I received an invitation to join here

[makesends]

Cos it meaningless and purposeless

God is almighty and can create man in any state he chooses

He made us the way we are make and female
Thanks

Maybe I'd better ask, "WHAT, is meaningless and purposeless?" I'm not following you at all here.

At one point it seemed you wanted to know whether, God being Almighty, he could make the finished product, OR make us go through all this vanity of life first. To me, both —he uses the one to accomplish the other. Temporal existence to accomplish the eternal, which he spoke into accomplished fact in the beginning.

 

[donadams]

Maybe I'd better ask, "WHAT, is meaningless and purposeless?" I'm not following you at all here.

At one point it seemed you wanted to know whether, God being Almighty, he could make the finished product, OR make us go through all this vanity of life first. To me, both —he uses the one to accomplish the other. Temporal existence to accomplish the eternal, which he spoke into accomplished fact in the beginning.

Eons of evolutionary forces.

 

[Grumix88]

wecome !!!

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

My problem with the theory is that it is without purpose or meaning.

TL;DR: On my view, all of reality is deeply saturated with purpose and meaning, including evolution.

I am going to assume that you're referring to evolution when you say "the theory." With respect to the problem that you have with it, evolution is without purpose or meaning only if it is comprehended within a godless worldview. It is atheists like Richard Dawkins who believe that our universe "has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." But then I wouldn't expect anything different from atheists. Given a godless belief system, it makes sense that they would view the world—including evolution—in such terms.

That being said, I feel the need to remind you that I am not an atheist. As a conservative Christian evangelical, my biblical world-view is certainly not godless. Personally, I view the world in terms set forth and defined by God, as revealed in scripture. Cornelius Van Til (1946) said it best:

God's revelation in nature, together with God's revelation in scripture, form God's one grand scheme of covenant revelation of himself to man. The two forms of revelation must therefore be seen as presupposing and supplementing one another.
​

Here is how I describe my view: Natural history, disclosed through general revelation (nature), is the stage upon which the drama of redemptive history unfolds, and it is redemptive history that reveals the meaning and purpose of natural history, disclosed through special revelation (scripture). We explore natural history scientifically; we explore redemptive history theologically.

So, nothing in natural history is without purpose or meaning. All things point to and culminate in Jesus Christ for the glory of God, who will be all in all. I believe strongly in something known as the cruciform nature of reality. At the center of my Christian worldview stands the cross as a symbol of profound significance (the cross being a synechdoche for the life, death, and resurrection of Christ). This cosmic event serves as the ontological foundation of all reality, permeating every aspect of creation with its salvific and transformative power. And I do mean every aspect—the numerical, spatial, logical, historical, biotic, economic, social, aesthetic, juridical, ethical, pistic and so on—none of which are autonomous but rather derive their coherence, meaning, and purpose from God and must be interpreted accordingly. I agree with Gary North (1982) who said,

God did not create a self-sustaining universe which is now left to operate in terms of autonomous laws of nature. The universe is not a giant mechanism, like a clock, which God wound up at the beginning of time. Ours is not a mechanistic world, nor is it an autonomous entity, ... Ours is a world which is actively sustained by God on a full-time basis (Job 38–41). All creation is inescapably personal and theocentric. ... [T]here can be no phenomenon or event in all of creation that is independent from God. No phenomenon can be said to exist apart from God's all-inclusive plan for the ages. There is no uninterpreted brute factuality. ... Nothing in the creation generates its own conditions of existence, including the law structure under which something operates or is operated upon. Every fact in the universe, from beginning to end, is exhaustively interpreted by God in terms of his being, plan, and power.
​

Integral to the cruciform nature of reality is the redemptive-historical hermeneutic. Accordingly, the cross is not merely an isolated episode of history but rather an eschatological and transcendent event that stretches across the continuum of time, reverberating throughout the past, present, and future. As an eternal act in the mind of God, it eternally informs all temporal realities. The created order has an intelligible christological context that establishes a material connection between creation and redemption, insofar as they coincide in the person of Jesus Christ as the Word in the beginning through whom creation came to be (Congdon 2010).

The cruciform nature of reality extends its redemptive implications beyond humanity to the entire created order—cosmological redemption. As Christ's incarnation and crucifixion bear cosmological significance, the created world is destined to be restored, reflecting the glory of its Creator. Just as creation suffered the consequences of human sin, it is also destined to partake in the redemption achieved by Christ on the cross, culminating in the renewal of all things—a cosmic eschatological consummation.

And I haven't even touched upon the concept of the universe as the dwelling place of God yet and how the temple motif, from Eden to the eschaton, underscores this reality (Walton 2009; Beale 2004). As the eternal Word incarnate, Christ becomes the living embodiment of God's presence, dwelling among humanity as the ultimate fulfillment of the cosmic temple typology. Both Walton's cosmic temple view and Beale's temple motif, when considered in light of the cruciform nature of reality, converge on the profound theological significance of Christ's redemptive work: The cruciform event not only reconciles humanity with God but also inaugurates the restoratopm of the cosmic temple order, ensuring that creation serves as a dwelling place for the divine presence and rule, culminating in the eschatological realization of God's eternal dwelling in the New Jerusalem—a celestial temple where the cruciform and cosmic converge in perfect harmony.

I could write a book just trying to explain the deep purpose and meaning of reality, which obviously includes natural history and its evolutionary patterns. I cannot put it any more succinctly than this (and I spent years of study in crafting this summary): Natural history, disclosed through general revelation (nature), is the stage upon which the drama of redemptive history unfolds, and it is redemptive history that reveals the meaning and purpose of natural history, disclosed through special revelation (scripture).

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

God is almighty and could create the universe and man in any state. Why a process of eons? Maybe you could help me understand. Thanks.

To be clear, on my view there is a categorical difference between Genesis and evolution. Genesis marks the dawn of redemptive history, whereas evolution is about natural history. My reading of such scholars as Beale (2004), Walton (2009), and Middleton (2005) led me to experience a seismic paradigm shift in my view of origins. A sudden realization struck me that redemptive history and natural history are clearly differentiated, and thus perhaps they also have different starting points. On this view, which sees the universe as a cosmic temple, natural history records the "construction phase" which spanned nearly 14 billion years, while redemptive history records the "inauguration phase" which spanned seven days roughly 6,000 years ago—just as the construction of the earthly temple spanned many years while its inauguration took place over a matter of days. Genesis reveals redemptive history, the moment when God entered into a covenant relationship with mankind through Adam as our federal head, a history that reaches forward to the eschaton when God will head up all things in Christ. This is clearly redemptive history.

Does Genesis also mark the dawn of natural history, a material origin for the natural world? Young-earth creationists claim that it does, but they are relying on a plain or straight-forward reading of an English text using modern categories of thought. This is not how proper interpretation is done. What happens when you interpret Genesis literally using a robust historical-grammatical exegesis of the text in its original language and ancient cultural context? Walton showed us (2009; 2015). There is good reason to believe Genesis is an account of functional origins, as God established the cosmos as sacred space (temple) for his presence and rule, creating the functions and assigning functionaries in this sacred space over a six-day period and resting on the seventh. (It is worth noting that, on this view, the seventh day is no longer a footnote to creation week but arguably the most important day.)

"All right, I understand that," you might say, "and it does make sense. But couldn't Genesis 1 also be about material origins?" Sure, it could be—but is it? You see, that is the question. Our conclusions about the text must be drawn from the text, not imposed on it because it's familiar and traditional. And Walton (2009, 95) observes an important point: "Viewing Genesis 1 as an account of functional origins of the cosmos as temple does not in any way suggest or imply that God was uninvolved in material origins—it only contends that Genesis 1 is not that story."

So, on my deveoping view of evolutionary creationism, the dawn of natural history occurred several billion years ago (the "construction phase" of the cosmic temple) whereas the dawn of redemptive history reaches back to Eden around six or seven thousand years ago (the "inauguration phase" of the cosmic temple).

• The days in Genesis 1 were normal 24-hour periods, Adam and Eve actually existed as real people, the events in the garden actually happened and it was only a few thousand years ago, etc.
• Also, our planet is over four billion years old, dinosaurs went extinct around 65 million years ago, descent with modification from a common ancestor is real, the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, etc.

Thus, we have redemptive history on the one hand and natural history on the other. Both are true and fully consistent, without a shred of contradiction or even tension. The key is realizing they are not the same thing: Natural history is disclosed through general revelation (which we explore scientifically), the meaning and purpose of which is unveiled in redemptive history disclosed through special revelation (which we explore theologically).

-----
Sources:

Beale, G. K. (2004). The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. InterVarsity Press.

Congdon, D. W. (2010). "Creatio Continua Ex Electione: A Post-Barthian Revision of the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo." Koinonia, 22, pp. 33-53.

Middleton, J. R. (2005). The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Brazos Press.

North, G. K. (1982). The Dominion Covenant: Genesis. Institute for Christian Economics.

Van Til, C. (1946). "Nature and Scriptures." In N. B. Stonehouse and P. Woolley (eds.), The Infallible Word: A Symposium (pp. 255-293). Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.

Walton, J. H. (2009). The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. InterVarsity Press.

Walton, J. H. (2015). The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate. InterVarsity Press.

Note: The cruciform nature of reality also underscores the profundity of paradox and tension within the Christian faith. The cross embodies the apparent contradiction of triumph in apparent defeat, where victory emerges from apparent vulnerability. It reveals the mystery of divine suffering, demonstrating God's solidarity with humanity and inviting believers to embrace their own crosses in imitation of Christ. In ethical terms, the cruciform nature of reality beckons believers to embody the kenotic disposition of Christ—self-emptying love and self-sacrifice—within their daily lives. The transformative power of the cross calls for believers to die to self, taking up their crosses and living cruciform lives characterized by Christ-likeness and sacrificial love for others.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Maybe I'd better ask, "WHAT, is meaningless and purposeless?" I'm not following you at all here.

Eons of evolutionary forces.

Forgive me. I'm having a little trouble here. How are aeons of evolutionary forces, "meaningless and purposeless?"

The wingstroke of the butterfly on the other side of the world affects the nature of the hurricane on this side. Everything affects something else, to some degree, to include every detail of what comes to pass on the other end of the universe. This is true, even immediately, but certainly it can be seen to be true over aeons of time, that no system is entirely independent of the others, and no detail is without effects within the system it inhabits. While I admit to the idea that God could have made it all "pop into fact" instantly, I propose that, to him, there is no difference between it becoming completed fact as soon as he spoke it into fact, and it taking eons to form into completion. But either way, if God does something, it is not meaningless and purposeless (my apologies to 'the teacher' of Ecclesiastes), but done according to his purposes and for his pleasure. Reality is not about us.

(This is, by the way, the same principle that governs the fact that there can be no such thing as "libertarian free will". EVERYTHING, except First Cause (i.e. God himself), is caused. Furthermore, every effect that is caused, (as far as I can tell), also causes further things. The "chain of causation" is more like a lattice, since decisions are contingent on many things.)

 

[donadams]

TL;DR: On my view, all of reality is deeply saturated with purpose and meaning, including evolution.

I am going to assume that you're referring to evolution when you say "the theory." With respect to the problem that you have with it, evolution is without purpose or meaning only if it is comprehended within a godless worldview. It is atheists like Richard Dawkins who believe that our universe "has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." But then I wouldn't expect anything different from atheists. Given a godless belief system, it makes sense that they would view the world—including evolution—in such terms.

That being said, I feel the need to remind you that I am not an atheist. As a conservative Christian evangelical, my biblical world-view is certainly not godless. Personally, I view the world in terms set forth and defined by God, as revealed in scripture. Cornelius Van Til (1946) said it best:

​

God's revelation in nature, together with God's revelation in scripture, form God's one grand scheme of covenant revelation of himself to man. The two forms of revelation must therefore be seen as presupposing and supplementing one another.​

​

Here is how I describe my view: Natural history, disclosed through general revelation (nature), is the stage upon which the drama of redemptive history unfolds, and it is redemptive history that reveals the meaning and purpose of natural history, disclosed through special revelation (scripture). We explore natural history scientifically; we explore redemptive history theologically.

So, nothing in natural history is without purpose or meaning. All things point to and culminate in Jesus Christ for the glory of God, who will be all in all. I believe strongly in something known as the cruciform nature of reality. At the center of my Christian worldview stands the cross as a symbol of profound significance (the cross being a synechdoche for the life, death, and resurrection of Christ). This cosmic event serves as the ontological foundation of all reality, permeating every aspect of creation with its salvific and transformative power. And I do mean every aspect—the numerical, spatial, logical, historical, biotic, economic, social, aesthetic, juridical, ethical, pistic and so on—none of which are autonomous but rather derive their coherence, meaning, and purpose from God and must be interpreted accordingly. I agree with Gary North (1982) who said,

​

God did not create a self-sustaining universe which is now left to operate in terms of autonomous laws of nature. The universe is not a giant mechanism, like a clock, which God wound up at the beginning of time. Ours is not a mechanistic world, nor is it an autonomous entity, ... Ours is a world which is actively sustained by God on a full-time basis (Job 38–41). All creation is inescapably personal and theocentric. ... [T]here can be no phenomenon or event in all of creation that is independent from God. No phenomenon can be said to exist apart from God's all-inclusive plan for the ages. There is no uninterpreted brute factuality. ... Nothing in the creation generates its own conditions of existence, including the law structure under which something operates or is operated upon. Every fact in the universe, from beginning to end, is exhaustively interpreted by God in terms of his being, plan, and power.​

​

Integral to the cruciform nature of reality is the redemptive-historical hermeneutic. Accordingly, the cross is not merely an isolated episode of history but rather an eschatological and transcendent event that stretches across the continuum of time, reverberating throughout the past, present, and future. As an eternal act in the mind of God, it eternally informs all temporal realities. The created order has an intelligible christological context that establishes a material connection between creation and redemption, insofar as they coincide in the person of Jesus Christ as the Word in the beginning through whom creation came to be (Congdon 2010).

The cruciform nature of reality extends its redemptive implications beyond humanity to the entire created order—cosmological redemption. As Christ's incarnation and crucifixion bear cosmological significance, the created world is destined to be restored, reflecting the glory of its Creator. Just as creation suffered the consequences of human sin, it is also destined to partake in the redemption achieved by Christ on the cross, culminating in the renewal of all things—a cosmic eschatological consummation.

And I haven't even touched upon the concept of the universe as the dwelling place of God yet and how the temple motif, from Eden to the eschaton, underscores this reality (Walton 2009; Beale 2004). As the eternal Word incarnate, Christ becomes the living embodiment of God's presence, dwelling among humanity as the ultimate fulfillment of the cosmic temple typology. Both Walton's cosmic temple view and Beale's temple motif, when considered in light of the cruciform nature of reality, converge on the profound theological significance of Christ's redemptive work: The cruciform event not only reconciles humanity with God but also inaugurates the restoratopm of the cosmic temple order, ensuring that creation serves as a dwelling place for the divine presence and rule, culminating in the eschatological realization of God's eternal dwelling in the New Jerusalem—a celestial temple where the cruciform and cosmic converge in perfect harmony.

I could write a book just trying to explain the deep purpose and meaning of reality, which obviously includes natural history and its evolutionary patterns. I cannot put it any more succinctly than this (and I spent years of study in crafting this summary): Natural history, disclosed through general revelation (nature), is the stage upon which the drama of redemptive history unfolds, and it is redemptive history that reveals the meaning and purpose of natural history, disclosed through special revelation (scripture).

Is Mary the temple of God spoken of by king David?

Psalm 26:8
Lord, I have loved the habitation of thy house, and the place where thine honour dwelleth.

Mary is the temple of God, God consecrated and dwelt in this temple for 9 months and it cannot be used for a ordinary purpose, and it is God who glorified his dwelling!

King david has love of Mary!

 

[donadams]

To be clear, on my view there is a categorical difference between Genesis and evolution. Genesis marks the dawn of redemptive history, whereas evolution is about natural history. My reading of such scholars as Beale (2004), Walton (2009), and Middleton (2005) led me to experience a seismic paradigm shift in my view of origins. A sudden realization struck me that redemptive history and natural history are clearly differentiated, and thus perhaps they also have different starting points. On this view, which sees the universe as a cosmic temple, natural history records the "construction phase" which spanned nearly 14 billion years, while redemptive history records the "inauguration phase" which spanned seven days roughly 6,000 years ago—just as the construction of the earthly temple spanned many years while its inauguration took place over a matter of days. Genesis reveals redemptive history, the moment when God entered into a covenant relationship with mankind through Adam as our federal head, a history that reaches forward to the eschaton when God will head up all things in Christ. This is clearly redemptive history.

Does Genesis also mark the dawn of natural history, a material origin for the natural world? Young-earth creationists claim that it does, but they are relying on a plain or straight-forward reading of an English text using modern categories of thought. This is not how proper interpretation is done. What happens when you interpret Genesis literally using a robust historical-grammatical exegesis of the text in its original language and ancient cultural context? Walton showed us (2009; 2015). There is good reason to believe Genesis is an account of functional origins, as God established the cosmos as sacred space (temple) for his presence and rule, creating the functions and assigning functionaries in this sacred space over a six-day period and resting on the seventh. (It is worth noting that, on this view, the seventh day is no longer a footnote to creation week but arguably the most important day.)

"All right, I understand that," you might say, "and it does make sense. But couldn't Genesis 1 also be about material origins?" Sure, it could be—but is it? You see, that is the question. Our conclusions about the text must be drawn from the text, not imposed on it because it's familiar and traditional. And Walton (2009, 95) observes an important point: "Viewing Genesis 1 as an account of functional origins of the cosmos as temple does not in any way suggest or imply that God was uninvolved in material origins—it only contends that Genesis 1 is not that story."

So, on my deveoping view of evolutionary creationism, the dawn of natural history occurred several billion years ago (the "construction phase" of the cosmic temple) whereas the dawn of redemptive history reaches back to Eden around six or seven thousand years ago (the "inauguration phase" of the cosmic temple).

• The days in Genesis 1 were normal 24-hour periods, Adam and Eve actually existed as real people, the events in the garden actually happened and it was only a few thousand years ago, etc.
• Also, our planet is over four billion years old, dinosaurs went extinct around 65 million years ago, descent with modification from a common ancestor is real, the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, etc.

Thus, we have redemptive history on the one hand and natural history on the other. Both are true and fully consistent, without a shred of contradiction or even tension. The key is realizing they are not the same thing: Natural history is disclosed through general revelation (which we explore scientifically), the meaning and purpose of which is unveiled in redemptive history disclosed through special revelation (which we explore theologically).

-----
Sources:

Beale, G. K. (2004). The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. InterVarsity Press.

Congdon, D. W. (2010). "Creatio Continua Ex Electione: A Post-Barthian Revision of the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo." Koinonia, 22, pp. 33-53.

Middleton, J. R. (2005). The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Brazos Press.

North, G. K. (1982). The Dominion Covenant: Genesis. Institute for Christian Economics.

Van Til, C. (1946). "Nature and Scriptures." In N. B. Stonehouse and P. Woolley (eds.), The Infallible Word: A Symposium (pp. 255-293). Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.

Walton, J. H. (2009). The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. InterVarsity Press.

Walton, J. H. (2015). The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate. InterVarsity Press.

Note: The cruciform nature of reality also underscores the profundity of paradox and tension within the Christian faith. The cross embodies the apparent contradiction of triumph in apparent defeat, where victory emerges from apparent vulnerability. It reveals the mystery of divine suffering, demonstrating God's solidarity with humanity and inviting believers to embrace their own crosses in imitation of Christ. In ethical terms, the cruciform nature of reality beckons believers to embody the kenotic disposition of Christ—self-emptying love and self-sacrifice—within their daily lives. The transformative power of the cross calls for believers to die to self, taking up their crosses and living cruciform lives characterized by Christ-likeness and sacrificial love for others.

Does this sacrifice and suffering have merits and reward?

 

[donadams]

makesends said:
Maybe I'd better ask, "WHAT, is meaningless and purposeless?" I'm not following you at all here.

Forgive me. I'm having a little trouble here. How are aeons of evolutionary forces, "meaningless and purposeless?"

The wingstroke of the butterfly on the other side of the world affects the nature of the hurricane on this side. Everything affects something else, to some degree, to include every detail of what comes to pass on the other end of the universe. This is true, even immediately, but certainly it can be seen to be true over aeons of time, that no system is entirely independent of the others, and no detail is without effects within the system it inhabits. While I admit to the idea that God could have made it all "pop into fact" instantly, I propose that, to him, there is no difference between it becoming completed fact as soon as he spoke it into fact, and it taking eons to form into completion. But either way, if God does something, it is not meaningless and purposeless (my apologies to 'the teacher' of Ecclesiastes), but done according to his purposes and for his pleasure. Reality is not about us.

(This is, by the way, the same principle that governs the fact that there can be no such thing as "libertarian free will". EVERYTHING, except First Cause (i.e. God himself), is caused. Furthermore, every effect that is caused, (as far as I can tell), also causes further things. The "chain of causation" is more like a lattice, since decisions are contingent on many things.)

It seems to me meaningless and purposeless to evolve man over millions of years rather than simply creating them as he wanted and when he wanted.

There is no evolution in scripture?

Thanks

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Is Mary the temple of God spoken of by king David?

No, that would be Christ.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Some fellow over at ChristianForums.com privately sent me an invitation to join this site, and it seemed related to me being Reformed. I had a brief look around and, yeah, this definitely seems like a place I could enjoy. So, allow me to remove my jacket, take off my hat, and make my way around the room, shaking hands.

I am a 44-year-old family man, happily married for 10 years with two baptized children. I was raised an atheist, being converted to Christianity late in life (i.e., early 30s). I began my faith journey as a dispensationalist Baptist (and young-earth creationist), but was later convinced of the doctrines of grace and started leaning toward a Reformed Baptist view of things. Before long, however, I discovered R. C. Sproul and my spiritual development really took off. I became convinced of covenant theology and eventually embraced a fully Reformed faith. I am a communicant member in good standing in a local Reformed church and subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity.

I am also an old-earth creationist who accepts the science of evolution—that is, an evolutionary creationist—while maintaining a firm conviction in a historical Adam and Eve who lived 6,000 years ago. My views on origins have been influenced by the likes of John H. Walton, Gregory K. Beale, Meredith G. Kline, J. Richard Middleton, Denis R. Alexander, John R. W. Stott, Carol Hill, S. Joshua Swamidass, Joshua M. Moritz—and so many others. My views on origins are singularly unique, which makes me incredibly difficult to pigeon-hole. So, don't make assumptions about what I believe; it's probably unlike most anything else you have encountered.

Thanks for sharing and welcome. I am curious about one thing, what convinced you of God when you were an Atheist?

 

[makesends]

TL;DR: On my view, all of reality is deeply saturated with purpose and meaning, including evolution.

I am going to assume that you're referring to evolution when you say "the theory." With respect to the problem that you have with it, evolution is without purpose or meaning only if it is comprehended within a godless worldview. It is atheists like Richard Dawkins who believe that our universe "has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." But then I wouldn't expect anything different from atheists. Given a godless belief system, it makes sense that they would view the world—including evolution—in such terms.

That being said, I feel the need to remind you that I am not an atheist. As a conservative Christian evangelical, my biblical world-view is certainly not godless. Personally, I view the world in terms set forth and defined by God, as revealed in scripture. Cornelius Van Til (1946) said it best:

​

God's revelation in nature, together with God's revelation in scripture, form God's one grand scheme of covenant revelation of himself to man. The two forms of revelation must therefore be seen as presupposing and supplementing one another.​

​

Here is how I describe my view: Natural history, disclosed through general revelation (nature), is the stage upon which the drama of redemptive history unfolds, and it is redemptive history that reveals the meaning and purpose of natural history, disclosed through special revelation (scripture). We explore natural history scientifically; we explore redemptive history theologically.

So, nothing in natural history is without purpose or meaning. All things point to and culminate in Jesus Christ for the glory of God, who will be all in all. I believe strongly in something known as the cruciform nature of reality. At the center of my Christian worldview stands the cross as a symbol of profound significance (the cross being a synechdoche for the life, death, and resurrection of Christ). This cosmic event serves as the ontological foundation of all reality, permeating every aspect of creation with its salvific and transformative power. And I do mean every aspect—the numerical, spatial, logical, historical, biotic, economic, social, aesthetic, juridical, ethical, pistic and so on—none of which are autonomous but rather derive their coherence, meaning, and purpose from God and must be interpreted accordingly. I agree with Gary North (1982) who said,

​

God did not create a self-sustaining universe which is now left to operate in terms of autonomous laws of nature. The universe is not a giant mechanism, like a clock, which God wound up at the beginning of time. Ours is not a mechanistic world, nor is it an autonomous entity, ... Ours is a world which is actively sustained by God on a full-time basis (Job 38–41). All creation is inescapably personal and theocentric. ... [T]here can be no phenomenon or event in all of creation that is independent from God. No phenomenon can be said to exist apart from God's all-inclusive plan for the ages. There is no uninterpreted brute factuality. ... Nothing in the creation generates its own conditions of existence, including the law structure under which something operates or is operated upon. Every fact in the universe, from beginning to end, is exhaustively interpreted by God in terms of his being, plan, and power.​

​

Integral to the cruciform nature of reality is the redemptive-historical hermeneutic. Accordingly, the cross is not merely an isolated episode of history but rather an eschatological and transcendent event that stretches across the continuum of time, reverberating throughout the past, present, and future. As an eternal act in the mind of God, it eternally informs all temporal realities. The created order has an intelligible christological context that establishes a material connection between creation and redemption, insofar as they coincide in the person of Jesus Christ as the Word in the beginning through whom creation came to be (Congdon 2010).

The cruciform nature of reality extends its redemptive implications beyond humanity to the entire created order—cosmological redemption. As Christ's incarnation and crucifixion bear cosmological significance, the created world is destined to be restored, reflecting the glory of its Creator. Just as creation suffered the consequences of human sin, it is also destined to partake in the redemption achieved by Christ on the cross, culminating in the renewal of all things—a cosmic eschatological consummation.

And I haven't even touched upon the concept of the universe as the dwelling place of God yet and how the temple motif, from Eden to the eschaton, underscores this reality (Walton 2009; Beale 2004). As the eternal Word incarnate, Christ becomes the living embodiment of God's presence, dwelling among humanity as the ultimate fulfillment of the cosmic temple typology. Both Walton's cosmic temple view and Beale's temple motif, when considered in light of the cruciform nature of reality, converge on the profound theological significance of Christ's redemptive work: The cruciform event not only reconciles humanity with God but also inaugurates the restoratopm of the cosmic temple order, ensuring that creation serves as a dwelling place for the divine presence and rule, culminating in the eschatological realization of God's eternal dwelling in the New Jerusalem—a celestial temple where the cruciform and cosmic converge in perfect harmony.

I could write a book just trying to explain the deep purpose and meaning of reality, which obviously includes natural history and its evolutionary patterns. I cannot put it any more succinctly than this (and I spent years of study in crafting this summary): Natural history, disclosed through general revelation (nature), is the stage upon which the drama of redemptive history unfolds, and it is redemptive history that reveals the meaning and purpose of natural history, disclosed through special revelation (scripture).

There is a sense in which pantheism has a point, if they say that all things exist 'within' God. They would say that what exists is not other than God, and there they would be wrong. But there is a sense in which they are right —All things are from God, and their very existence is sustained by God. The Universe is, in that sense, not apart from God. This is why I say that all things are, in that sense, good, and not 'neutral' —not even morally neutral. All that God has made belongs to God.

One thought I love is the notion that at the very core of matter and energy, smaller even than the "God particle", is something of God himself —something that "physical" is made of, perhaps God's love. It would explain a lot of things the Bible says that don't quite add up to our usual uses, such as the conflicting notions of God loving the "whole world" and selecting only a few.

Anyhow, fun thoughts.

But one thing you may not have meant to touch on, but I think you did, is something I want to understand better, that has puzzled me for probably 40 years: Just what does it mean, for God to restore all things to himself? (Colossians 1:19-20; II Corinthians 5:18,19; Hebrews 2:8; and others). What are the implications of it? Related to it, and, to me, almost the same question, one of John Owen's titles, The Death of Death, in the Death of Christ. His book treated with only a tangent to my question, though, having to do with (as I remember) the nature of Death, and the authority of God over it.

The more I've studied it, the more things I see in Scripture (and in life) that I think are closely related to the question, but I get no complete answers —just indications that there is something more there to find out.

 

[makesends]

It seems to me meaningless and purposeless to evolve man over millions of years rather than simply creating them as he wanted and when he wanted.

There is no evolution in scripture?

Thanks

That's why I say, perhaps he did both. To his point of view, having created them completed, but to us, aeons.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

One thing you may not have meant to touch on (but I think you did) is something I want to understand better, something that has puzzled me for probably 40 years: Just what does it mean for God to restore all things to himself?

If you haven't read The Temple and the Church's Mission (2004) by G. K. Beale, I highly recommend it. I sincerely believe it would go a long way toward answering your question. After you finish digesting that book, go back and re-read Colossians 1:19-20 and I'm confident it will all click.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

What convinced you of God when you were an atheist?

Being continually immersed in the scriptures and probing the facts and implications of the gospel. At some point during that period, in a moment known only to God, something in me switched or shifted and I found myself genuinely wanting more. I would now identify that conversion moment with regeneration and calling.

"But I thought you said you were an atheist," you might reply.

Yes, I was. And this particular atheist enjoyed studying philosophy and world religions and getting into debates, and I befriended a Christian with a heart for evangelizing who also enjoyed getting into debates. So, we would spend hours discussing and debating his belief system, which involved a lot of Bible reading and unpacking the gospel. Evidently, God used that (as is his wont) because eventually, at some point, I moved from curiousity to conversion.

There was no silver bullet argument or point, just an ongoing immersion in the word of God. He changed me, and I found myself pursuing a new life.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Being continually immersed in the scriptures and probing the facts and implications of the gospel. At some point during that period, in a moment known only to God, something in me switched or shifted and I found myself genuinely wanting more. I would now identify that conversion moment with regeneration and calling.

"But I thought you said you were an atheist," you might reply.

Yes, I was. And this particular atheist enjoyed studying philosophy and world religions and getting into debates, and I befriended a Christian with a heart for evangelizing who also enjoyed getting into debates. So, we would spend hours discussing and debating his belief system, which involved a lot of Bible reading and unpacking the gospel. Evidently, God used that (as is his wont) because eventually, at some point, I moved from curiousity to conversion.

There was no silver bullet argument or point, just an ongoing immersion in the word of God. He changed me, and I found myself pursuing a new life.

Interesting...I was changed through the proclamation of the Gospel that Paul preached. Specifically Justification by Faith Alone.

 

[makesends]

If you haven't read The Temple and the Church's Mission (2004) by G. K. Beale, I highly recommend it. I sincerely believe it would go a long way toward answering your question. After you finish digesting that book, go back and re-read Colossians 1:19-20 and I'm confident it will all click.

I'm not referring to the Church's role in the matter, though that too is there, but tangential to my question, I think (could be more relevant than I know, however). My puzzlement has to do with, to what degree, or in what way, is the universe taken from God, to be restored. Does 'put back under his feet' imply only obedience-submission, or material dependence too?

 

[Ladodgers6]

If you haven't read The Temple and the Church's Mission (2004) by G. K. Beale, I highly recommend it. I sincerely believe it would go a long way toward answering your question. After you finish digesting that book, go back and re-read Colossians 1:19-20 and I'm confident it will all click.

I like Beale, Kline, Sproul, Horton, Vos. Understanding in the Second Adam the relationship is restored where it was once broken in the first Adam. But in Christ God is reconciling the world to himself, and all things. Excellent post.

 

[donadams]

No, that would be Christ.

Christ dwells in the temple not made by hands, he dwelt in her nine months and gives birth to the body of Christ and all who are born again in his mystical body.
Thanks

And she is the ark of the covenant

Ark of the new covenant!
The dwelling place of God!
God dwelt in Mary’s womb for 9 months, remember the ark was incorruptible wood covered with pure gold signifying Mary’s immaculate purity!
read exodus or any place in the Old Testament where something came into contact with God or was consecrated to the service of God it had to be pure and Holy!
And cannot be used for any common purpose!
In the ark was the word of God!
In Mary the new ark is the living Word!
In the ark was the mana!
In Mary was the bread come down from heaven! Jn 6
Bethlehem means house of bread!

Lk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Matt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, (Isa 7:14) and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Jn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Holy mother of God!

Lk 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Biblical principle:
Anything Consecrated to God must be pure, holy, and only used for the service of God!

See exodus: the ark of the covenant, everything used in the temple etc.

Ex 40:34 Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.

Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.


2 Sam 6:2 And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the Lord of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims.

Lk 1:39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;


2 Sam 6:3 And they set the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah: and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drave the new cart.

4 And they brought it out of the house of Abinadab which was at Gibeah, accompanying the ark of God: and Ahio went before the ark.

5 And David and all the house of Israel played before the Lord on all manner of instruments made of fir wood, even on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals.

2 Sam 6:16 And as the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal Saul's daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord;

Lk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:


2 Sam 6:9 And David was afraid of the Lord that day, and said, How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?

Lk 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?


2 Sam 6:11 And the ark of the Lord continued in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months: and the Lord blessed Obededom, and all his household.

Lk 1:56 And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.


2 Sam 6:12 And it was told king David, saying, The Lord hath blessed the house of Obededom, and all that pertaineth unto him, because of the ark of God. So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obededom into the city of David with gladness.

Lk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

Lk 1: 67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied…


King David took the ark of the covenant up to the earthly Jerusalem! 2 Sam 6:10

King Jesus takes the ark of the new covenant up to the heavenly Jerusalem! Rev 12:1


Thanks

 

[donadams]

To be clear, on my view there is a categorical difference between Genesis and evolution. Genesis marks the dawn of redemptive history, whereas evolution is about natural history. My reading of such scholars as Beale (2004), Walton (2009), and Middleton (2005) led me to experience a seismic paradigm shift in my view of origins. A sudden realization struck me that redemptive history and natural history are clearly differentiated, and thus perhaps they also have different starting points. On this view, which sees the universe as a cosmic temple, natural history records the "construction phase" which spanned nearly 14 billion years, while redemptive history records the "inauguration phase" which spanned seven days roughly 6,000 years ago—just as the construction of the earthly temple spanned many years while its inauguration took place over a matter of days. Genesis reveals redemptive history, the moment when God entered into a covenant relationship with mankind through Adam as our federal head, a history that reaches forward to the eschaton when God will head up all things in Christ. This is clearly redemptive history.

Does Genesis also mark the dawn of natural history, a material origin for the natural world? Young-earth creationists claim that it does, but they are relying on a plain or straight-forward reading of an English text using modern categories of thought. This is not how proper interpretation is done. What happens when you interpret Genesis literally using a robust historical-grammatical exegesis of the text in its original language and ancient cultural context? Walton showed us (2009; 2015). There is good reason to believe Genesis is an account of functional origins, as God established the cosmos as sacred space (temple) for his presence and rule, creating the functions and assigning functionaries in this sacred space over a six-day period and resting on the seventh. (It is worth noting that, on this view, the seventh day is no longer a footnote to creation week but arguably the most important day.)

"All right, I understand that," you might say, "and it does make sense. But couldn't Genesis 1 also be about material origins?" Sure, it could be—but is it? You see, that is the question. Our conclusions about the text must be drawn from the text, not imposed on it because it's familiar and traditional. And Walton (2009, 95) observes an important point: "Viewing Genesis 1 as an account of functional origins of the cosmos as temple does not in any way suggest or imply that God was uninvolved in material origins—it only contends that Genesis 1 is not that story."

So, on my deveoping view of evolutionary creationism, the dawn of natural history occurred several billion years ago (the "construction phase" of the cosmic temple) whereas the dawn of redemptive history reaches back to Eden around six or seven thousand years ago (the "inauguration phase" of the cosmic temple).

• The days in Genesis 1 were normal 24-hour periods, Adam and Eve actually existed as real people, the events in the garden actually happened and it was only a few thousand years ago, etc.
• Also, our planet is over four billion years old, dinosaurs went extinct around 65 million years ago, descent with modification from a common ancestor is real, the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, etc.

Thus, we have redemptive history on the one hand and natural history on the other. Both are true and fully consistent, without a shred of contradiction or even tension. The key is realizing they are not the same thing: Natural history is disclosed through general revelation (which we explore scientifically), the meaning and purpose of which is unveiled in redemptive history disclosed through special revelation (which we explore theologically).

-----
Sources:

Beale, G. K. (2004). The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. InterVarsity Press.

Congdon, D. W. (2010). "Creatio Continua Ex Electione: A Post-Barthian Revision of the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo." Koinonia, 22, pp. 33-53.

Middleton, J. R. (2005). The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Brazos Press.

North, G. K. (1982). The Dominion Covenant: Genesis. Institute for Christian Economics.

Van Til, C. (1946). "Nature and Scriptures." In N. B. Stonehouse and P. Woolley (eds.), The Infallible Word: A Symposium (pp. 255-293). Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.

Walton, J. H. (2009). The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. InterVarsity Press.

Walton, J. H. (2015). The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate. InterVarsity Press.

Note: The cruciform nature of reality also underscores the profundity of paradox and tension within the Christian faith. The cross embodies the apparent contradiction of triumph in apparent defeat, where victory emerges from apparent vulnerability. It reveals the mystery of divine suffering, demonstrating God's solidarity with humanity and inviting believers to embrace their own crosses in imitation of Christ. In ethical terms, the cruciform nature of reality beckons believers to embody the kenotic disposition of Christ—self-emptying love and self-sacrifice—within their daily lives. The transformative power of the cross calls for believers to die to self, taking up their crosses and living cruciform lives characterized by Christ-likeness and sacrificial love for others.

How can there be pre-history
The universe was made for man, right?