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.
Issues with the slippery slope argument of literal 7-24 hour creationism
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Anastasia, Sep 25, 2011.
Page 1 of 8
-
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. -
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. -
-
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). -
-
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 -
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. -
-
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! -
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?
-
-
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 -
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.
What I (and about two others) said is that the issue is not clear enough for you to be accusing anyone of "opposing" Christ. -
-
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. -
-
-
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. -
Page 1 of 8