My latest contribution to the ongoing conversation . . .
I grow weary of the Hugh Ross apologists in the Christian community. This idea that compromising what Genesis one actually says in order to gain access to the secular community to witness for Jesus Christ is upside down. Does one arrive at truth when you begin with deception?
In addition, Scripture is straight forward but HR has to torture the text and compromise established hermeneutical principles in order to be comfortable with it. For example, Ross says that there are many Creation Accounts in Scripture. (See John Ankerberg program where he debates the Doctrine of Creation) His question follows, "Which one of these accounts is accurate?" Well, the answer is, there aren't many. There is only one Creation Account and many references to it, not to describe or explain the event but rather to reveal the One who created.
In addition, Scripture is straight forward but HR has to torture the text and compromise established hermeneutical principles in order to be comfortable with it. For example, Ross says that there are many Creation Accounts in Scripture. (See John Ankerberg program where he debates the Doctrine of Creation) His question follows, "Which one of these accounts is accurate?" Well, the answer is, there aren't many. There is only one Creation Account and many references to it, not to describe or explain the event but rather to reveal the One who created.
If one will approach the text without the secular assumptions, six ordinary days for Creation is the only conclusion possible. It is what Moses wrote. This is said after trying to reconcile the secular assumptions with the text and failing. We’ve been through all of that before. Dr. Joel Heck does a great job of articulating the meaning of "yom" (Hebrew word for "day").
* * *
I am going to have to research a little bit on this issue of the Church Fathers view of Creation. I'm not certain that the view is definitive. Many of them are like Luther in that Luther is all over the map on numerous issues. On the issue of Creation, ML was firm and argued against the popular teaching of Augustine, that God created the world in an instant on Day One and during the remainder of the days of Gen 1 the angels gave praise and adoration in awe of the Creation.
While we regard the Church Fathers highly, they are not the final authority on this matter. Here are couple thoughts:
1) The Church Fathers (i.e. Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, Irenaeus, and others) were all over the doctrinal map on almost every doctrine. On one issue we might agree and on another we would banish them. To pick and choose one or two items from them as authoritative (and there is value is knowing what they thought for the revelation of the process and for knowing what the development of Christian Doctrine/Thought was during their lifetime) is a little like saying a broken clock is authoritative at least twice a day. That is a very low standard. Scripture is the standard. Scripture is clear on this matter. In fact, God wrote on creation with His own finger in Exodus and Jesus taught the Biblical doctrine of Creation in the Gospels. Having said this, I am going to find some time to investigate the history of this doctrine in the church.
2) The Church Fathers did not argue this issue in the context in which we find ourselves. When Darwin brought the time scale to his colleagues in the 1800's they responded by saying, "Charles, this is a lot of time that you are proposing." The secular proposal involved lengths of time not yet conceived in the minds of scientists. I am not suggesting that the principle of the argument is changed, but the context, especially from the first millennium, has. All I am suggesting is that context shapes defense and strengthens (or weakens) conviction. A good opposition sharpens and clarifies ones stand and such forceful, clear, and relentless opposition in this area was unavailable to them.
3) My frustration with bringing up the Church Father's beliefs is that all through the Confessions we read and subscribe to the statements that say that the Church Fathers and Councils are not doctrinally authoritative. We don't vote on these things. So lining up the Church Fathers on one side or another is interesting but not conclusive when it comes to doctrine. This is truly a Western mindset.
4) Aquinas . . . It is interesting that Aquinas wrote all the time. He always had something to say. But this layman, in the Fall before he died the following Winter, suddenly stopped writing after he had, what he described as a mystical experience. Of course this is speculation, but the content of all his writing is very humanistic, placing logic above Scripture, that Human reason interprets the Word, not Scripture itself. I have to wonder if the "vision" he had contradicted everything he had been saying. St. Thomas Aquinas is one of the four Doctors of the Church and carried incredible influence in Rome. All of a sudden he became silent. And then, only months later, he died. I wonder what he would have said. But this demonstrates the fragility of human opinion.
Speaking of fragile authority, these are just my thoughts and not much turns on them and I am willing to be schooled on this issue of the Church Fathers.
* * *
If you haven't had enough of Ross, try The Great Debate from AIG. You can actually see him on TV. It is a John Ankerberg show (series) that argues the Doctrine of Creation. The participants include Walt Kaiser, Hugh Ross, Jason Lisle, Ken Ham. Dr. Terry Mortenson has comments all the way through. This strengthened the product greatly. The Church Fathers are brought into the debate.
