From The Doctrine of Creation Adopted by the Assembly of God’s General Presbytery in session August 9-11, 2010):
Theories of Creation
The advance of scientific research, particularly in the last few centuries, has raised many questions about the interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation. In attempting to reconcile the Bible and the theories and conclusions of contemporary scientists, it should be remembered that the creation accounts do not give precise details as to how God went about His creative activity. Nor do these accounts provide us with complete chronologies that enable us to date with precision the time of the various stages of creation. Similarly, the findings of science are constantly expanding; the accepted theories of one generation are often revised in the next.
As a result, equally devout Christian believers have formed very different opinions about the age of the earth, the age of humankind, and the ways in which God went about the creative processes. Given the limited information available in Scripture, it does not seem wise to be overly dogmatic about any particular creation theory.
Whatever creation theory we individually may prefer, we must affirm that the entire creation has been brought into being by the design and activity of the Triune God. Moreover, we also affirm that the New Testament treats the creation and fall of Adam and Eve as historical events in which the Creator is especially involved. We urge all sincere and conscientious believers to adhere to what the Bible plainly teaches and to avoid divisiveness over debatable theories of creation. ((Read the whole document here.))
Phil,
The koolaid that says “we must affirm that the entire creation has been brought into being by the design and activity of the Triune God. Moreover, we also affirm that the New Testament treats the creation and fall of Adam and Eve as historical events in which the Creator is especially involved.”?
What koolaid are you referring to? I know they leave open the possibility of the earth not being 10,000 years young or younger, that creation wasn’t done in a literal 24/6 framework….but as they have made clear they believe in the historical reality of creation and the fact that the Triune God was the designer and creator of creation. If i remember right from your previous posts on this subject that not only brings into question their adherence to “orthodox teachings” but puts them on the “slippery slope” to deny the flood, the cross and the resurrection…..i am just not convinced that is a correct or fair charge against those who see this event differently than you or others who hold to different views. I have more to say but time and curiosity of response will make me stop here.
The koolaid referred to is the poison drunk by the followers of a cult who all committed suicide on the order of their leader. Wasn’t it Johnstown or something like that? Anyway, we cannot blindly follow science on this one. Creation happended in six days. Open your Bible to the Genesis account of this historical event. It is pretty clear to me. Six literal days and on the seventh day He rested. All three parts of the Trinity were present. Also reference John 1:1. It is very plainly stated.
If we deny the validity of the six day creation event as stated, we also put doubt on everything else in the Bible, the living, breathing, inspired word of God.
I am surprised the Assembly of God church has taken this stand. I have always respected this church body because of their strong belief in adherence to the Bible. I feel they are now selling themselves short in an attempt to earn the world’s respect. So sad.
Tom,
First, I figured you stopped reading a long time ago due to your lack of comments. I truly missed them. Glad to see you pop back in.
Theistic Evolution which this statement certainly endorses by its language is so fraught with trouble.
If you listen to any leading evolutionist, they laugh at this idea. They understand that the teaching of evolution has at its heart the intention to deny the existence of God. To embrace a godless idea and try to attach God to it is at best irrational. Richard Hawkins calls it “a superfluous attempt to smuggle God in by the back door.”
Secondly, 7 day creation is not merely my idea or opinion or interpretation. It has been the understanding of the church for thousands of years. It was Jesus’ assumption. The Apostles as well.
It is sad to me when the best the church can do it to Christianize an atheist position about the origins of the world.
Ok, your turn to say more.
Thanks for the reminder Paula to always be searching God’s word and for the encouragement to open it up and read it. I would just encourage you to remember that the AoG clearly states they believe that Father, Son and Spirit were present at and had a hand in creation. They also make it very clear that it was/is a historical reality. It really happened.
Phil, are you saying that a position other than a literal 24/6 (which the AoG is not explicitly denying) “clearly endorses” a Theistic Evolution position? How do you make that leap? To say that a group of people who leave open the possibility that Gen. 1,2 is not there to tell us how God specifically created but that it was God who did create is to “embrace a godless idea” and that that by embracing that godless idea is “at best irrational” is not right – the AoG, and many others, who don’t embrace a literal 24/6 don’t attach God….they START with the premise…in the beginning GOD created….
In terms of church history to say that “it has been the understanding of the church” makes it sound as if there has been no differing opinions about this issue….but there has. And i am not quite convinced, unless you can show me otherwise, that Jesus or the apostles when making statements about creation, etc. had in mind that the crux of the issue was a literal 24/6 position but rather that it was God, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not the moon god, the sun god, or other deities but it was this God (the God and Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus) who created all that there is.
I know many people who don’t hold to 24/6 but who are faithful adherents to the Word, believers in the flood, the cross and the resurrection. I know we, ultimately, won’t see eye to eye on this…but the point is dialogue and conversation….and you may feel that i am on a slippery slope to deny other historical, biblical events….but please know….i am not.
btw,
when i said “had a hand in creation” what i really meant was that creation was done totally by the Trinity with all three having a part. sorry for the confusion.
dang…i should really read about 5 times my post before i hit “comment”. Again above when I say “the AoG, and many others, who don’t embrace a literal 24/6” i don’t mean to imply that they are denying that it could very well be a literal 24/6 creation…they are just not making a dogmatic statement either way.