From Vance McAllister at Submerging Influence.
____________________________________
There is currently a spectrum of belief among Christians regarding the origins and nature of the universe and Mankind, ranging from those who cling to a flat-earth (very rare) and a geocentric universe (still with some vocal proponents), all the way to a form of theistic evolution in which God created in such a way that it all happened naturally. Needless to say, this has become a major topic of debate, for good or ill, and I think it is useful to survey the broad spectrum of beliefs held by devout, Bible-believing Christians. Kind of viewing the playing field , so to speak.
These positions are very often tied to how literally one reads Scripture and the degree to which one is willing to allow the evidence of God’s Creation (scientific discovery) to inform their beliefs about that Creation. Ultimately, it is not a debate about whether to believe what the Bible says (since even Theistic Evolutionists believe what the Bible says), but rather how to understand what the Bible says. Think of the spectrum running from left to right, as I diagram below. What is important is to keep in mind that everyone other than number 1 has allowed a certain degree of scientific knowledge to inform and influence their interpretation of Scripture (whether they know it or not). Each position looks at the one to the left of them and says that they are reading Scripture too literally, and looks at the one to the right and says they are not reading Scripture literally enough, and letting scientific conclusions influence their interpretation (and sometimes thinking they do not do that at all). Here is the spectrum generally, you can review the descriptions further below to see what each refers to:
1.FE 2.Geo 3.YEC 4.Gap(OEC) 5.Progressive(OEC) 6.TE1 7.TE2 8.TE3
(note: the Intelligent Design position could apply to any of these, other than possibly TE 3).
For example, the geocentrist would say that the flat-earther is being hide-bound and overly conservative in his reading of Scripture, but would say that the young earth creationist simply does not trust Scripture’s plain meaning and has allowed himself to be influenced by scientific discoveries regarding the relation between the earth and the rest of the solar system. The YEC would, in turn, say the exact same thing about the Old Earth Creationist, and so on.
The important point is that it is a sliding scale of interpretive philosophy, not a black and white God says it, I believe it, that settles it for anyone other than number 1. And there are very few of them left! So, it is not a matter of whether you allow scientific knowledge to inform your interpretive process, simply a question of how much. If you are not a flat-earther, you are allowing scientific evidence to influence your interpretation of Scripture to some extent.
So, let’s look at the spectrum! See where you land:
1. Flat-earthers - believe that a plain reading of Scripture indicates that the earth is flat. Very few still hold onto this belief.
2. Geocentrists - believe that the sun and all the stars literally revolve around a fixed and unmoving earth. Still a surprising number of these around, although it suffered a major setback after the late 60’s. They have a plethora of Scripture and theological bases to argue from, however, and insist that a literal reading of Scriptures requires geocentrism.
3. Young Earth Creationists - believe that the earth and universe are both young (less than 10,000 years old) and that all the diversity of species is the result of special creation, based on a literal reading of Scripture (even if not AS literal as those above).
4. Gap Theorists (a form of Old Earth Creationism) - Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that God created Man and all the animals at the young earth time frame (with a huge gap in between. Some believe this is a re-creation , God having scrapped an earlier version (dinosaurs, etc).
5. Progressive Creationists (aka Day-Age Creationists , another form of OEC)- Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that each day in Genesis referred to an indefinite period of time. Genesis is an historically and scientifically literal account (using that alternate form of the word day ), just that it happened over a VERY long time period.
6. Theistic Evolutionists (with a literal Adam and Eve) - believe in an old earth and universe, and accept that God used evolution as part of His creation, basically as science describes it. But they feel that there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal Garden. Some attribute this Adam and Eve to an instance of special creation, others to election as representatives , etc. Also believe in biogenesis, not abiogenesis.
7. Theistic Evolutionists (no literal Adam and Eve, but biogenesis) - believe that Man evolved along with the other species (pursuant to God’s plan), but that the initial spark of life was immediately God induced. Some even push this forward to some mass special creation of a variety of kinds around the Cambrian period, with all the species evolving from there.
8. Theistic Evolutionists (abiogenesis) - God created everything and established the full system of natural laws upon with the universe and the earth would work. And it did work, entirely naturally, as God intended. With life arising at the time and place He had known it would, etc. So, here the “abiogenesis†would not mean that life arose without God, only that God built how life would first arise right into the program . This is not deism , however, since it says nothing at all about God interacting with and even directly intervening in His creation at any point in time (such as a particular event 2000 years ago, for example).
A bit of a side category is the Intelligent Design movement of recent years. This asserts that whatever you accept about creation, there is firm evidence that the universe and the earth in particular were designed with specific intelligence, by a designer, and not happening entirely naturally. Those holding this opinion come in each of the flavors mentioned above (other the last one, presumably), although the most recent and influential of these have been essentially Theistic Evolutionists of the first or second variety (whether they would claim that title or not). Also, some Theistic Evolutionists prefer the term Evolutionary Creationists.
So, where do you fit in, at least tentatively? Have you ever found yourself pointing to those on either side and saying you are just reading it too literally and you are letting science control your decision!?
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
