Another zinger of a sermon this morning, further knocking Grudem out of play, for which I'm all cheers.
The minister unfortunatley has a view of Genesis 1, etc. (hereafter G1) that is common these days: that it is 'theological' and not anything else; and not therefore factual where it comes into conflict with contemporary cosmogony, evolutionary speculation or rampant materialism. One wonders how then one is able to figure which bits are important and which bits are mere 'dressing'?
But this is not a new position. I read of it in a work by Robert S. Candlish, D.D. (1806-1873) of Scotland who succeeded Thomas
Chalmers in the chair of divinity at the New College, Edinburgh in 1841.
Quoting a work on Genesis:
To clear the way, therefore, at the outset, to get rid of many
perplexities, and leave the narrative unencumbered for pious and
practical uses, let its limited design be fairly understood, and let
certain explanations be frankly made. In the first place, the object of
this inspired cosmogony, or account of the world's origin, is not
scientific but religious.
So...if its only religious, on what is the religious information carried, if it is not a factual account of events...is it carried on a mere fiction? If so, then the religions information is hardly worth our attention!
Yet, by the very notion of creation as set out in G1, it only has theological significance because it is about things that have happened. Just like the resurrection only has theological content because it had historical and physcial coordinates in history, and is in the same world of general causality as the one we live in. And so the resurrection has content for us. If it were in a different 'world' it would have nothing for us. And so 'creation' which sets the scene for all that follows.
