESN'T have anything to do with salvation. Sure, Psalms is written as poetry, and should be considered in that light. But Genesis was written as history. It needs to be viewed as history.
But that opens up a whole other can of worms. What is the gospel message now? How many extras are there? Must someone believe in a universal flood? That Job was a real person? That life begins at conception? To some extent, even creeds go beyond the gospel message (when they state that Jesus descended into hell, for example). How can someone know they are saved if this or that point may or may not be crucial? I'm prepared to stand my ground on this one: If we declare with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in our heart that God raised him from the dead, we will be saved. That's it! We may be right or wrong on other points, and probably are a bit of both, but it will never affect our salvation. Yes, we should strive to uncover the truth about every issue, but our ultimate destiny does not depend on our conclusions. BTW, I'm very glad that this is the case, otherwise someone in authority could try to browbeat us into submission on some point or other by 'threatening' our salvation. History is rife with crooked church leaders who did this, excommunicating innocent people who wouldn't conform with their opinions or pay for indulgences.
I agree. The Gospel is simple. It is even defined in the Bible. It has nothing to do with what you believe about creation or Job or Paul. We aren't saved because we are right about every doctrine or even right about what we think are the important doctrines. We are saved because He is right and good and we trust in Him to save us.
I don't think we need to argue about whether Genesis is a book of history or poetry. We certainly aren't going to resolve that issue on this board. Having listened to that recording of Ken Ham, I didn't think it was offensive. I agree with ActressDancer, there would have been an issue whether or not he named names. I don't think the way he talked about it was vicious, more in the vein of "Enns' bible curriculum is in disagreement with what I am saying." Who cares? Honestly, why does Enns or SWB, or any of the people who buy and follow their curriculum advice care that Ken Ham doesn't like that Bible curriculum? I personally do like some of SWB's advice, but I also like Ken Ham. Today on that other forum they are calling for a schism between the "Christian homeschoolers" and those who care about education. Really? Do we all need to pick a side and divvy up along lines? It seems so juvenile to me. Pick the curriculum that will work for you and yours, don't ask me to take sides. If these parties have an issue with each other, that doesn't mean that all of homeschooling families need to declare allegiance to one or the other. That argument has been further clarified; it is no longer Christian vs education, but secular and "non-fundie" vs the "fundies" (who are deemed intellectually incapable of giving a hoot about education, only indoctrination). As I said earlier, I am so thankful for the peaceful discussion on this topic here. Steve, I'm not sure exactly what distinction you are trying to make in regard to Enns and Ham. They both have different interpretations of Genesis, and beyond, but I suspect that they both are seasoned speakers. I didn't even think the Biologos clips were recorded live. Do you think he isn't getting his thoughts across clearly or that his beliefs are being miss-represented?
The sense I get, and I could be completely wrong, is that Peter Enns is much more the traditional academic than Ken Ham. On the other hand, Ken Ham is much more the skilled politician than Peter Enns. Politicians know how to get their message across, and they stay on message. Many academics I know tend to ramble from one thought to the next, and the message changes all the time. Yes, I'm generalizing, and there are plenty of people who don't fit this mold. It would be very interesting to hear a politician who stays on message supporting theistic evolution and a traditional academic promoting young earth creation. What this would do is untie the message from the messenger. There's no doubt that we can't help but be influenced by the personality of the messenger. People with charisma can generate a large following regardless of their message. One look at history reveals that.
This is just so silly, and it's how we ended up with hundreds of denominations. Christian homeschoolers don't care about education? These are 'life or death' issues? We're prepared to fracture the body of Christ yet again over this? Why can't we put personalities aside, act reasonably, put aside preconceptions, resolve to seek the truth, and study together? Sadly, it's so much easier to be lazy and jump onto someone's bandwagon. The next thing that will happen is that the mainstream news will pick up on it. That will force everyone even more into their 'corners', and the 'world' will laugh and laugh and laugh.
The assumption seems to be that everyone, Christians included, homeschools for one or the other of those reasons. The idea that the two are mutually exclusive is highly offensive. I think it is time for the parties involved to stop protecting their own egos and trying to whip up a furry from their loyal supporters, agree to disagree, and handle their issues privately.
I just wanted to pop in and say that I am learning a lot from the open discussion here. I have only recently realized how bias the information I receive is, by my own doing. The more I learn, the more ignorant I find that I am. Being able to say "I don't know" is one of the most freeing lessons to master.
What I tend to run into are people who think I'm doing something horrible by not having an answer. I was raised with two choices: God made the Earth, or He didn't. Well, that's an easy choice. Of course He did. Then in high school it was Creation or Evolution. There was no middle ground. But evolution was always presented to me in school as "God didn't do it and here's proof." So, again. If those are my choices, easy choice: Creation. By college I started to toy with the idea of Theistic Evolution. But, believe it or not, when I took Anthropology in 2005, our professor had no idea such a concept existed. She was, of course, 100% evolution. I maintained the Theistic Evolution ideas until about two years ago. I started reading a lot of things (by AiG, actually) and doing my own research. The only thing I came to a conclusion on is that God made it all and that God made man (whole, not by process of evolution). But that's it. So when people ask me if I'm young Earth or old, I say, "I don't know." That is apparently always the wrong answer. People flip out that I haven't "worked out" that part of my salvation. They demand I choose a side. Too many people can't accept that I don't know, and honestly, I don't care. I am not called to be a scientist. I am not called to study this field. I am not called to any arena that would require me to be sure of my answer. So I don't feel any inclination to decide; I'll present all the options in our homeschool. Why do we have to have all the answers? Yes, there are certain people who need these answers, but I'm not one of them. Why is that wrong?
Beautiful answer! The truth is, all these things will be revealed in God's timing. And who's right or wrong will matter not one whit once all God's people get home. See ya'll there! whether we agree or not!LOL
I know this is an old thread but I've been researching Enns because I plan to use his Bible study program and I've seen this claim repeated about him (perhaps Hamm started it?) but it's not what Enns actually claims. Just want to make sure the record is straight for future readers. Here is a quote from Enns on his incarnational view of the Bible (from Wikipedia): There have been a lot of strange and misleading claims about what's in Enns' Bible curriculum but Olive Branch books has made the entire first year text, activity book and teacher's guide availible to view online for those interested in looking. It's not for everyone but it's also not what some are claiming it is. ETA: I really don't want to reopen this, just offer info for future folks who might be curious about the whole thing.
