Logical Ordering of Genesis 1-2

   Last night, I listened to one of the more interesting conversations I have been involved in lately. The discussion concerned the eternal decree. I have no intention of retreading the strength and weaknesses of my infralapsarian position, so relax. The issue had not been presented to me in proper context before as it should have been, perhaps because I did not understand the conditions of the discussion. The key factor is the issue of timelessness. Last spring, the issue of timelessness and the application of this concept to eschatology by Pannenberg was an enlightening moment, and quite persuasive, I might add. So, it seemed quite logical to apply the same concept of timelessness to the eternal decree, in fact, in retrospect, how else would you do it?! 

   Let’s examine first the paradigm that is overriding this discussion. We have two realms, two realities, two Kingdoms. The First realm is the realm of God. In this realm of God, He is timeless, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. The second realm is creation. It is helpful to consider that if space is created, so is the linear (calm down physicists) aspect of time. Even if you want to discuss curved space time, quantum physics and time travel, there is an aspect of time that is in constant motion, that is inseparable from the concept of space. Time is the fourth dimension. Time is as much a part of space and creation as matter and energy. This is a key point to bring forward into the discussion of the eternal decree.

   For the purpose of review and to introduce the parts of the eternal decree, let us consider as example the infralapsarian position. The eternal decree is ordered as follows:

• ·         Decree to create
• ·         Decree to allow the fall of man (all men)
• ·         Decree to discriminate or for the election of some men
• ·         Decree to save the elect by Christ
• ·         Decree to apply salvation in Christ to the elect

Several book keeping points need stating. First, infralapsarianism is a Calvinist position, an in house discussion, if you will. The purpose of this discussion is not to argue the issue of the elect. I could have taken the example of the eternal decree from the Amyraldian  position instead as the example, but I don’t find that helpful in the long term in my persuasion to a reformed position to use other arguments as my example. But what follows works with ANY of the versions of the eternal decree. Second, and most importantly, this ordering is a logical order, not a chronological order.

   That this is a logical ordering is the point from which we will carry forward. The issue concerning the eternal decree is to look at the mind of God prior to creation and try and understand what He was thinking when he got around to creation. The point that we need to insert here is that time is a part of creation, but not a part of the realm of God. God is outside of time. There is a great creaturely temptation to deal with discussions of the eternal decree in chronological fashion, but this is an error. The discussion is in terms of logical ordering and needs to be emptied of any notion of chronological ordering. The reason for this distinction is important in other areas of theological discussion, but it should be kept in mind here as a fundamental principle of the eternal decree. 

   This is difficult, of course, for the creaturely mind to comprehend. The creature is created within the space-time continuum where time is part of the fabric of our existence. This is why Calvin warns us against actually contemplating this issue. This decree is outside of the realm of creatures and outside of progressive revelation as given us in Scripture. But in our creaturely desire to understand the divine, we make this attempt.

   Finally, we come to the meat of this discussion: creation. The Genesis 1-2 text has been discussed abundantly, and with particular zeal over the past couple of years within the context of the BioLogos debate. If you recall, the cornerstone of the BioLogos position is that science is not at odds with Scripture in the creation debate. Their rationalizations are interesting, but miss this key theological point. God exists and creation occurs. God is outside of time and time is an inextricable part of creation. This is important for the Genesis discussion precisely because of the issue of time.

   Back in 1954, Meredith Kline proposed the two register approach to this text. The key feature of this construct was to view the Genesis text as a separate literary genre, creation genre, rather than a historical narrative as most of the conversation about this text tends to do. I have given this link many times in the past, and hopefully it will work for you, but here is the updated Kline article from four decades later. The reason that this  view of Genesis appeals to me so much is the following logical construct.

   If we assume that the eternal decree is outside of time, because God is outside of time, then the decree to create is outside of time. The logical ordering of creation will likewise be outside of time. Scripture is by its very existence within creation is God’s revelation to man and subject to the confines of space time. But this does not mean that God would reveal to man a logical construct that takes place outside of time with the intention of the application of chronological principles to that revelation. It makes far better sense to consider the Genesis 1-2 text within the timelessness of God’s realm. God introduces time as a part of creation. Logical order of creation takes place prior to creation. Logically, one must first conceive of a thing before one makes a thing. This is not true of God in a timeless realm, but it is impossible to convey logical order without the danger of perception within a chronological order within the realm of creation. 

   Perhaps the very issues of apparent contradiction seen between the two chapters are meant to point exactly to the issue of logical order and not to chronological order. Only by their difference does Scripture draw attention to the notion that it is the revelation of creation ORDER and not a creation TIMELINE that is revealed in Genesis 1-2. The important issue of the Genesis 1-2 text is the position or role of man in the creation order. The eternal decree that includes creation is outside of time, and time is only introduced into creation at the point of creation. A revelation of the eternal order of our role within creation should be viewed from the context of the eternal decree and not from the view within creation itself. That is the fallacy of using chronological arguments in this portion of divine revelation. 

   It can be argued to extend this point to Genesis 3, but that is a massively huge jump, and one that cannot be made with any sort of certainty. The notion of Adam and Eve as archetypes of humanity rather than their human primacy does seem to fit with the logical argument of the prior chapters. The expulsion from Eden would mark the beginning of historical narrative, their entering into that portion of creation that is no longer both in this realm and the realm of God and thereby subject to the rule of time. The Kline literary framework model does not include the Eden section, but I would argue that it may well belong with the prior chapters rather than with the subsequent.

   So, in summary, the arguments for Calvinism and the extra-Biblical eternal decree lead one logically to a view of the creation revelation Scripture to be viewed in a similar logical ordering model rather than a chronological ordering model. This is consistent both with inerrancy and infallibility as we are viewing the text (correctly) in a proper context using the framework paradigm. This view of Genesis 1-2 as logical ordering allows the position that science and Genesis 1-2 are not contradictory. 

 --Troll--

Dealing with the Skeptic: WHI audios

As many of you know, I listen to the WHI weekly on their webcast.  These last two weeks have been absolutely brilliant for a particular audience.  If you have reasons to be a skeptic, particularly a scientific world view, these two programs are outstanding.  The first program is an interview by Mike Horton of Michael Shermer.  The second program is an evaluation of the interview by Greg Koukl in a conversation with Mike Horton.

I have recommended Greg Koukl's book Tactics in the past, and this is a great opportunity to do this again.  Greg's skill as an apologist are the best that I have heard.  His formula for addressing objections is simple, effective and reproducible, all wonderful attributes of a good scientific paradigm, by the way.

The target audience for these two programs is any person who believes that science is at odds with Biblical truth.  Mike and Greg demonstrate how the two should be used together, and how to prevent the diabolical dialogue of discrediting the Creator with His creation.  Click on the Program Audio button to listen.

WHI-1050 | An Interview with Skeptic Michael Shermer - White Horse Inn Blog

WHI-1051 | The Implications of Skepticism - White Horse Inn Blog

There are a couple of assumptions that you will have to have to understand this better.  First, the base theology of Mike and Greg concerning creation is called Framework, and I've posted a lengthy article on this in the past by Meredith Klein.  Second, these guys are Covenant Theology proponents, and Calvinists.  The fact that all of this works together so well is why it so appealing to me.  There are so many tangent discussions that come from this that we can talk for months.

Please, if you are a regular reader of this blog, take the hour or so to listen to both of these podcasts.  It is well worth the time.

--Troll--

Kline on Framework

I was digging through the online archives of Meredith Kline and came across this treasure.  Framework theology is now the label for this two-register cosmology that Kline is discussing.  This is a great read.  Enjoy!

--Troll--

Science and Genesis

When I think of the years that I burned on this subject, it actually makes me angry.  This is a nonsalvific issue that muddled my thinking for years.  This is going to wander off topic at the end, but I think that you will understand why I end up there if you come back to the first sentence at the end.  So, let’s get to it and layout the players.

Literal interpretation (new earth) = the passage means exactly what it says.  Problems:  Science infers an older earth (8400 years vs. 4.6 million years).  Genesis 2 reverses the order of Genesis 1.  It seems that man comes before vegetation and beasts in Genesis 2.  I’ve not heard this one adequately explained away by literalists.  Genesis 1 creates light before sun, stars and moon.  This seems a bit counter intuitive.

 

Darwin, science and atheists = old earth, no God.  I’m just listing this for completeness.

Intelligent design = Darwin + God.  Genesis is just ancient fiction, not meant to be taken literally.

BioLogos = Darwin + God applied differently.  Really interesting read from their web site, because they do a great job of going through all of the above stuff, but framework is not mentioned.

Framework interpretation.

This is where I am now, so I’m going to flesh this one out in detail.  The arguments above each have a fatal flaw.  They either attack the inerrancy of scripture, or they attack the validity of science.  Just as I believe that all parts of the Bible have to fit together nicely, so I believe that creation and our observations of creation have to fit with the Bible.  Therefore, each of the above explanations has to be flawed.

Amazingly enough, framework interpretation is NOT new stuff.  It dates back as an argument of Augustine in the forth century.  We are going to look at Genesis 1 and 2 in terms of two groups of three, firstly two triads, and secondly Two Kingdoms.

The first three days in Genesis 1 describe the creation in terms of conceptual separations.  First, God separates light from dark, next He separates Heaven from waters, finally He separates land from water.  The second three days in Genesis 1 describe physical attributes of the first three days with a strikingly obvious relationship.  Day 4 is about the creation of the sun, stars and moon; in other words, the mechanism for light and dark.  Day 5 is about the creation of creatures that inhabit the space between heaven and the waters, the birds and creatures of the oceans; in other words, another direct relationship, day 2 with day 5.  Finally, on Day 6, plants and animals of the earth and man appear on the land; which as you can see, coincides with Day 3.  Therefore, conceptually, the first triad actually overlaps and occurs simultaneously with the second triad. 

Another way of viewing these two triads is in terms of kingdoms and kings.  Day 1 is the creation of the Kingdom of Light.  Day 2 is the creation of the Kingdom of Air and Water.  Day 3 is the creation of the Kingdom of Earth.  The second triad lays out the kings of each kingdom.  Day 4 sets out the luminaries, the sun and stars to rule the light.  Day 5 sets out the birds and sea creatures to rule the air and waters.  Days 6 sets out plants, animals and man to rule the earth.

Finally, the argument comes to the issue of literary genre in the Bible.  There are a number of types of literary genre throughout the Bible.  The Covenant or treaty is clearly a principle type of genre represented in the Bible.  There are historical accounts as part of the treaty models.  There is poetry.  There is prophesy.  And there is the creation genre.  The repetitive language of Genesis 1-3 is different from the straightforward language pattern of the rest of the book.  The purpose of these three chapters of Genesis is to tell the story of the eternal decrees and specifically the introduction of the Fall of Man.  Genesis 3 is the first major moment in the Bible.  The theological significance of Genesis 3 is fundamental to our whole understanding of Christianity.  The forcing of a literalistic interpretation of these three chapters on the text is not only unnecessary, but distracting from the purpose of these chapters, which, again, is to lay out the eternal decrees and introduce the Fall of Man.

Understanding the Bible requires a few tools.  First, you must identify your presuppositions.  This baggage will color how you read the Bible.  We all have presuppositions.  Anyone who says that they have no presuppositions, but they just read what the text says, is basically telling you that their own understanding is superior to that of every other human being and even of God.  That or they are just incredibly dishonest with themselves intellectually.  Secondly, what does the vast preponderance of the Bible say about a subject.  When interpreting a section, does your understanding fly in the face of whole sections of the rest of the Bible.  Use the Bible to interpret the Bible.  This is the hermeneutic that yields the best results.  If your understanding of one passage seems to contradict your understanding of another passage, you’ve got it wrong in one place or both.  A useful construct is to decide first what a passage cannot possibly mean, and work backwards from there.  Finally, what have the great thinkers and theologians said about the subject.  The Bible is not dropped from a vacuum into your life for you to figure out.  Luther talks about this subject in this way.  If you give 100 Bibles to 100 people and ask each to figure it out on their own, they will return with 100 heresies.  This is tough stuff.  You don’t have to do all of the heavy lifting; it has been done for you. 

Towards this end, there are two periods in history where Biblical thinking was done critically and most clearly.  In the first four centuries after Christ, the Canon is set and all of the major heresies were weeded out of the Church.  Modernism and Liberalism are not new.  These heresies are all ancient heresies that the church has to stamp out every few generations.  The second period is the sixteenth century.  During the Reformation, writers from all sides restated all of their arguments in the most systematic manner possible and principles were established or reclaimed that serve us well today.  The writings of the Reformers were intended for the laity, not for scholars.  We should all be reading Luther and Calvin.  We need to learn the arguments.

Finally, to reiterate, I do not believe that it is necessary for all people to have the same understanding of the Bible to be saved, but I do believe that the Reformers were right.  One of the key tenets of the Reformers is the Sovereignty of God.  Therefore, God will save whomever He chooses in His Mercy and Grace whether we understand His motives or not.  At the end of days, there will be some issues about which it will be good to be correct.  Those are the issues that we need to get right.  All of the Bible is the inspired Word of God.  But not all verses are equally important.

--Ogre--