Issues with the slippery slope argument of literal 7-24 hour creationism

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Anastasia, Sep 25, 2011.

  1. Anastasia

    Anastasia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2010
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why I oppose the slippery slope argument against non-literal seven day creationism:

    This is not meant to argue for or against literal seven-day creationism. It is merely meant to say that the slippery slope argument needs to be kept not in fear of a dispute between scripture and science (as the truth and observable truth do not have to conflict), but should be expressed with recognition of the various ways that God is revealed in this universe and a willingness to match science with science or consider the facts around it. I was listening to an argument on the radio about creationism the other day also was also seeking to be able to put into words why this is something I feel strongly about.

    The fact that we believe the Bible comes down to personal experience, reasons outside of the Bible, or a circular reasoning that it is true because the Bible says it is true. (While after establishing the validity of the Scripture, a scripture says so reason is thus affirmed, beforehand, this is insufficient to stand on its own.) Feelings can lie, so a reason that it feels right doesn’t entirely stand on its own. An external validation does hold water, because God demonstrates His promises at times in our lives and with scientific/archeological evidence of what has happened. Even out cannon of scripture was decided by people (though after a lot of prayer and analysis). Thus the Bible that we have today is not established simply by the Bible but also by outside sources that also validate its authority.

    I am a firm believer in the fact that the Bible reflects the absolute truth of the universe as a very pure, by virtue of being God’s word, revelation of this absolute truth in which we exist. I also believe that we can observe aspects of truth in God’s creation and that our minds were given to use for a reason beyond memorization and basic survival practices. Archeology has confirmed aspects of history from the Bible and science has helped prove a major flood with anthropologically verifiable stories across the world of a great flood. Luke was a doctor and this took scientific study to practice. Science was not condemned in scripture. The heaven’s declare the glory of the Lord and even the rocks would cry out if we did not worship God. The same science that suggests that the world might not have been created in 24 hours periods also indicates that there was only one Eve originally.

    To me, the same person that says that we must believe only a literal interpretation of some things in contradiction to scientific observation also denies the gifts that God has given us. It also denies things that prove scripture right, and seems to suggest a circular reasoning that seems almost fearful of any observation that truth may not fit with one’s own preconceptions. The dispute this better would be to offer scientific and social science/humanities evidence for a literal seven-day, 24-hour creation. Otherwise, this offers its own slippery slope that we deny basic observations about God and risks blinding us to new understandings about God and how He interacts in the world.

    Further, it offends me because I have seriously considered walking away from God and found my reason to stay. The Gospel is the high point of God’s self-revelation to us, a savior referred to in history, predicted and fulfilled in scripture, and evidently needed when considering the state of mankind and my own heart. There is so much that I would have to deny before making such a painful choice of leaving the only thing I know to give any hope for my soul and make my life anything but arbitrary or hopeless that to suggest such a thing is to impose a deeply painful idea into my mind by virtue of something rarely spoken of beyond the first couple chapters of Genesis and that to me also holds little/no consequence to the Gospel as my own understanding of creation still goes back to God and his perfect plan for us. I think this is what most makes this an emotional subject for me. I cannot so easily walk away from the only savior I have ever known and such would truly be as a knife to my heart. To say otherwise shows you do not know me or it denies who I am.
     
  2. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can appreciate your thoughts. I myself was raised in a church that taught the literal 7-day creation, then for a few years was convinced it could have been a long-day theory or something like that. I have since come back to believing in a literal 7-day creation, for several reasons:

    1. I think there are verses in Romans about us inheriting sin from Adam, that would not make any sense if there was not a real literal Adam, a first man...not a gradual evolving into man.

    2. The biblical creation order of having plants, then the sun the next day, would not work if God made plants millions of years before the sun...they would all die.

    Now, I think we have to admit that since the "earth was formless" before creation, we do not know how long it existed before God's creative actions ramped up.
    I also think that it is likely that God created the earth with the appearance of age, based on 2 observations:

    1. Adam was created as a full-grown man, not an infant. He may have even had a belly button... who knows?

    2. All of the plants were growing in dirt, which we now know is made of decomposed plant and animal material. I don't think god had to have many years of plants and animals dying in order to make some dirt. This idea may explain why some dating methods put the earth as being very old. I don't think it would be deceptive of God to do this, since we do not accuse God being deceptive when Adam was only 5 minutes old, but looked like a full-grown adult.


    --> I don't think the 7-day creation should be a litmus test for true Christianity, as there are many things we simply don't know.
     
  3. Walguy

    Walguy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2002
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    1
    No scientific observation contradicts God's Word. Only HUMAN INTERPRETATIONS of scientific observations do so, which is not at all the same thing.
    The specific wording of the text of Genesis 1 demands a literal 6 day creation, and basic Christian theology makes no sense apart from it. Plus, true science does not contradict it, but in most cases fits much better with it than with the long ages/evolution model. A person can still be a Christian while having questions about a literal 6 day creation. He just can't be RIGHT about the issue of origins.
    If you're not familiar with the Institute for Creation Research, I strongly suggest you check out their website at http://www.icr.org/. ICR is staffed by scientists, many with advanced degrees, and most of whom are former evolutionists who were persuaded by the scientific evidence that the Creation model is far more consistent with real science.
     
  4. Anastasia

    Anastasia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2010
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you guys for your consideration. I appreciate your offering of scientific work and also respect that just because I don't conform perfectly to literal seven day creation that I am about to leave my savior. Here are some other things that I think might be important to say. Old earth creationism does not equal evolution. Evolution does not always mean God did not use the process as His means of creating. Believing that God used evolution does not necessarily mean that one believes that God made only one physical being to produce many kinds.
     
  5. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    It does equal to a denial of Christ as the Son of God. Christ quoted from Genesis 2 and treated it as historical and actual and identified marriage as something instituted "from the beginning." You should study this phrase "from the beginning" as used by Christ. If Genesis 2 does not deal with "the beginning" but Genesis 1:1 does deal with the beginning some billions of years earlier then Christ is misrpresenting the truth.

    Hebrews 11:3 denies creation was a process but rather something out of nothing. The term "create" does not convey the idea of process! The term "made" may convey the idea of process. Most Creationists believe Genesis 1:1 God "created" the materials without their final shape and these materials were created void of life. Genesis 1:2-26 is the process of taking what was created and making the final form and filling the void.


    It does mean you reject Jesus Christ as the Son of God ,as Christ quoted the genesis account of marriage between only TWO humans that God created "from the beginning." Either he is the omnicient Son of God or he is the greatest liar or lunatic the world has every known.

    It does mean rejecting scripture as inspired by God because Paul identified Adam as a real historical person as the HEAD of the human race and the "FIRST MAN" r and explicitly traces all humanity as originating from this one man (Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:44-46).
     
  6. Anastasia

    Anastasia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2010
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never disagreed that there was one man.
     
  7. Anastasia

    Anastasia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2010
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is my statement of faith:

    The Nicene Creed

    I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
    heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
    God, begotten of the Father before all ages;

    Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
    not created, of one essence with the Father
    through Whom all things were made.

    Who for us men and for our salvation
    came down from heaven and was incarnate
    of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

    He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
    and suffered and was buried;

    And He rose on the third day,
    according to the Scriptures.

    He ascended into heaven
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father;

    And He will come again with glory to judge the living
    and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

    And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
    Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the
    Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
    spoke through the prophets.

    In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

    I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

    I look for the resurrection of the dead,
    and the life of the age to come.

    Amen.

    And this:
    I believe in God, the Father almighty,
    creator of heaven and earth.

    I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
    who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
    born of the Virgin Mary,
    suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    was crucified, died, and was buried;
    he descended to the dead.
    On the third day he rose again;
    he ascended into heaven,
    he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
    and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

    I believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the holy catholic church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and the life everlasting. Amen.


    Since I am apparently not saved, please close this account. God bless you all.

    John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. NASB
     
    #7 Anastasia, Sep 25, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 26, 2011
  8. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Walter, I think you are jumping to conclusions here: Old Earth creationism = a denial of Christ as the Son of God?

    There are many true Christians who are trying to make sense of the Bible and science. It does not mean they are denying Jesus, or even the authority of the Bible, until they start clearly denying specific points of the Scriptural account, which Anastasia has not done here.
     
  9. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    So it is a pick and choose what part of the creation account you want to take as literal and what part you want to reject as literal? Convenient!
     
  10. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    If Jesus Christ understood the Genesis account as historical and literal, and he did, then to reject the Genesis account as literal and historical is to dismiss Jesus Christ as the Son of God, because if he is scientifically wrong in viewing the Genesis account as historical and literal then he cannot possibly be what he claimed to be - the Creator - the Son of God.

    Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

    Where does Christ place the making of "them male and female"? 100 billion years, 250 billion years AFTER the beginning of creation? No! "from the beginning of creation." Either Jesus Christ is the Creator or he is the greatest liar or lunatic who ever lived.

    Your "old earth" theory flatly calls Christ a liar. Now either Christ is correct or science so-called is correct but both cannot be correct!
     
  11. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    So are you saying that one who holds to ANY form of old-earth creationism is definitely not a Christian...or that they may be a Christian who has simply not thought through the implications of their creation beliefs?
     
  12. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    The latter in some cases and the former in other cases. Salvation is connected with the gospel not with the account of creation. However, a person's salvation may be revealed by how they handle and treat the Word of God.
     
  13. shodan

    shodan
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    1
    Calvin quote

    I agree, Anastasia, that the "slippery slope" argument is built on thin ice.

    It is good to remember what one biblical scholar said about Genesis, long before evolution came on the scene:

    ”Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God.”--John Calvin
     
  14. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    Who's "whining"? You have gone back and forth between accusing the people holding a doctrine of "opposing" Christ, and then saying that you are only implicating "position not person". You can't seem to own up to your overboard judgment when confronted with it.

    And I didn't say you had to be theologically perfect in order to POINT OUT an erroneous doctrine. But you DO have to be theologically perfect in order to maintain that any wrong doctrine means the person "opposes" Christ.
    Else, if any doctrine you believe in happens to be wrong, then you yourself "oppose" Christ somewhere as well.

    I have not even presented any "hermeneutic theory" here. You don't even know what you're talking about, or who says or believes what; so you're just coming out swinging blindly.

    What I (and about two others) said is that the issue is not clear enough for you to be accusing anyone of "opposing" Christ.
     
  15. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    And here we have a statement of belief based on a false premise. That premise being that there is no doubt that this "scientific observation" is without error.
     
  16. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    This statement goes too far Dr. Walter. For example there are and have been many Godly men throughout history that have believed in the Gap Theory. The Gap Theory essentially puts the earth at an old age. Far be it for me to pit these men against Christ as you are doing. You have stepped far over the line this time.

    I don't believe in the Gap Theory. I do believe in 7-24 hour creation.
    But I must respect the beliefs of others when they do not directly against or contradict the Bible.
     
  17. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree///////
     
  18. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    And there we find the problem. The Gap Theory does go directly against the Bible. If you believe in a 7-24 hour creation, then I assume you believe the Bible teaches that. If that is what the Bible teaches, then the Gap Theory does go against the Bible.
     
  19. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    But that doesn't mean they are atheists and unbelievers as portrayed.
    Both Dr. Bob Jones Sr. and Jr. believed the Gap Theory.
    I believe that Scofield of the Scofield Bible believed the Gap Theory.
    Those are the ones that come to mind. There are many others These are not ungodly people!!

    Go back to when the Gap Theory became popular. It was at a time when evolution was just beginning to become popular and evangelicals didn't have the answers. This was one answer they did have--a gap of time.
    Secondly, it was an answer to God creating the angels, evil entering into the world, Satan getting cast out of heaven. If you think about when did all that take place? Did all of that, and the creation of Adam and Eve, all of it, happen in just one day--for God created all things in seven days. These men were trying to reason some of these theological problems out.
     
  20. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: and then there were three
     

Share This Page

Loading...