MennoNet.com

Josh wrote: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.

I don't disagree.

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?

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 think you brothers are asking the same question - and its a good one: I would pose it this way - Aren't there foundational teachings in the Genesis account that are essential to understanding the work of Christ and the meaning of the Gospel?

And to that I would say "Absolutely!" And, I would add, that is a Christocentric question.

The first chapters of Genesis are rich with truth about God as creator and sustainer of the universe, the goodness of Creation, the omnipotence and omnipresence of God, the centrality of humans within creation, the nature and origin of sin, the fallenness of humankind, etc. - all adding deeper understanding to the significance and work of Jesus Christ. This richness of this passage of scripture is underscored by the fact that Christ and his apostles often reference it's foundational truths in their own teaching.

What I believe Wayne and I are reacting to is an opposite question: Are there suppositions [that are being taught by some as measures of orthodoxy] within Genesis 1 that are not essential to understanding Christ and the meaning of the Gospel? For example - the age of the earth.

Dan Z wrote:
What believe Wayne and I are reacting to is an opposite question: Are there suppositions [that are being taught by some as measures of orthodoxy] within Genesis 1 that are not essential to understanding Christ and the meaning of the Gospel? For example - the age of the earth.

The age of the earth is not necessary to the understanding of our need for Jesus and the meaning of the Gospel. I simply will not question it as I don't believe we have good facts to answer any questions about the age of the earth other than faith and what we read in the Bible. If we question any part of the creation account, my question again is - what will we accept without question?

Hats Off wrote:

Dan Z wrote:
What believe Wayne and I are reacting to is an opposite question: Are there suppositions [that are being taught by some as measures of orthodoxy] within Genesis 1 that are not essential to understanding Christ and the meaning of the Gospel? For example - the age of the earth.

The age of the earth is not necessary to the understanding of our need for Jesus and the meaning of the Gospel. I simply will not question it as I don't believe we have good facts to answer any questions about the age of the earth other than faith and what we read in the Bible. If we question any part of the creation account, my question again is - what will we accept without question?

Then it is a matter of opinion, not of faith or science.

I trust what I can observe in the physical realm. And the tools (mathematics primarily) for analyzing the characteristics of that realm give very good results in both measuring the physical realm and in predicting and engineering its behavior. You may not "believe" science, but what you are reading at this very moment, on the glowing screen in front of you, is the product of the very same physical science that establishes that the universe is more than 10,000 years old.

Wayne in Maine wrote:

Hats Off wrote:

Dan Z wrote:
What believe Wayne and I are reacting to is an opposite question: Are there suppositions [that are being taught by some as measures of orthodoxy] within Genesis 1 that are not essential to understanding Christ and the meaning of the Gospel? For example - the age of the earth.

The age of the earth is not necessary to the understanding of our need for Jesus and the meaning of the Gospel. I simply will not question it as I don't believe we have good facts to answer any questions about the age of the earth other than faith and what we read in the Bible. If we question any part of the creation account, my question again is - what will we accept without question?

Then it is a matter of opinion, not of faith or science.

I trust what I can observe in the physical realm. And the tools (mathematics primarily) for analyzing the characteristics of that realm give very good results in both measuring the physical realm and in predicting and engineering its behavior. You may not "believe" science, but what you are reading at this very moment, on the glowing screen in front of you, is the product of the very same physical science that establishes that the universe is more than 10,000 years old.

I did say "I don't believe". I am not arguing anything other than that the first chapters of Genesis are necessary as part of the Christian account.

Hats Off wrote:

Wayne in Maine wrote:

Hats Off wrote: The age of the earth is not necessary to the understanding of our need for Jesus and the meaning of the Gospel. I simply will not question it as I don't believe we have good facts to answer any questions about the age of the earth other than faith and what we read in the Bible. If we question any part of the creation account, my question again is - what will we accept without question?

Then it is a matter of opinion, not of faith or science.

I trust what I can observe in the physical realm. And the tools (mathematics primarily) for analyzing the characteristics of that realm give very good results in both measuring the physical realm and in predicting and engineering its behavior. You may not "believe" science, but what you are reading at this very moment, on the glowing screen in front of you, is the product of the very same physical science that establishes that the universe is more than 10,000 years old.

I did say "I don't believe". I am not arguing anything other than that the first chapters of Genesis are necessary as part of the Christian account.

I (and Dan as well) do not disagree with you that the first few chapters of Genesis are important for the Good News of Jesus and His kingdom. We disagree with what sort of measurements and shapes of the universe (natural history) one ought to try to derive from the accounts of Genesis.

And I don't disagree with you there either, so once we have it all sorted out, we do sort of all agree.

Hats Off wrote: If we question any part of the creation account, my question again is - what will we accept without question?

Hats Off...I love the sincerity of your questions, and the gentle way they are asked. Thank you...it makes these conversations much more brotherly than they might otherwise be.

Now...to the question at hand - I have heard it posed directly to me this way: "Dan, if you can't believe the first chapter in the Bible, then what can you believe?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but behind this question is the sense that how we relate to the Creation account is a watershed issue, because not believing in a literal (six 24-hour earth-day young-earth) understanding of Gen. 1 is failing to take the Bible at face value - and opens up the door to taking all kinds of other liberties with Scripture that might undercut Biblical authority.

Am I close to the concern here?

Not very long ago, I mentioned to a brother-in-law that to me it really doesn't matter to me if Genesis 1 refers to 6 literal 24 hour days or if it were "one day is as 1,000 years"; I just believe that God created. He got excited and said that is getting to be a real problem in too many plain churches. If we don't believe what we read or if it doesn't matter what we read in Genesis 1, then what else will we be willing to doubt or question. So, I said okay, i now accept a literal 6 day creation.

Not long after that, he along with some good friends started publishing "The Anabaptist Forum." I was quite excited about this venture, because I like to read all things Anabaptist; even "The Naked Anabaptist." Well, most of what they wrote went straight over my head - I didn't know what a "young earth" was and had never heard of Ken Hamm. My biggest concern with the Anabaptist Forum was that they seemed prepared to engage everyone that had different theories from theirs, on the basis of science. I feared that they would be the ones drifting away from faith and that combating science with other science might not be wise.

But what do I know - I just believe that God created - I accept 6 literal days - and then having established that foundation, I go on to more important issues.

Look what else has been thoroughly disproven by science.
Young earth
Jesus resurrection
Jesus virgin birth
Various and sundry miracles
Why do you choose faith over science on these issues?