MennoNet.com

Hats Off wrote:My (other) Brethern friend was quite emphatic about Genisis 1, and I had to agree with him: If we don't accept the beginning, how do we decide where to start believing. Genisis is the foundation for everything else.

I have to disagree with your friend. The apostle Paul suggested where to start believing:

"Now I would remind you, brothers, of the good news I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures…"

In thinking about this thread yesterday, I wonder how the new Christian believers are educated on this topic who had never been exposed to the Old Testament and only had teachings from the NT. There are still cultures around the world with no exposure to the OT.

So many thoughts on this topic - I'll start with a hearty "Amen" to what Wayne shared to put things into perspective.

The greatest threat to understanding God's message for humankind is not that we fail to read scripture "Chrono-centrically" (e.g. "Genisis is the foundation for everything else."), but that we fail to read scripture "Christo-centrically" (e.g. "For no one can lay a foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.").

So are there any teachings at all that we get from the first chapters of Genesis that fit in with the rest of scripture and are crucial to having a proper understanding of Christ and His work?

What in the first three chapters of Genesis do we not need to understand Christ and His work? Can we truly understand the need for the "foundation.. that is Jesus Christ" if we don't understand that man fell while in the garden?

appleman2006 wrote:So are there any teachings at all that we get from the first chapters of Genesis that fit in with the rest of scripture and are crucial to having a proper understanding of Christ and His work?

That is a very good question, but it has a couple of corollaries.

Is there a correct interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis that is crucial to a proper understanding of Christ and His work? If so, what is it?

What messages or details, if any, from the early chapters of Genesis crucial to a proper understanding of Christ and His work?

Hats Off wrote:What in the first three chapters of Genesis do we not need to understand Christ and His work? Can we truly understand the need for the "foundation.. that is Jesus Christ" if we don't understand that man fell while in the garden?

I'm not a scientist or a theologian. But I feel that the account of the fall of man as told in Genesis is necessary in order to understand the sacrifice of Jesus. The New Testament ties it together, talking about the first Adam [the Adam of Genesis] and the second Adam [Jesus]. Both came to earth in the same condition, sinless but with the potential to sin. Because the first Adam sinned, the second Adam needed to face the same temptation but remain sinless in order to qualify for our redemption.

If you cancel the validity of the fall of man, you cancel the need for Christ, and the whole New Testament becomes a facade and a farce. I can go along with stretching the chronology somewhat, because there is biblical precedent for that [skipping generations in genealogy listings, etc], but that will only go so far. MJ Brunk used to tell us that he feels that putting creation back to about 8,000 BC is about the limits that you can stretch the Bible.

I would tend to agree with that. I can't necessarily prove that, and I think people like answers in Genesis shoot themselves in the foot by trying. Finally there are things that man can't prove and needs to accept by faith. It depends on what you feel you can accept by faith and what you feel you need to take man's viewpoint on.

That's my take on it. I'm willing to give and take a bit on the chronology end of it, but I won't budge on the necessity of believing in the fall of man. You destroy the whole plan of salvation when you drop that.

Dan Z wrote:So many thoughts on this topic - I'll start with a hearty "Amen" to what Wayne shared to put things into perspective.

The greatest threat to understanding God's message for humankind is not that we fail to read scripture "Chrono-centrically" (e.g. "Genisis is the foundation for everything else."), but that we fail to read scripture "Christo-centrically" (e.g. "For no one can lay a foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.").

I think Christ was present in Genesis 1, Let us make man in our image.

I fail to see how belief of a particular age of the universe has any bearing whatsoever on accepting and understanding the good news.

It does affect whether or not you are a fundamentalist, but fundamentalism is not required to accept the good news - indeed, I would argue it’s an impediment to it.

Wayne in Maine wrote:

appleman2006 wrote:So are there any teachings at all that we get from the first chapters of Genesis that fit in with the rest of scripture and are crucial to having a proper understanding of Christ and His work?

That is a very good question, but it has a couple of corollaries.

Is there a correct interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis that is crucial to a proper understanding of Christ and His work? If so, what is it?

What messages or details, if any, from the early chapters of Genesis crucial to a proper understanding of Christ and His work?

I do not have a problem at all with your corollaries. In fact I agree with them. I am still interested in how you would answer the question.

My opinion would be that the fact that God created, period (not the precise details of how) would be part of it. And second would be man's turning from God and therefor his need of an intercessory or Saviour would be another.
To me that is the main purpose of the first three chapters but I still would like to hear your comments.