Thank you, Gavin, for the way you’ve addressed this issue. I still hold to a young earth view, but as a mother, especially a homeschooling mother, Ive been burdened about the way my kids understand these issues, especially in light of the deconstruction movement. I want my kids to understand that the truth of God’s Word doesn’t rise or fall depending on how you understand these secondary issues.
Dr. Ortlund, you're really an excellent example of how to dialogue. I'm still not convinced of evolution or old-earth creationism, but I don't see how Ken Ham's attitude towards others are helping the YEC's case. Keep up the good work sir!
Refreshing to see young earth creationists in the comments that are comfortable to "agree to disagree"! I think this is very healthy for the body of Christ, at least in these secondary matters.
Ken Ham has the superior argument, playing by run-of-the-mill Protestant rules. I'm a devout Protestant, but, I'm not wholly onboard with "each day of creation being truly 24 hours", though perhaps its true. And I think this particular issue should just be argued in Christian charity. This is not about the historicity of God Himself, salvation, or good and evil. I do think that using this argument primarily to shove in Evolution is wrong. Don't pretend to care about this argument, if what you really care about is peddling Evolution. With that said, I don't think Ken Ham has to act like hyperbole isn't anywhere in his Bible; I also don't think Ham just has to act conceited against Ortlund, since Ham's argument is better. Its hard to imagine Ortlund is some kind of dishonest actor, or heretic.
Ken Ham will never change. He’s staked way too much money on museums and lectures. That’s the only thing people look to him for, and he’s not even particularly good when it comes to his debates. It is against every instinct in his flesh to humbly admit he might be wrong about this.
One of the many things I appreciate about Gavin is that it is so obvious that he genuinely cares about people with whom he disagrees. He values how he comes across to his opponents just as much as he values his arguments against them.
Talk about picking the wrong hill to die on, Ken Ham’s insistence on attacking fellow christians like Gavin and William Lane Craig who I would argue are doing way more to propagate the Gospel on todays intellectual battlefield than he is, is outstanding. I cringed so hard throughout Ken Ham’s debate with Bill Nye, if I wasn’t already a believer I would think christians didn’t really have a foot to stand in the modern scientific world and leave fully convinced science has debunked Christianity.
Ya. We can only hope he sees real science a day the lord convicts him to belive the truth. Becuase yec and flat earth have made christians out to be bulling fools... sad thing he fooled me around last christmas as I got fired and was depressed. Went to bed one night remembering wat I wanted to be. (A geologist) I gave the dream up. Life happened. And he scared me with u ain't christian unless u think this
It grieves me that this kind of black/white, overly-simplistic, and schismatic thinking has obtained such influence in the evangelical world. Thank you, Dr. Ortlund for speaking up on this!
Evolution = buncha death before fall, orthodoxy theology for centuries= death after fall. Nothing thats not black and white about it. It’s impossible for you to even find a sound exegesis that harmonizes evolution and Genesis, no one’s buying it.
The problem isn’t that there’s black-and-white thinking. The problem is the choice of issues to which to apply that kind of thinking. There are issues that require such thinking, particularly the nature of God and how we must approach Him.
As a yec, the agonizing part is how accusatory and paranoid many of my fellow yec brothers are. I’ve come to really appreciate the careful study many oec do and humility it takes to just admit we don’t know. I for one advocate for this approach. Grace and Christian discussion rather than yelling compromise at the first hint of disagreement
I totally agree with your position, but had always been taught the world-wide flood position growing up. I love how you bring light to these subjects in such a thoughtful and gracious way.
I think it would be very interesting if you responded to Christian Combatives 20 minutevideo about your flood concerns. His focus is on the theological issues a local vs global flood raises and I think interacting with his points would be a great way to move the conversation forward since his objections are some of the strongest and best thought out of any that I've seen so far.
thanks for the suggestion -- are his arguments different from those I already addressed in my follow-up video? I went through 6 common responses there.
@@TruthUnites yes. His main concerns are things like the new testament references to it, the extent of the flood corresponding to the extent of the covenant (small flood, small covenant) and what the connections between the flood and baptism can tell us about it. His response video is about 20 mins long as opposed to the initial video(s) you might have seen which were watching through your video. The shorter response has much more condensed arguments and points.
I discovered Christian Combatives because of the Truth Unites local flood video and thought his response was literally moving the conversation forward….he is or recently was a military chaplain so he can be a little different the way military folks can be…but he walked the conversation forward a few steps. Example: if the flood was local, was God’s promise afterwards just for that local area. Why did God cause the flood? Wouldn’t it have been easier to just move Noah and the family and the animals to safe ground rather than move them all to the ark? What about tectonic plate shifting to explain those pesky lemurs and koalas?
@@onepingonlyplease Yeah I really appreciated that he was genuinely focusing on what he thought the central theological issues are, not speculating about motive, or mudslinging in any way. I really hope Gavin can maybe do a discussion with him, or a response video because I think the two of them are both intelligent, charitable, and genuinely Christian. Their discussion of these questions would be very fruitful and insightful.
I hope they do a video! I’m certain that the first thing Christian Combatives (Paladin Actual) will ask Dr Ortlund will be “what in the text leads you to believe it was a local flood?” Not if the text allows for a local flood. I want to hear Dr Ortlund respond and keep moving this train forward!!
This is the best response I've heard to Ken Ham's assertion that everyone who disagrees with him "reinterprets" Scripture. This loving presentation is a great example.
It "feels" like you are "jamming" your view into the Bible because there is a largely Christian social understanding of the age of the universe and there is a secular view, so adopting the secular view of the age of the world is at odds, or even at war, with the larger Christian community. Because the secular understanding of things is kinda always at odds or always in contradiction to Christian understanding of really all things, not just scientific. For instance such as homosexuality, the secular view is that homosexuality is normal, and healthy, while the Christian view is at odds with this, so you get people like Brandan Robertson who try and make the case from the Bible for the secular view on homosexuality, and I feel like Brandan can basically say every single thing you are saying about how we all bring biases, no one is doing Exegesis, this is just how he honestly reads the text, you haven't really studied this stuff deep enough, you are naive, and so on. So when Christians are on the opposite side of the secular world it feels like a greater sense of true Exegesis must be taking place, because how could those Christians come to such a different understanding then all the secular scientific minds, how foolish those Christians must be, where else can such ideas come from then just their Bible, how can the young earth creationist be jamming something into the Bible that is so opposite what we see, and scientifically determine?
Hi Gavin, I'm an Orthodox Christian married to a protestant. My (also protestant) family as well as my wife's family all believe in young earth creationism. These videos have been really beneficial. I've believed in an old earth view for a while. I greatly appreciate especially your discussion of the development of this idea, as well as how many notable Protestants didn't believe in 19th century-style young earth creationism. I am wondering if you have any book recommendations on Augustine's favorable reception in the east? As I am sure you are aware, Orthodoxy is split on St. Augustine's theology, and have been at least since the mid-20th century. I'd be very interested to learn more about how other Eastern fathers viewed his work especially!
Reading how others interpret the Scriptures can be very helpful, but at the end of the day they are not infallible like the Bible. I think a lot of people are missing something when they read the first part of Genesis. It states that ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’. A point in time? Or a point before time? Who knows? Then we have the curious statement that the ‘earth was without form and void’! Why? Why didn’t God create the earth perfectly at this time? Mystery! And had a vast time passed between the first creation of the heavens and the earth, and this ‘forming and fashioning’ of the earth as a home for mankind which the Bible says God then took 6 days to do? Who knows? But something is definitely going on here, that is why we need to be humble. When we consider the ‘ages’ of rocks etc, we need even more humility, for in creating the earth originally, everything was of the same age wasn’t it, or was it? And if scientists talk of the ‘age’ of certain rocks etc, aren’t they made up of particles of other substances of perhaps varying ‘ages’? A rock is only a conglomeration of sand, in the case of sandstone isn’t it? And other types, igneous for instance, didn’t start out ready made, but formed from the melting of other rocks and materials. So ‘ages’ surely are a bit of of a puzzle. I for one do not understand how science can ‘age’ rocks when they are formed this way. I am not arguing against rocks being millions of years old, for in the original creation they are mature ‘rocks’ aren’t they? So much mystery! And we shall perhaps never be able to reconcile all the puzzling facts. So science can show its findings and the Bible have the infallible explanation for our existence. Either one does not have to exclude the other!
Gavin, when I listened to your initial response last fall I came away feeling like your view starts outside of Scripture and tries to reconcile Scripture with scientific claims or you appeal to church fathers to justify your belief. I was hoping to hear you put forth a Scriptural argument for your view.
I appreciate this video. I wpas almost expelled grom an independent congregation for a belief in the Gap theory and restoration when it wlasl discovered. I belief in the Inerrancy of scripture but one can hold a high view of scripture and not hold a youg earth creationist and be equally opposed to evolution and liberalism. Christians whetherMachem or even a Torrey, or Schofield among other disagreed. As a student of historical theology actually a belief in a young earth os a relatively recent
Thank you for how humbly and graciously you continue to interact with this issue, and also how you are standing firm on your position and not backing away under pressure. These videos have all been so incredibly helpful and insightful
Realizing that early church fathers didn't believe in literal 24 hour days and young earth creationism only becoming popular in the early 20th century helped me get out of this mentality you're talking about. Thanks for bringing this issue up, a lot of people need to hear it.
@@heather602 St. Augustine. I think that's all I need to say. And you're using a logical fallacy, an argument from silence, to say that the Early Church did not disagree on creation.
Great response Gavin. I have your book on Augustine’s view of creation and it has been such a blessing. I struggled for years from elementary to the end of high school in regards to science “vs” the Bible, but your channel, Augustine’s work, as well as the channel Inspiring Philosophy has helped me so much. Thank you! And I agree that the stories of people leaving the faith over science need to end.
Unfortunately, people don't leave the church over faith vs. science. It is abandoning the authority of the Word of God. Abandoning the clear teaching of Genesis 1-11 only feeds that exact problem. God moves in peoples hearts. Never compromise his word. God says give the "truth in love." Love without truth is powerless and quite unloving.
Really encouraged by your response. I personally adhere to literal days in Genesis 1, but I appreciate that you've shown that other interpretations aren't heretical (though we can't both be right). And I appreciate you showing that a lot of the arguments against your position are historically ignorant and attributing motive.
Exactly. Nobody engaged in this debate was actually there when it happened. Only God was. What he has given in scripture is sufficient for his salvific purposes. But he didn't give us everything. And how we read (interpret) the beginning chapters of Genesis are arguable, not settled. It's very possible that the interpretations of men are all wrong, not exactly the way that God accomplished these things. Our physical universe, space, and time are mysterious in themselves. The Divine is even more so. Now, we see as through a glass darkly.
You say nobody was there when creation happened. I disagree. You see God in His wisdom wanted us to see His "eternal power, being known by what was made, so that men are without excuse." When you see the sun, you see it as it was 8 minutes ago. It takes light 8 minutes to reach us on earth. You are looking at the past not the present. The deeper we look into space the further back in time or the past we see. We actually get to peer all the way back to the origin of space, time, and energy. This creation event demands a trancendant creator who all powerful, all knowing, has wisdom like a craftsman before he makes the first cut. He is also personable, to let us enjoy this earth He fashioned for us to live and experience Him. Everything is just right in our universe so we can experiance life and have this conversation.
@@jonpadilla4321 Men have looked at the universe. There is no beginning when they look, just more. God has curtained certain things off from us. Only He knows the beginnings and the ends. I agree, rejoice in what we have, and He will reveal what is for our good. Speculation leads only to men in dispute.
@@stephenbailey9969 you say men see no begining when they look. I agree that we can not peer behind the curtain at the exact mombet of creation. Our physics do not work, at it all becomes speculation at this point. But a fraction of a second before this moment he lets us look behind the cutain and see the birth of creation. He gives us a a baby picture of the universe. The heavens declare the glory of God. He knew we would study and observe his creation and he built physical laws and order it so we would could see his handiwork. For all practical purposes he does let us see the begining even though we are confined to the dimensions of space and time.
When trying to understand Genesis 1, why is God's explanation always seemingly neglected. In the giving the 10 Commandments in Exodus 20, God said, "SIX DAYS you shall labor, and do all your work,” then He said, “For in SIX DAYS the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” How were the Israelites to understand the meaning of SIX DAYS as it relates to labor and creation, which seem to be connected? If "six days" meant one thing in verse 9 and another thing in verse 11, how could they make sense of this? They could not wait thousands of years for the "church fathers" to weigh in on this.
Amen. Also the sabbath being celebrated every week. God's word is clear. The serpent comes in and asks questions that beguile minds and suddenly it's a "confusing" issue. Nothing new under the sun.
Genesis 1 is Lucifer and the fallen angels. They made man in their image. Man is an idol, a trap for angels. Only one Gospel: The Gospel of Reconciliation. Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself. We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness. If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever. Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods). REPENT FALLEN ANGELS.
Excellent point -- anyone's interpretation of a text is not, cannot be infallible, but Scripture is. I think you're right that many times people get these two things tangled up. And they defend their interpretation with an intensity that's too much, don't allow anyone to disagree as if that negates the authority of Scripture. But it's not called for.
“Every act of interpretation involves our fallible brains.” Then you can’t _know_ that Christ the God-man died for the sins of the world and rose again for the justification of His sheep; you can’t know _anything._ Your interpretation could be wrong. Your post-modernist view of the truth of God’s word relegates Christians to a life of “always learning and never arriving at a knowledge of the truth.”
@@matthewdyer2926 Sticks and stones Some topics (like Jesus Son of God came save us from death and sin) get a lot more development than others (like rapture or age of the earth). And so somethings are more reliably understood. If an idea has less to support it, interpretation is more needed. And we shouldn't be more certain than is called for in Scripture.
@@matthewdyer2926 And NT Scriptures tell us that we are given the Holy Spirit after salvation as a guarantee, a down payment, of our place in heaven. This is an added confirmation of salvation, outside the realm of interpretation. There is nothing comparable for lesser doctrines, as mentioned earlier. We must do our best to study to arrive at a true understanding, but it's not the same degree of confidence. There should be humility, acceptance that error is possible. And kindness to those who disagree in non-essentials -- signs the HS is present in a person's heart. Traits Gavin shows in his videos.
@@Joan-ph2es This… “And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that *all* the high mountains under *the whole heaven* were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And *all flesh* died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and *all mankind.* *Everything* on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out *every living thing* that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth.” Is no less clear than this- “And we apostles are witnesses of all he did throughout Judea and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a cross, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear.” Or this- “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.” “Humility” is _believing what is plain and obvious in God’s word._ Syncretizing scientism with Scripture is the height of arrogance in the guise of “humility”. The only reason you and Ortland don’t, is because of cowardice, syncretism, and capitulation to the pressures of modernity.
@@matthewdyer2926 Still with the ad hominem? Rhetoric unreliable? Even in English, "all" and "every" don't have to carry a global-wide meaning. -- I lost my keys! I searched everywhere, all over! 1 Kings 10:23-24 "So King Solomon exceeded all.... And all the earth sought to Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart." "All the earth" -- it's not syncrynistic (or even cowardly) to think that the Kings of Tahiti, Incas, or Australian aborigines never made to Jerusalem. Because "all" can cover just the Levant or even the Middle East, and still be an absolutely true statement according to all rules of grammar. You're doing your interpretation in a hyper-literal manner, and leaving regular text meaning and word sense behind. Sometimes "all" is a smaller set of possibles. To anybody speaking a language. Context matters.
One thing I've learned from Gavin over the time I've listened to him is how we should humble ourselves before scripture and over issues like these. A lot of Christians and even pastors are prepared to die on certain theological hills rather than accepting some of the ambiguity in scripture. I don't think we will ever fully understand the creation of the world here on earth and do not need to become divisive over these topics. Thank you Gavin!
Citing church authorities who don’t agree with a literal reading doesn’t demonstrate that the literal reading is incorrect, or that you aren’t doing eisegesis. Also, where the light came from is rather plain from the rest of the Bible. God is the one who is light, who wraps himself in unapproachable light, etc. - God was the source of light. When visible light was created, God’s glory became visible. As with Day 6, when God delegates ruling authority to humanity, on Day 4 God delegated light bringing to creatures made to carry on the task. Further, comparing genesis 2 to 1 with regard to plants - it’s different plants that had not yet come up. God creates grain and fruit trees in 1, but the small plants of the field were to wait because “God had not yet caused it to rain and there was no man to work the ground.” It’s an indication that aspects of the creation come about in and through human involvement in the work, as God gives the growth. Yes, Augustine was wrong, Athanasius, Machen, et. al. were wrong. Why do we work six days and rest on the seventh each week? Because God did. And that logic carries forth everywhere the days are referenced in the Bible. That the text isn’t immediately easy to grasp in how it worked doesn’t mean that it’s unclear with regard to the time frame.
I have been a big fan of AIG and Ken Ham. I have been following your channel for about 4 months now and you have given me some things to think about on a variety of topics. I will add this one to the list. I appreciate your humble and grace approach as you interact with people. It is a great example of how we should dialogue with those we don't agree with.
The church will be far better off and stronger when we finally learn to stop looking to Ken Ham as though he is an actual leader or reliable source concerning these important issues. How he ever came to have the influence he has genuinely boggles my mind.
Ham has influence because he correctly diagnoses the fulcrum of the problem. Origins. He's right when he says that Genesis 1:1 is everything. But he then insists that the only solution is a literal reading of the creation account combined with a hypercalvinist reading of Romans 5. Nuance is the enemy. Naturalistic science overplayed its hand, creating mistrust. I have read "scientific" accounts of origins and evolution that read like fairy tales.
Wow! Some who is bringing biblical answer should be disregard? Gavin's arguments are not biblical and contradicts Sola Scriptura. Imposing his beliefs onto Scripture.
I'll go with the Bible and observable science. Death before sin in evolution. Evidence of a world wide flood across the Earth. Creationists are also PhD. from the same universities as Gavin. Amazing how you people believe in the virgin birth of Jesus and His resurrection and annonment of sins, but young Earth and God doing it all in 6 days as said in Genesis is just too much. All of God's word is truth.
"Trying to 'Hammer' home" I see what you did there! ;) Sorry about the cheesy dad joke. Loved the response video and I am learning a lot from these video, Dr. Ortlund.
... Didymus the Blind... was... Clear on his view.... that made me chuckle, Gavin I feel like you should have said "no pun intended" there. thanks for the video, I love the effort you put into your videos, I know it's not easy packing so much into short form videos.
Anti-intellectualism is a strong component of many ministries and denominations. It was a huge contributor to the theological bondage that held sway over me for several years at the beginning of my walk. Keep educating yourselves folks. Reading can seriously damage your ignorance. Thank you Gavin for taking the time to address this and please continue to suggest reading material.
My heart is IFB, but my education and intellect always put me at odds with those around me. Outside that movement, there’s too much tolerance for heterodox teaching. I look forward to heaven because I can’t feel at home in any of the churches in my area.
Is it "anti-intellectualism" that is a strong component of many ministries and denominations, or a rejection of the secular humanist worldview which dominates the public academy and from which its scholarship and conclusions are directly derived?
@@williamjpellas0314 Both. Calling a fundamentalist pastor an intellectual will get you either a dirty look or a laugh with a request not to insult him. For example, look at the faith-based arguments of the KJV-Onlyists who think the KJV corrects the Hebrew and Greek. Outside fundamentalism, look at the deplorable hermeneutics of Progressives and of Pentecostal variants such as Word-Faith and NAR. I would say that rejecting an idea just because you can link it to another religion (such as Secular Humanism) motivates anti-intellectualism, rather than being an alternative to it. Attacking the source rather than responding to the idea itself commits ad hominem and genetic fallacies, which is an anti-intellectual practice. Apologetics teaches you that you have more tools available than Bible quotes that some people refuse to even consider.
@@ricksonora6656 No. I attack the secular humanist worldview and the epistemic assumptions and a priori conclusions inherent in that worldview, and how that affects how people think and do their scholarship in the first place.
@@williamjpellas0314 I am speaking of the folks who believe reading anything other than the Bible is wrong. It is strong and straight up anti-intellectualism. I am not commenting on the fact that other factors are at play.
Does your theological triage not find it suspicious when an interpretation requires the individual chapters ,not books but chapters are each different genres? The notion that for thousands of years Jews where reading that text preserved as it was together and expected to understand its genre changed between individual chapters is pretty silly. It sounds like nonsense that gives too much credit to the compilation theory of the text that was created to discredit the bibles authority and make you believe its all made up nonsense trying to synchronize the religious beliefs towards 2 different gods into one. Did Augestine believe Adam was an apes child? Did he believe Dinosaurs walked the earth for millions of years before mankind or did he believe Dragons lived in his very own day and still roamed the earth? So he he overthought the issue of light before stars as if such things would be an issue for God. Why would time be the thing we think is not ordinary in that text versus the nature of creation itself that is what's un-ordinary and special and unique during this time? So for 3 days their was light that was left unordered/organized by stars or the moon or sun. Then God created sources for all that light to give them order. No matter your view I think it's very clear God's act of creation and the universe was in a special state for this passage, I don't see where time is implied to be abnormal.
Excellent and thoughtful video. KH seems to rhink his interpretation is infallible- a dangerous assumption re the Holy Scriptures. KH dismiises other great Christian theologians throughout Church history. Sad !
Agreed. Neither did the person trying to answer his critiques of the Cessationist film. 😬 I tried watching both of those interviews and ended up complaining to my phone screen, "You didn't even respond to Gavin's point!!!" 😅
@@AndreaWhoGoesByAndrea Glad I wasn't the only one, Andrea. I kept waiting...and waiting... Also, I'm in neither camp on these issues that have nothing to do with my salvation. In fact, I lean more on the literal 24-hour creation days. The flood not being global makes sense. I also think Calvinism is non-Biblical, and very destructive. Uh-oh. Christ died for me. Calvinists are saved by Grace, through Christ. Does anything else matter?
@@thomasglass9491 Ah, another one that hasn't listened. 🙂 No - Ken Ham, as well as you it seems - were simply ignoring everything Gavin anticipated. They acted as if he made no mention of it. I just hope you lie out of ignorance, and not out of malice. Because lie you do.
I appreciate the videos. My background is being influenced primarily by the young earth creation focus. I think we all agree on Genesis 1:1. As I read and listen I agree that we should be able to have discussions and disagreements about the specific details and time frame and still maintain respect.
Exactly, YEC and OEC both agree God made the heavens and the earth. We just disagree about *how and when.* It’s really not an issue to disfellowship over imo
We are all united in the spirit, we shouldnt disfellowship over sth like that @jncon8013 I'd argue most things aren't worth disfellowing over. The theif on the cross is our fellow and yet he probably had a very limited theology. That said, we should absolutely stand for truth when it presents itself absolutely, like for instance, now we have the full revelation of scripture and we know there will be new heavens and new earth so we should stand for that 100% but we shouldn't disfellow someone that may disagree if they haven't been exposed to that knowledge yet or are extremely young in the faith Only if they present bad fruit, i.e. they start rejecting clear evidence But the yec oec debate doesn't have clear evidence so while we can discuss it I strongly think polemics should be avoided :) Just my personal opinion Ultimately this will all pan out how God wants, what matters is that we are faithful to him in spirit even with limited knowledge of the faith (like the thief on the cross or like cornelius) or the OT saints as well! We have varying responsibilities (based on the knowledge each of us has) (some are mentally disabled and so I strongly believe God has nuance for them on judgement day) God is all knowing, reveals all hidden secrets on day of judgment, is all just!
And, ofcourse, Jesus is the way the truth the life and no one will reach the father but by him. It's just how the mechanics of that pan out that we have to entrust to God
Wonderful video, Dr. Ortlund. Thank you for your patient, informed responses on these issues. I've seen how the attitude and statements of those like Ken Ham's remarks have been damaging to the body of Christ. This kind of response is not only helpful, but necessary. Your humble heart, consistent demeanor, and lack of accusatory tone along with your desire to seek clarification and help explain is something this world needs a lot more of, especially in the body. You are an exemplary teacher that resembles the teachings of our Lord. Thank you for what you do.
He's not a good teacher if he doesn't teach the truth. So explain to me how Ken's remarks have done harm to the body of Christ, and please provide examples. Because I don't think you have a clue of what you're talking about.
@@BillMurrey Ken Ham's remarks cause damage to the body of Christ by throwing accusations against other Christians of not being 'true' Christians by questioning their commitment to the scriptures. When Ken Ham says that you must agree with his interpretation of the Bible, he equates it with the Bible itself. This kind of conflation elevates his interpretation to infallible status not unlike God Himself. My friend, we as human beings are not infallible. Can you see why suggesting that your interpretation is infallible saying it is on par with the Bible itself could be damaging to the body of Christ?
@@Narikku If the 'other christians' are not teaching the Bible correctly then they need to be confronted with that. You agree? Why is Genesis the first book of the Bible? Just happen to write it first? Or is it because it lays the groundwork and foundation for everything else in the Bible? You think God would've thought of that? Do you believe that God's word is the ultimate authority on the earth? We are talking about God's authority here. Does He have absolute authority over you? If He told you to do something you thought was wrong would you do it? If God promised you a son that He was going to make a great nation from and then He told you to take your promised son and sacrifice him on an altar, would you do it? Abraham did. He respected God's authority and knew that He could do what He had promised. You think God could do the things mentioned in Genesis? Or has a group of self-worshipping scientists, who are known for making mistakes, proven God to be a liar? You believe that? I'm sorry for you if you do. Ken NEVER says "This is MY interpretation, you must obey it!" He always says "God has told us..., God says this....God has written..." He knows it's not his Bible, it's God's Bible. Most of what he teaches is about the Authority of God, not young earth, you got a problem with the authority of God? He stands on the authority of God and preaches what it says in the Bible. Show me where he doesn't preach from the Bible! Genesis is plain reading, a child can understand it, but if you want to go clipping verses from it, because you don't like what it says, go ahead. But don't be surprised if God does a little clipping Himself. As far as I can see you are being willingly ignorant regarding God's word.
@@BillMurrey> If 'other christians' are not teaching the Bible correctly then they need to be confronted with that. You agree? Yes, my friend. This is precisely why discussion about this topic is warranted: because Ken Ham is teaching the Bible wrongly in many ways. This is one example. > Why is Genesis the first book of the Bible? Because that is the way that we, as a people, organized it. There is nothing in scripture that says that Genesis has to be the first Book of the Bible. There is nothing in scripture that says Revelation has to be the last. To illustrate what I mean, why is Proverbs after Psalms? > Or is it because it lays the groundwork and foundation for everything else in the Bible? Is Christ your foundation, or your personal view of creation? > Do you believe that God's word is the ultimate authority on the earth. Yes. That's why I don't trust Ken Ham at his word, and I examine every word he says with scripture. And I don't find Ken Ham's interpretations to fit well with scripture. > Ken never says "This is my interpretation, you must obey it." He always says, "God has told us... God has written... God has says..." Then promptly after saying these things, Ken Ham gives his interpretation of what those mean. Are you trying to tell me Ken Ham doesn't have a preferred interpretation of the Bible? That he understands it 100% correctly? Every single meaning of every single word? There are so many questions here, my friend. I cannot answer them all. Hopefully this suffices to get my point across.
After listening to the whole video I find that you have made a good point . I’m on AIG side of things but point well noted and I think that we are indeed guilty of what yiu say
We are just starting our verse by verse on Genesis and just came to a similar conclusion but without your valuable quotes of church fathers. Thanks for this clear perspective.
J. Gresham Machen's comment is all well and good, but it is not scripture. Regarding the scale of the Genesis flood, the Bible is quite clear. 2 Peter 3:6:7 "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the WORLD of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly." The Greek word rendered "world" in English is, as you are no doubt aware, "kosmos". Per Strong's concordance, there does not appear to be any orthodox prima facie, allegorical, or literary meaning of that term in the context of that passage other than "the entire WORLD" and "all of humanity" except for those aboard Noah's Ark. This is plainly what Peter had in mind, as in verse 5 of 2 Peter 2 he writes: ".... he (God) did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others". Our Lord Himself plainly believed in a global flood which destroyed all of humanity except for Noah and the seven members of his immediate family. In Luke 17:26-30 we read: “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed." Don Stewart discusses the untenability of the local flood idea here: www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_743.cfm So, no and sorry, but Ken Ham is entirely correct here. So called "modernity" is indeed predicated on a direct assault on the authority and historicity of Genesis 1-11, which our Lord believed in its entirety and from which he often quoted. "Reformed theology" and the cessationist and Augustinian allegorical theology from which it is derived is wrong on this point and others.
@bettyblowtorthing3950 The Bible clearly states that all life on the surface of the Earth was destroyed except for what was on the ark. This is God talking, YWHW - Elohim. "So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth....I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." So....because the text in Genesis does not specifically mention, quote, south America or Australia, neither of which in all probability even existed in their present form prior to the flood, therefore....what?
@@williamjpellas0314exactly. And it also says "ALL the HIGH mountains under ALL the heavens WERE COVERED ". ortland has sided with the evil one for his first words and main role is to cast doubt upon God's word "has God really said?" Inexcusable deceit.
@@stephenglasse9756 My question for him and every other professed christian who embraces the local flood "theory" is, Given what the plain text of the Bible clearly says, why are you doing this? Or perhaps more accurately, what is it that compels you to do this? Is it the plain text of the Bible, or something else? And yes, I am well aware that there are some passages that are clearer than others, but the ones which describe the Genesis flood are not among the ones that are obviously disputable---not that many are.
@bettyblowtorthing3950 This is a very low and highly humanistic understanding of Scripture and epistemology. All you are saying in the end is that the plain text simply does not---and cannot---mean what it plainly says. But it says what it says. In the end this is either "theopneustos" or it is not. There is simply no good reason to discard a prima facie reading of the Bible unless due to whatever motive you simply don't want to believe it. I will add that many modernist and postmodernist assertions (if not most of them) about the supposed lack of intellectual sophistication among ancient peoples are wrong more often than they are not. Most educated Greeks were well aware centuries before Christ that the world was round, and so were many Hellenized Jews and no small number of others.
@bettyblowtorthing3950 They were not sophisticated. But they invented mathematics, philosophy, and democracy while building the Antikythera Mechanism. Got it. Meanwhile, it "had to" be a local flood, despite what the Bible plainly states. That's because, according to you, "ancient near east cosmology" trumps the ability of God to reveal truth to Moses, and also because the whole human race or at least the entire educated population of the ANE believed in a flat earth. And....we're done here.
It is so cool to me that one day you are extending a charitable hand to Rhett and Link and then the next day you are extending a charitble hand to Ken Ham and other YEC proponents. As I've said before, you are a pastor's pastor. Thank you for mentoring me from afar.
Ken Ham also starts outside the text , he brings in his western culture worldview understanding and has already determined how the text should be interpreted based on his understanding. Now that his interpretation is set ,everything else (other scripture,science)must revolve around his interpretation.
The word of God can either be understood or not. If not, then not only is it void, but language itself is impossible -- which is a clue to why your interpretive nihilism cannot be true.
There is so much irony in your comment. The "ancient near east cosmology" argument (which you are assuming in your comment) is an example of modernist snobbery trying to force western naturalistic worldview into both science and the Bible. One of the most important principles of biblical interpretation is its perspicuity.
@@l-cornelius-dol Not all, but the flood and creation are foundationally clear. "Ancient near east cosmology" interpretations are a way to muddy, not clear up.
100% I stand with you on your final points here. I tend to lean young-earth (but not with a great degree of confidence, and I'm certainly open to many possibilities in this area). However, I am definitely opposed to the enemy's attempts to divide and weaken the church through unnecessary insistence on this issue. I know many dear brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree about it, and are able to get past that disagreement to remain in fellowship with one another. That should be the case for all of us.
Two things to consider: Did death enter the world before or after sin? (Is sin the cause of death?) and Hebrews 11:1-3 11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. Did it really take billions of years for God's Word to effect the earth and universe (along with death piling up throughout the world before the first sin)?
Yeah I think it shouldn't be ignored that the ages of people when down drastically after the flood. And I kind of wish Christian scientists would address the expanding earth model, since our science overlords who expect us to appeal to authority wont look into it. I do not think it is a coincidence that the continental crusts form a perfect sphere if you make the earth shrink at oceanic boundaries. That is too many coincidences to ignore for me.
"These are not trivial points but major 'deconversion' talking points." Yes, and it's made much worse that the church is having trouble even dialoguing on these points. Plenty of people don't want to be part of a group where you can't question things without being attacked.
@@PreciousMeddler I think with a thorough honest dialogue Christians could actually resolve 85% of the mysteries presented by Genesis and modern geology and anthropology.
The shortcut to discrediting Ken Ham is his final statement in his debate with Bill Nye. He was asked what evidence would ever change his mind and he said there's no evidence that would change his mind. That reveals his epistemic position is not the rational evidentialism of Paul in 1 Cor 15. Farewell Ken Ham.
Gavin, your videos have given such clarity to my own thoughts on these issues. I have been deconstructing in a sense my upbringing of “young earth creation or else”. There’s so much humility needed on this topic and I think your work is pointing that out. Recently I have experience such relief by acknowledging I don’t thing Genesis intends to be a scientific historical account. Honestly I think coming to Genesis with that understanding helps me see the greater theological truths that are revealed in it. All this to say, thank you, Gavin. Please keep up the good work.
Ken Ham unfortunately, is a brand. He made himself into one. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is. It's really difficult for anyone to interact with him honestly because of that fact. There are other creationists to look to if you want people to have actual conversations with, but Ken Ham has made his name synonymous with his position, and that's a problem.
The way he interacts with everyone is super unpleasant and unconvincing to those who aren’t already bought in. I remember this section he had on some show called “wack an atheist”
I do respect you Gavin, but I think Ham is right. The reason and motivation for your position seems to come from secularism and evolution. I have a really hard time respecting this approach to the Bible. The folks I personally know who flock to this are extremely liberal in politics and in their dismissing of large portions of the Bible.
The primary purpose of this particular video was to show other Christians view before evolution was even thought of. That is why Gavin focused so much on early Church Fathers. The Church was unsure of this argument long before evolution was a thought and by people that were not pressured by secularism.
In our opinion, the best exegesis is reached through the complexity of interpretation of the Hebrew and Septuagint versions. Perhaps, you could delve into the original language words that are interpreted as "day" in English.
Pastorally, I have found that most people want plain, simple, and easy answers. Few desire to wrestle for the truth. It easier to accept a simple solution and just fight for it than it is to think deeply and humbly. Those who seek find... only few seek and therefore few find.
I think you hit it right on the head. I believe most Christians are content with the fortune cookie version of their beliefs and it is rare to find those who are willing to wrestle with the Scriptures. I see Ken Ham as being the one who provides the bare minimum to these much deeper theological discussions while Gavin Ortlund and others are providing deep theological study on these matters. The question we must always ask ourselves is, are we content with the quick google search or are we the one’s who will sometimes have multiple commentaries open along with several translations of the Scriptures in order to get to the bottom of subject? I know for me, the latter describes my studying.
Well, in my "little orbit", I read lately, Isa. 45:18, "...He created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited...". Common sense does not see the earth as 4 or more billions of years old, with man being inhabited only in the last 6,000 years or so.
prior atheist and evolution advocate, i don't think anything will sway my opinion on being a young earth creationist, i'm glad you don't push it to say its a necessary belief, but i'm not convinced of natural evolution.
This discussion here isn’t about theistic evolution, which I believe is a huge error. This is a discussion of the age of the earth, which isn’t as great of an issue. So you can believe old-earth and we don’t need to be so divisive about it as ppl like Ken Ham are. With theistic evolution, I think we can and should be more dogmatic about.
What is a different backdrop between early church fathers and now is that Ken and young earth creationists see evolution as the big threat to the authority of scripture because most atheists, and most Western schools, hold mockingly a 24 hour day view of genesis as contradicting science and evolution. Hence the aggressive defence of a young earth interpretation by Ken et al. Perhaps holders other interpretations need to promote their interpretations more widely amongst Christians and the general public?
no it's a wicked lie to make death a plan for life instead of a response and punishment to sin, and payment. with evolution the whole gospel is uprooted. that's why the world holds on to its wishy washy at best details (many of which are purely guesses).
@@bettytigers I know I know.... It's just hard with this guy because he's not just wrong... He's actually a liar. After I got a degree in geology I looked at what AIG said about the fossil/rock record... They're liars, they're not just mistaken or coming to different conclusions about science, they are actively dealing in half-truths and lies to manipulate people who don't know any better
Ken Ham needs to read Romans 14, and put it into practice. He's a mad dog running around biting all those of his own household. Just angry and ineffective.
Augustine had things wrong sometimes. He sinfully left his girlfriend after having a child with her and took another lover out of wedlock. He was not infallible. He was a human. He also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the presence of Christ’s body in the Eucharist, and the necessity of infant baptism. My point is, he made plenty of mistakes.
You are incredibly kind and respectful to someone who is never kind and respectful. Ham has done a great deal of harm to the body of Christ as well as harming our witness. Keep up the fantastic work in your ministry.
I agree with Gavin. We should not fight over this issue, but I love friendly discussions. I wish Ken Ham were as generous as Gavin on this issue. But, as I see it, the most natural reading of Genesis 1 is a six-day creation account. Still, people like Dr. Hugh Ross make a fair case for an Old Earth Creation account for Genesis 1. Also, I believe the Ante-Nicene Fathers' view of Scripture was much more sound than Augustine's or Origin's. The Ante-Nicene Fathers took a more serious view of the Scriptures than Augustine or Origin, and while the allegorical method eventually took over, the more serious view still held influence among the later Church Fathers even after Augustine.
My approach is to read Genesis and accept its message whilst acknowledging today's scientific claims without having to resolve the two. Paradox can be quite comforting.
I do something similar. “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. O Lord, my heart is not lifted up; my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me.
I’ll take the Bible as it says and the theory of evolution as what scientists say…neither are compatible or intertwinable, why cant we just accept what the Bible says, why cant we be proud of Scripture and Tradition, why must we appease secularists that dont care for us. We witness to them, not appease them.
I think you mean, being able to say “I don’t know” is comforting. Paradox is discomforting because it requires God to be either illogical or dishonest. But having the humility to admit one’s limitations and trusting the solution to God is what brings comfort.
I’m a new follower after seeing you on The Remnant Radio. As a homeschool mom I have so many thoughts here. Briefly: - thank you! - Ken Ham has a huge corner of the HS/Christian market. Probably more than a corner. Any resources for families, kids, curriculum that teaches differently? - I have no doubt this is how Ken Ham has gained so much traction in this conversation (via homeschool/family curriculum). If we don’t have other resources we can’t easily teach anything different. I see a beautiful opportunity for someone. 😊 - Lastly, your humility and humble approach is so refreshing! I believe the gospel is steeped in mystery from beginning to end. It's important we all learn to say "I dont know." Thank you for leading by example!
Thank you for taking the time to answer! I will check it out. My son is very science minded and I have always been hesitant to teach Young Earth straight but it's everywhere. This is helpful! @@TruthUnites
@@ME-hsmomof4 I'm a homeschool dad, though my wife has done most of the research for curriculum. I've wondered the same thing recently as I'm an OEC. I always figured I would just tell my kids when they're older that some people think the Bible is saying YEC and some, like me, OEC and leave it at that unless they have more questions.
@@telleroftheone my kids are elementary age and home schooled. I’m YEC but am very open that there are many interpretations of Genesis. My main concern is they retain their faith in Christ and the resurrection. If they decided the flood was not global, it wouldn’t be the end of the world.
Just wanted to maybe give you some hope! 😆 so I actually disagree with a local flood… but I hold zero resentment towards your opinion and I still love you and your channel!! I agree with your point on the division around it. Unfortunately I definitely used to “die on this hill” as I did many. The spirit can change people! Thank you for this conversation!
Well done Gavin. Very useful to restate your points several times, building upon them- just like Ken Ham does. I also confess I used to teach AIG material as though it was essential gospel truth. Also also you remind me of my mere infantile exposure to church fathers.
I'm currently sympathetic to the Cosmic Temple Inauguration view that Inspiring Philosophy has been highlighting. I think it's based mostly on work by John Walton, but also some of Michael Heiser's Divine Council work. Ultimately I was a Young Earth proponent in my youth. I'm now only adamant about God created the Heaven's and the Earth.. Everything else is interesting but not essential. Our faith is based on an Empty Tomb in Jerusalem. That's what is essential. I don't find the YEC account to be impossible, but at this point I think there's too much missing context for us to know with certainty. I don't find YEC dogmatists to be particularly persuasive, but I also have strong doubts about anti-supernatural explanations of cosmogeny.
Ken Ham has painted himself into a corner... And it's a corner that he likes. His entire reputation and status revolve around his being 'right' about 24hr days. Look at the huge amounts of money that have been invested in his organisations! He has a big fan club. He will always hammer his views because thinking outside his self imposed box would undermine his status.
As you say "huge amounts of money that have been invested in his organisations"..........totally agree ! As they say in the classics.....Just follow the money ! He has too much to lose.
I was an atheist who came to Christ in my twenties with a combination of Old Earth and Young Earth teachers. The young earth/universe theology was interesting to me at first, but when I realized that I would have to believe that God created a universe with a mere "appearance of age," I became very skeptical of young universe claims. The young universe answers for why God would create a universe that is not what it appears to be were completely unavailing. I also saw that young earth teachers like Ken Ham were often insulting and dismissive of those who disagreed with them. I saw the young earth creationist "arguments" were too often veiled or overt insults, mere rhetoric, or obvious informal fallacies. Once I heard a John MacArthur radio broadcast on Genesis in which he referred to Christians who do not believe in a 24-hour "day" in Genesis as "so-called Christians." I was deeply saddened. Why would anyone from the pulpit utter such a thing against someone he doesn't even know? I'm merely a "so-called Christian" because I think each creation day is a long period? I saw this more often from prominent young universe creationists who whose methods of preaching and teaching were rhetoric, insult, and dismissiveness to suppress those who disagree with them. I also saw that many in the young-universe community were emotionally tied to their commitments, so much so that they were unable to listen. And now those who do not listen teach their children to act the same way. I have seen it. I fear for our children at the hands of emotionally committed young earth parents who are passing their children into the hands of the Ken Hams of the world who think insult, rhetoric, and informal fallacies are acceptable methods of engaging fellow believers and their ideas. I hope the young universe parents who are still open-minded, gentle and respectful, will help others be the same way. As I studied more, I found that the old-earth teachers were like Gavin: open-minded, willing to listen, never attacking anyone. Other old universe creationists like Hugh Ross and John Lennox, never insulted anyone. They just present their cases logically and biblically, and where scientific matters were at issue, they were scientifically rigorous. The old universe scholars seemed much more like Christ than their young universe brethren. Believe the universe is young or old--you're my sister or brother in Christ no matter what. But please act like it. I promise if you and I speak on why I believe the universe is billions of years old and the six periods of creation in Genesis 1 are not 24-hour periods, I will listen to you and never insult or dismiss you. I will treat you respectfully, and I'll present what I know and learn what you may teach me. This is how we grow as disciples of Christ. We can do this. I'm thankful Gavin is so clear on his work of uniting us. We need it!
Gavin, your argument is so absolutely confusing. A simple reading of the text, leads to the young earth understanding. You may have a good reason to deny that understanding, but that is the "text only" reading. Your argument would be better if you said, "I know the text says this, but here is why I believe otherwise". You said , "I'm trying to read the text responsibly". That is dangerous, what the greater culture determines as responsible is an ever-changing target.
@bettyblowtorthing3950it's hard to believe you're either so serious or delusional. There's not a single person of note in Christian history who's regarded Job as anything other than poetry. Stick to the subject
@bettyblowtorthing3950 Job is poetry. It shows how desperate you are that you forsake the record of Genesis for a work that no one ever has regarded as other than poetry.
@bettyblowtorthing3950 with your logic everything becomes non-literal and up for grabs! We can't trust gospels letters poetry or anything. If someone says 'im going out to watch the sun rise' it doesn't mean they're going out or to see anything let alone the sun because *as everyone knows the sun doesn't literally rise!* Ludicrous. We know exactly what those metaphors mean and they disprove a local flood since *God could just have had Noah move out the area as with lot from Sodom!*. You seem to be unaware of the fact that *science is the product of YEC!* Early founders of science were not only theists but founded scientific method upon belief in Adams fall and as an attempt to ameliorate that fall. See THE FALL OF MAN AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE by Oxford Prof Peter Harrison. Even Steven j Gould admitted that it was the darwinists who opposed the literal record of CATASTROPHISM in the geological column.
Thanks for your comments. I wholeheartedly agree. I particularly appreciate your thoughts on opposing the "...everybody who doesn't agree with this way..." mentality. The same attitude is present across a wide range of issues. Perhaps we should all take time to examine our own "hard lines" that we have drawn so large as to obscure Jesus.
Praise God for filling you with His Spirit Gavin! You are a gift to us all. Thank you so much for speaking up and speaking out. As a pastor who has been grappling with Genesis 1-11 for the last 20 years, it has painful to see so few conservative pastors or theologians going public and speaking up about these important but not 1st order matters. Thank you for your gracious and thoughtful responses to quick judgments and over simplistic exegesis.
Hi Gavin, awesome video! Could you interact with the genealogies in Genesis? In the Creation Museum, there's a display lining up the biblical genealogies like James Ussher did, showing how they go back to 4004 BC.
Yes importing your view onto the text. Something I have seen across many issues. I think people do this a lot with scripture or I should say people accuse each other of this. Ken Ham is not the only person who throws this accusation. A lot of people do it because they probably want to sound authoritative. I am not saying Ken Ham is pushing a motive himself, but he is not the only one who does this. Questioning their view is somehow challenging scripture, it's just people trying to have control where they probably don't. I have sort of been thinking of Galileo lately, the church putting him into prison for seeing something contrary to the way the church saw it. People forget scripture also says to test all things to see if they are of God. Yet this sort of strict view of scripture is the only acceptable view is probably a reason why there are a lot of problems with church in general. Sort of why I think it is also a problem when people say 'if it is not in scripture' then it is not worth dealing with is an issue. People try to force scripture to say things it does not say probably because if scripture says it then they get to keep their position of authority. I still remember in Acts 20 where Paul talks about men among us will arise to speak perverse things and to draw disciples unto themselves. I think they ploy these tactics because they want an audience, not because what they believe happens to be worth telling. I know it's dark to think this way, but people do this quite a bit.
Hi Gavin - I think you may be wrong about the "masses" believing Ken Ham. Creationism is a minority as far as I can see, it depends on the circle you are in. Hence the strong fight put out by eg Ken Ham. There is a general difference, eisegesis and exegesis. You are right, 24 hr days is not as important as the resurrection. You are right, we all bring our biases to the scripture. You are also right, Ken Ham is projecting, he maybe should have said it looked like you were starting with millions of years. You say you are reading the test responsibly. But have you read it putting aside your belief in evolution and not assuming that evolution has been proven, which it has not? However, a basic reading of the Bible without any indoctrination about evolution, including Exodus, the gospels, and Paul, would mean reading it through the lens of the Bible. When you put unproven "science" into the mix, and use it to interpret the Bible, then it is eisegesis. If you read it in the light of scripture, that is exegesis. You might not agree with it ... but it does fit. Remember that Augustine was Platonic, and not Hebraic. He was Greek trained, and maybe was too reliant on his understanding. Why agonise about light before luminaries ... when God created light first? The height of folly for rest on Day 7? When God gave it as an example for us to follow? His problem was he did not understand the text and baulked at it - which we all can do. Augustine was not always right ... which is why we need to ask God to keep us in His Truth. Again, thank you for your gentle attitude ...
One thing that disturbs me about this thinking regarding "Interpretation of Scriptures with no outward sources" is that it could prime us for becoming unable to validate scripture based on outside evidence. Science, philosophy, and archeology are just some feilds that can serve to offer a lot of evidence and validation for scripture. This is not to say that our faith is merely rooted in the latest archeological study. But, as you noted, Dr. Ortlund, we ultimately all Interpretate scripture through the outside source of our own perception on reality. Science and philosophy are disciplines which have alwsys been fueled because of thinkers wanting to interpret scripture, not in spite of them.
Gosh! I'm fortunate as an Eastern Orthodox Christian that the Church through the Tradition of the Church Fathers has sorted out all the interpretations of Scripture, having that 'authority' which many Protestants constantly seem to wrestle with. So, we don't have to constantly argue about it. When the authority of interpretation is just yourself, then of course there will be constant disagreement about it. However, when it comes to interpreting the length of days of the creation, we accept it's a mystery, and that that detail is so irrelevant to our salvation that the subject rarely comes up in Orthodox discussion. I think we all have far more important things to be putting our minds to. Christ is absolute priority.
Great response. I appreciate that you addressed the slippery slope accusation. It’s a very common objection that doesn’t acknowledge the complexity of interpreting the Bible
How can you misinterpret "it was evening and morning " in the first day? What's even more important is that you have an understanding in which there's a "universe" with "galaxies". You also name someone as the "greatest " theologian. How do you determine this? I guess I need to ask are you Catholic? This is what they do they exault men and their opinions over the word of God. Are you even born again? I've heard you proposing a "local" flood. The text clearly says that the that the water rose above the highest mountain.
If Hamm were honest. He wouldn’t resort to appeal to authority to discredit those who disagrees with him. To claim you’re committed to eisegesis is a slanderous claim and he needs to retract that tweet and apologize. Discourse analysis shows us that Genesis 1 isn’t a science textbook. The flood narrative is a reminder that God’s people are safe from death because the ark is a kind of temple. Hamm focuses on the wrong things and does on those hills.
Thank you for addressing this. You are right, it becomes a stumbling block. I felt that way when I became a Christian. I felt "browbeaten" into believing this super-literal interpretation. It got me so mentally frustrated, and took away from other areas of my faith where I needed to grow.
Clearly Augustine did start outside scripture, he had issues with the text because he couldn’t conceive how it could have happened the way the text says it happened. If God gives a day time frame with a different source of light before the sun was made, how is that even a problem? God can create the universe but he can’t have a source of light for a couple of days that emulates the sun? Of the two, creation is clearly the harder one by far.
I had a huge falling out at my previous job (teaching at a Christian high school) when my employers found out I didn’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve as historical individuals - they told me they had “never heard of a Christian who thought that.” They both went to Christian colleges. I was flabbergasted.
They were "flabbergasted" because it is hard to understand how someone can teach children to deny the plain reading of Scripture. They probably were relying on only "one book" of Creation, the True one.
@@DavidThigpen-yp7ko I teach every individual to the level I feel they are capable - the younger, the simpler. The older, the more complex and critical. My high schoolers were capable of critical thinking (especially in a supportive environment with trusted educators) where multiple perspectives could be weighed and compared. So when they asked about Genesis and creation, I encouraged them to think deeply instead of blindly accepting the “plain” reading they’d grown up with that was proving unsatisfactory when compared to the heavens, which declare the glory of God and make his invisible qualities known.
@@2wheelz3504 that’s an anemic understanding of original sin, and also an anemic understanding of the Gospel. But hey, I don’t work for you so I guess it doesn’t matter 🤷🏻♂️
@@2wheelz3504 But all you’ve done is referenced a different passage that is clearly using metaphor and literary devices to communicate a spiritual truth rather than a literal-historical one. By referencing Adam as a “type” of one to come, Paul is clearly not insisting that Jesus is somehow a clone or copy of Adam, but that he fulfills the role that Adam did - but that nowhere requires Adam be a literal historical individual. You’re referencing a metaphor to prove a historical figure existed. My Greek and Hebrew professors also recommend a “plain” reading, but that does not mean an unthoughtful or uncritical reading. “When I was a child, I thought like a child…”
@@2wheelz3504 I’m not “making” it a metaphor as though a literal reading is the default. And reading it literally absolutely does raise spiritual issues - namely, how does the Bible interact with general revelation? Can I trust my own senses if all the evidence suggests the Earth is very old but the Bible “says” it’s young? It’s nonsensical to say “God did things in an illogical order so that we would have to guess at the legitimacy of the text.” And frankly, I’m not being a smart ass ❤️ I’m being very serious in how I’ve used that passage, and I stand by it. You came and revived this thread to say you would have hypothetically fired me with the goal of what, exactly? You didn’t engage in good faith with what I said and try to have a meaningful discussion - you simply attacked. So… no smart-assery. Take it how it was said.
Wait so when Jesus speaks of the flood as prophecy for God's coming wrath he only meant that locally. Whew, I don't live in the middle east so God's wrath doesn't apply to me at all. We don't need Jesus. We apparently just need to move, location, location, location!
Except that people live across the whole planet now where when the flood happened all humans lived in one region or area. I pray you can listen to these arguments with an open heart because that is NOT what Gavin is saying.. at all. For a long time this was disagreed upon throughout church history, we can disagree on a matter like this because it doesn’t take away from God or His power or what it says He did. This isn’t a core doctrine dispute so I hope and pray you’ll look into it more but if not that’s ok too. We can disagree on this. Btw I was raised YEC but I have no hardline stance or opinion either way, at least at the moment. Anyways may Gods Grace and Love be with you! Btw I say all this out of love, I hope you can see that because I truly do not mean any disrespect. 💙🙏✝️🙏💙
@@King_of_Blades Hmm sounds like you may be referring to Pangaea before it split. Like it was the flood that split Pangaea? Honestly that's a pretty dope theory if that's what you meant. I certainly don't want to fight with other believers. As long as we all recognize the 👑 one true King.
Let's face it, Ham and his organization have absolutely made an idol out of their young-earth creationist obsession with the length of time of the Creation days - to the point of maligning those with different views on this specific topic (TIME day length), asserting Christians that disagree don't take Scripture seriously or are merely trying to accommodate Darwinism, etc. - which is absolutely false! But they, like so many other groups that are hyper-focused on a side issue, waste FAR too much time and cause so much division over this secondary, non-doctrinal issue! What does Titus 3:9 say? "But avoid foolish CONTROVERSIES, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless."
I am 100% sympathetic to your point that a framework view can reasonably arise from the text. Is there an audio format work that youd point to where you or someone else goes through verse by verse & shows how that actually works?
“No man comes to the Father but by Me.” Seems absolute. Also, though I believe Ken Ham is sincere and a brother in Christ, I do not look to him for interpretations about Genesis. I have spent maybe an hour’s worth of time looking into some of his teachings. I spent more time listening to his debate with Bill Nye, I’ve heard him in person, and felt like there were big portions he has either not considered or refuses to consider. He says some good things, mainly that salvation comes only by faith in the death, resurrection, and return of Jesus Christ and repentance of sin.
Thank you for a this video on the Genesis debate. I have studied and researched various interpretations. You used the word “browbeaten.” That is exactly how I feel in the church pew with respect to this issue. Any teaching is reduced to YEC and evolution, extremely simplistic. Thank you for putting into words how I experience this issue in the church.
