Comments on: Where Do We Start Taking Scripture at Face Value?

By: Brian Gilley

Brian Gilley — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:42:00 +0000

Wayne:
At what point do you then draw the line? Are the chronologies of Genesis 5 literal? If not what’s the point of having them?
If the chronologies are literal then it is a utter destruction of the idea of an old earth & if they are not literal they are put there in an attempt to lend authenticty to what? a myth? Seems misleading – not the kind of thing God is real hip on.

What about the chron’s of 10 & 11? Are these literal or not? And on you go.

Dean put it well with the contradiction in Romans but what is more it is also a contradiction with the idea of God pronoucing His creative work in progress “good” and “very good.” (found litered throughout the creation account)
On what level is death “good”…ever?

By: Dean

Dean — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:48:49 +0000

Wayne:
“Not one iota of Theology or the Gospel message is affected on whether you believe the “day” is a 24 hour Earth day or a 24 hour God reckoned day.”

Romans 5 teaches that death entered by sin. I’m under the impression that one who believes the “day” is a long period of time allows for death before Adam among the animals. This contradicts Romans.

By: Wayne Sacchi

Wayne Sacchi — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:06:04 +0000

I am a Bible believing Christian that holds to a literal/grammatical hermeneutic and believe in an Old Earth — not all of us are liberals, evolutionists, humanists, theistic evolutionists, etc. Not one iota of Theology or the Gospel message is affected on whether you believe the “day” is a 24 hour Earth day or a 24 hour God reckoned day. Science has PROVEN that the earth is older than 10,000 years. The Asteroid impact craters on the earth is proof enough — the Yucatan Peninsula crater is 200 miles long! No life on earth would have survived and it is not recorded in Scripture! To hear what Christian Scientists who also believe the Bible and have prepared answers to Scripture passages, go to:

http://answersincreation.org/interpret.htm

There is also recent evidence by Dennis P. Gordon that the opening of Genesis is a “Cosmogony” (not Cosmology)– a summary of Creation opposing the pagan Babylonian account. He too is a Conservative Christian.

By: E.L. Power

E.L. Power — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:22:47 +0000

I have often wondered if Adam may possibly have been the first of a sentient race, animals being created first, and therefore the first human, and thereby made in the image of God. Couldn’t that mean, being sentient? But then again, looking at what evolutionists think they have for missing links is so sketchy and slim, that on the one hand it’s laughable, and on the other, confusing.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:17:24 +0000

So I recognize that this post is almost 7 months old, but this series has been a tremendous resource for me even now. My deepest gratitude goes to Dr. MacArthur for his diligence and commitment to the Word, as well as to Nate and company who do the upkeep of the site.

I do have a pretty important question in regards to the excerpt below:

“So in an important sense, everything Scripture says about our salvation through Jesus Christ hinges on the literal truth of what Genesis 1-3 teaches about Adam’s creation and fall. There is no more pivotal passage of Scripture.”

I am fully convinced of the literal, 6-day creation account in Genesis. I’m wondering, though, if John and the Grace staff suggest that those who don’t hold this view aren’t Christians.

I have a friend who subscribes to the doctrines of grace, but claims to be a theistic evolutionist. He claims that Genesis 1-11 is figurative because, he also claims, that the Bible doesn’t talk about science. Genesis 1 doesn’t describe the how, just the what and why of creation. So he’s clearly and unashamedly making science a hermeneutical guideline by which to interpret Scripture.

So he draws that arbitrary hermeneutical line after the Tower of Babel. He also says that Adam was just the first “spiritually awake human,” suggesting that there were more primitive versions (for lack of a better word) of man before him, but he was the first one that was least like an animal and most like a human, and thereby having a soul.

I know that sounds kinda wacky, and I thoroughly disagree. But considering that his figurative interpretation doesn’t say Adam never existed, would you guys consider him to still be evangelical and just inconsistent?

Thank you all for your commitment to the Word and your obedience to 1 John 5:2-3.

MIKE

By: Brian Mann

Brian Mann — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 00:50:05 +0000

I always rejoice to read your continued stance on the Bible. It is what makes Christians who do the same everywhere loving and true. Greg Harris, one of your new faculty taught me similarly when he was at sebts. I thank God for you and Greg and others like you all who are fanning the flame of Biblical orthodoxy. Blessings.

ps. Any chance you could get Greg to do some blogging?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:38:58 +0000

“What “old-earth creationists” (including, to a large degree, even the evangelical ones) are doing with Genesis 1-3 is precisely what religious liberals have always done with all of Scripture—spiritualizing and reinterpreting the text allegorically to make it mean what they want it to mean. It is a dangerous way to handle Scripture. And it involves a perilous and unnecessary capitulation to the religious presuppositions of naturalism—not to mention a serious dishonor to God.”

Outstanding analysis!