How Should BioLogos Respond to Dr. Albert Mohler’s Critique of The BioLogos Initiative?

July 5, 2010
Category: BioLogos Features

How Should BioLogos Respond to Dr. Albert Mohler’s Critique of The BioLogos Initiative?

"Science and the Sacred" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Today's entry was written by Darrel Falk. Darrel Falk serves as president of The BioLogos Foundation. He transitioned into Christian higher education 25 years ago and has given numerous talks about the relationship between science and faith at many universities and seminaries. He is the author of Coming to Peace with Science.

Today's blog refers to Albert Mohler's recent critique of the BioLogos Foundation.  Dr. Mohler's speech may be found here. We have produced a transcript of the speech, which can be read here.

The BioLogos Foundation exists in order that the Church, especially the Evangelical Church, can come to peace with the scientific data which shows unequivocally that the universe is very old and that all of life, including humankind, has been created through a gradual process that has been taking place over the past few billion years. BioLogos exists to show that this fact (and it is a fact), need not, indeed must not, affect our relationship with God, which comes about through Jesus Christ, and is experienced by the power of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling presence.

We at BioLogos believe that Jesus, fully God and fully man, walked on this earth 2,000 years ago in order to show humankind how to live life to the full. Jesus died in order that we, sinful humankind, might be clean. His shed blood has made us clean. We need not live under the power of sin any longer. We are called to an infinitely better life that is made possible because we have been forgiven through the event of Calvary, and because of the resurrection power that raised Jesus from death to life. That death to death at the tomb near Calvary was not metaphorical, and the new life we live in Christ is not metaphorical either. We are empowered to live fully gifted lives; we are empowered to live out our calling, enabled by the resurrection-power of God’s Spirit which dwells in us. The Church has existed through these past 2,000 years because the Power of God’s Spirit is alive in God’s Church. We believe the Bible, a living document through which the Holy Spirit continues to speak today, is the divinely inspired Word of God.

There is a segment of the Church, it happens to be the segment to which I subscribe, evangelicalism, which is in turmoil over the question of the age of the earth and whether God created all of life, including humans, through a gradual process. Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of America’s largest protestant denomination, has recently given a speech, “Why Does the Universe Look So Old?” The speech may be found here. We have produced a transcript of this speech which can be read here.

There are times when God uses particular events to accomplish his purposes. I believe that the publication of Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene is one such “event.” Dawkins clearly outlined in a remarkably lucid manner the ramifications of an atheistic view of the biological data. We are “survival machines” Dawkins said, which have been created by DNA molecules to ensure their propagation through the eons of time. For those of us who vehemently disagree with an atheistic view of the universe, it is eminently helpful to have someone put it in such crystal clear terms. Are we simply machines created through a blind materialistic force or not? If this is the ultimate ramification of your belief-system, then state it clearly. That’s what Dawkins did.

Mohler, another masterful communicator, has laid out the issues for the Church from the other side. The Church must accept a young earth and no macro-evolution, he says. There is no wiggle room. If we squirm, the Church will begin the downhill slide to apostasy. BioLogos, he says, “is becoming the locus classicus for discussion” and he would like people to recognize that the BioLogos website is the poster child for the apostasy that will result if the Church lets go of its young earth perspective. Scientific evidence, he implies, will never be able to trump biblical exegesis as he thinks it must be done, or even more importantly as he sees it, theology. "Why does it look so old?" Dr. Mohler concludes, "Well that, in terms of any more elaborate answer, is known only to the Ancient of Days." Dr. Mohler has been clear and this is helpful to the conversation.

BioLogos is a place for conversation. We are trying to help the Church see that there is no doubt about the scientific data and we are also trying to stimulate conversation about the theological and pastoral ramifications of the data. We ask questions, and we seek answers. For example, since there is no doubt about the earth being old, what are the ramifications of that for an understanding of Genesis One? As another example: since there is no doubt that God created humans through a gradual process, what are the ramifications for the classical view of Adam and Eve? Paul thought that Adam was historical—are we in hermeneutical trouble if we view Adam as being non-historical and simply a representative for all of us? Do we get into theological problems if Adam is viewed in non-historical terms? Is there a middle ground, for those who hold to a real historical Adam, but who also accept evolutionary creation? Why are these questions so important? Why are they so important to individuals? Why are they so important to the Church? Why are they so important to Christian colleges? Where does one draw the line that marks that place where one has left evangelical Christianity? Whose view of that line should we recognize? How can we demonstrate that the heart of the Gospel message has nothing to do with the age of the earth or how God chose to create life? Since God created through an evolutionary process, what does it mean to say that “God created?” How does all of this affect our view of Scripture as a whole?

BioLogos is a place where Christians can come to ask questions and to seek answers. However, if BioLogos is not also a place where people can sense God’s Presence in the way the questions are framed and the manner in which we seek answers, then the BioLogos project deserves to fail.

I love Micah 4 where the prophet speaks of people streaming to the mountain of the Lord’s temple which will be raised high above the hills. At that point in time, he was speaking to a little band of people, but Micah’s words have come true: the mountain, which is the Church, is no longer just a little band of people.

In the last days, the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established as chief among the mountains: it will be raised above the hills and people will stream to it. Many nations will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways so that we may walk in his paths….they will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. Every man will sit under own vine and under his own fig tree and no one will make them afraid for the Lord almighty has spoken. (Micah 4:1-4).

BioLogos must predominantly be a place where people come to ask questions expecting that the Lord “will teach us his ways.” He will do this as we listen to each other—we, the members of the Body of Christ. The swords have all been beat into plowshares and the spears are pruning hooks. They can’t exist within the Body of Christ and we must never be guilty of constructing them. Not only will God teach us corporately through each other, He will also teach us individually, on our knees before our all-knowing and all-wise God. We all need to listen though.

We will make mistakes. We will stumble. We may even fall. However, having fallen we’ll get back up on our feet as we listen to what God wants to say to us through each other and through our own individual acts of humble worship.

In tomorrow's post, Karl Giberson, who was singled out in the speech, will respond to some of the details of Dr. Mohler's address.

Filed Under:
BioLogos, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Albert Mohler, universe, creationism, evolution, theology, conversation, Richard Dawkins, faith, reason

Share |

Comments (118)
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.


  1. Bilbo - #20515

    July 5th 2010

    Though I don’t always agree with the point of view of Biologos, this seems to be a place that is doing its best to not make spears or swords.

  2. penman - #20516

    July 5th 2010

    Oh dear. Here we go again. Breath-taking scientific ignorance parading itself as biblical fidelity, with accusations of apostasy against anyone who disagrees. It’s time we had that Augustine quote from the Literal Meaning Of Genesis posted up again, in technicolor.

    Your response was more gracious than I can be. I’m sick to death of this kind of thing in the Reformed Evangelical world - and I don’t even live in the US.

  3. Steve Master - #20517

    July 5th 2010

    However one comes down on the issue, the challenges to Mohler’s position are much larger than he may realize.  The “appearance of age” long ago ceased to be the main hurdle; indeed, for a number of reasons (ably outlined by Dr. Collins, among others), Mohler would now have to also maintain that God created an “appearance of evolution” (an “appearance of common descent”).  What, then, would be implied by the statement that “God created things whole”?  Would Mohler argue that God created with the appearance of evolution so that—going forward—we can know that Evolution is an inherent part of the Creation structure?

  4. Mairnéalach - #20520

    July 5th 2010

    One consistent theme I hear from people like Mohler is that Christians are capitulating on evolution because of a desire to look acceptable to cultural elites.

    This is actually a true accusation in many cases. Many Christians who accept evolution are visibly compromised in many areas of doctrine and practice.

    However, Biologos, as I have come to see it, exists not because of a fawning desire to appear good to cultural elites. Rather, it exists in order to provide spiritual and intellectual succor to growing and learning Christians who have been shell-shocked by people like Mohler, who, as an above commenter noted, accuses evolution-accepters of tortured exegesis and compromised theology, but is guilty of the exact same thing with “appearance of age”.

    I love Mohler and his people. It was southern Baptists who first witnessed of the cross to me and they baptized me. However, I am forced to say, Biologos exists to rescue people from blind hypocrites. Fortunately God’s gospel is greater than the party spirit and blindness of one sector of the church, and he works graciously through that party. But this has to be confronted.

  5. Karl A - #20521

    July 5th 2010

    I don’t agree with penman that this speech exemplified “breath-taking scientific ignorance”.  I think Dr. Mohler demonstrated understanding, at some level anyway, of the scientific evidence for an ancient earth.  He’s obviously a learned man and gave a strong speech.  It’s just that, to him, the most faithful Biblical interpretation involves setting aside this extremely strong evidence.  I have to hand it to him, he’s got some kind of faith.  If he interpreted Genesis as saying the sun was the lit end of God’s cigarette, he would have to affirm that “yes, as a faithful Christian I affirm that the sun is indeed the lit end of God’s cigarette in spite of those atheistic scientists and their craven TE supporters providing evidence to the contrary.”  Maybe my faith isn’t that strong, but I just can’t take a mountain of evidence and say, “this mountain does not exist; that it seems to is simply an unfathomable mystery.”

    I note that Dr. Mohler is not speaking ex cathedra, i.e. as SBTS President, but rather at someone else’s conference.  But it does seem like the U.S. wing of the Reformed is coalescing around YEC.

    Lord, help us continue this much-needed dialog in ways that are fruitful and honoring to you.

  6. Irenicum - #20522

    July 5th 2010

    Dr Falk, this was a very gracious post and befitting a Christian spirit of humility combined with assurance. I do wonder, and I say this as someone who is Reformed, if there is a certain kind of Calvinism that is informing their reading of Scripture that precludes an acceptance of evolutionary biology or even an ancient cosmos? Ligonier is a very conservative Calvinistic ministry, dare I say, bordering on fundamentalistic (again, let me say that I’ve benefited greatly from their ministry over the years.My library is well stocked with Reformed and Puritan writings). And yet I know full well that there are many Arminians and in-betweens who also reject evolution, so it isn’t Calvinism per se.

    Ultimately this may reflect more a psychological mindset that feels the need to see reality in starkly dualistic terms. Dawkins reflects that mindset perfectly, and the other side of the aisle sadly behaves the same way. Strangely enough, as scientifically literate as Mr Dawkins is, he’s just as guilty of being uncomfortable with complexity as any religious fundamentalist. So this isn’t really a debate about theology at all, it’s a battle of who is the most comfortable with complexity. Complexity is uncomfortable, but so is God!

  7. beaglelady - #20523

    July 5th 2010

    Unless I missed it, Dr. Mohler never mentions the flat stationary earth, the firmament, or a 3-tier universe that the Bible takes for granted.

  8. Stuart - #20525

    July 5th 2010

    Lovely article and completely agree with all of it frankly.

  9. HornSpiel - #20526

    July 5th 2010

    Let me quote a passage we studied in my Sunday School class yesterday—-at my local Southern Baptist Church.

    We know that “we all have knowledge.” Knowledge inflates with pride, but love builds up.  If anyone thinks he knows anything, he does not yet know it as he ought to know it.  But if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.
                                                                                  I Cor. 8:1—3 (Holman)

    I hope that those taking strong positions in this debate realize that even though we may be sure of something, being right is not the most important thing.

  10. Roger A. Sawtelle - #20527

    July 5th 2010

    How on earth can the gospel message of salvation be dependent on the scientific content of the Bible?  That is truly putting the cart before the horse.

    The good teacher starts with where his/her students are and leads them into higher and higher truths.  One does not teach first graders high school or college physics.  God did not start humanity off with Jesus, but began with Abraham and worked through Jacob, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Elijah and the prophets, all the way to Jesus over 2,000 years and is still revealing the divine through Paul, preachers, and theologians.

    The Bible is not unscientific, but used the scientific understanding the the Hebrews to communicate God’s power and goodness.  If God had waited until the Hebrews were able to understand the theories of Einstein, the Bible would never have been written.  The Hebrews did not have even a true numbering system in than they used their alphabet for numbers.

  11. Roger A. Sawtelle - #20529

    July 5th 2010

    God gave different peoples different gifts.  The Hebrews have a very special spiritual gift, the Greeks were blessed by philosophy, etc.  Moderns have been able to combine these gifts to come up with modern science.  Why would God do for us what we can do for ourselves?  But we are unable to save ourselves, so God sent His only Son so whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting Life. 

    Genesis is true, even if some of the details might be wrong, because God through it reveals the character of the universe as Good, the character of humanity as created in the Image of God, and the need to live in harmony with God, nature, and others.  Since humans are aleinated from all three and themselves, God the Father sent the Son and the Holy Spirit to reconcile humans to Godself and to others and to nature, and to themselves.

    God is Who He Is, not Who we what God to be or Who we think God should be.  God’s plan is to save humanity, starting with the ancient Hebrews and down to today.  I expect that the ancients figured that out when they accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ even though as Gentiles they were culturally different from Him since He was Jewish.  It is ironic that some people today have not.

  12. Roger A. Sawtelle - #20530

    July 5th 2010

    The fact is that the flawed modernist philosophy that produced fundamentalism is not Biblical, but preChristian pagan Greek.  The postmodernist philosophy that supports Darwinian evolution of the New Atheists is also flawed and conflicts with mainstream science.  The challenge is to discover a truly Biblically based philosophy which can be the basis of a renewed scientific of the universe and a renewed understanding of the Good news of Jesus Christ.

    See my website, rightrelates.org, for more information.

  13. nedbrek - #20531

    July 5th 2010

    “The BioLogos Foundation exists in order that the Church, especially the Evangelical Church, can come to peace with the scientific data which shows unequivocally that the universe is very old and that all of life, including humankind, has been created through a gradual process that has been taking place over the past few billion years. BioLogos exists to show that this fact (and it is a fact), need not, indeed must not, affect our relationship with God”

    I don’t see how you can have a conversation with this attitude.  This is pretty uncompromising.

    The “fact” of an old earth is based on the assumption of uniformitarianism.  This should be a piece of cake for a Christian:
    1) The present is the key to the past
    2) People today do not rise from the dead
    3) Jesus did not rise from the dead
    Bonus points) We are still in our sins, and are above all men to be most pitied

  14. gingoro - #20533

    July 5th 2010

    penman @20516

    “I’m sick to death of this kind of thing in the Reformed Evangelical world - and I don’t even live in the US.”

    I am surprised to see the SBC catagorized as reformed.  Rather I would expect that just like in the Canadian Fellowship of Evangelical Baptists or the Cdn Baptist Convention that some churches take a reformed position and some take a a position closer to Pelagius or Arminius.  Whether one is a paedo baptist or an a-milleniumist or not is not the total definition of the reformed position by any means. 

    Is the SBC generally reformed in doctrine? 

    Dave W

  15. norm - #20534

    July 5th 2010

    Those with a penchant for Biologos will need to outperform the Evangelical’s theologically to claim the High Scholarly ground.  Many that frequent Biologos are good at science, philosophy and the metaphysical but weak on Theology. Until that is corrected and our Theology is better than theirs then their Theological story line will generally prevail. 

    An evangelical showing up here at Biologos sees entirely too much energy spent on naturalistic speculation which may be interesting to many but it avoids the tough Theological issues such as the ramifications of Paul seeing Adam as historical. You can’t answer that question by speculating upon when humans became spiritual or whether ANE views allow one to discard Adam historically. IMO you can answer it by knowing Pauline theology better than they do and that requires a comprehensive understanding of the entire biblical narrative.

    As an example if you do not understand Paul’s view of the “spiritual nature of Adam’s Death” then you will waste time trying to fit a physical understanding into the puzzle of Romans and 1 Cor 15 which is what some of our better known authors still do. They end up literalizing Gen 3 because they haven’t looked at it with fresh eyes.

  16. Canadian evangelical. - #20538

    July 5th 2010

    Why would anyone care what Mohler says?  He daren’t say anything else or he’s out of a job. 

    BioLogos must learn to rise above these little domestic U.S. power squabbles that everyone else in the world laughs at.

  17. unapologetic catholic - #20539

    July 5th 2010

    ” Many that frequent Biologos are good at science, philosophy and the metaphysical but weak on Theology. Until that is corrected and our Theology is better than theirs then their Theological story line will generally prevail.”

    Dr. Mohler is at odds with the teaching of my denomination which has a fair share of theologians well outside his class.

    I’ll be blunt.  Mohler is anti-Catholic.  This is yet another example of his polite anti-Catholicism.

  18. Gabriel Powell - #20540

    July 5th 2010

    It seems the only questions allowed at BioLogos are those that question Scripture. This post admits that there is no questioning science. An old earth and evolution are facts—don’t question them.

    The only questions permitted are “how do we fit our inerrant science into errant scripture?”

    Oh, and if scripture is inspired, as Falk admits, then does that make God the author of error since scripture is not inerrant? (just asking a question!)

    BioLogos must predominantly be a place where people come to ask questions expecting that the Lord “will teach us his ways.” He will do this as we listen to each other

    Ignoring for a moment that the scripture passage is taken out of context and refers to the millennium, applying it for today, what role does Scripture play in teaching us? If it’s God’s Word, shouldn’t we look to it for answers instead of only to each other?

  19. norm - #20547

    July 5th 2010

    unapologetic catholic - #20539

    I was speaking generally to evangelicals. I agree that the Catholics are outperforming the Evangelicals now in regard to Genesis. However the Catholics have their baggage elsewhere as well. No denomination has all their ducks in order and most likely the political nature of religious organizations will never allow any to have it all together at any one time.

  20. penman - #20548

    July 5th 2010

    Gingoro:

    <<I am surprised to see the SBC catagorized as reformed.  Rather I would expect that just like in the Canadian Fellowship of Evangelical Baptists or the Cdn Baptist Convention that some churches take a reformed position and some take a a position closer to Pelagius or Arminius.  Whether one is a paedo baptist or an a-milleniumist or not is not the total definition of the reformed position by any means. >>

    Ooops. Sorry, Gingoro: I meant that the Reformed Evangelical world in the United Kingdom, where I live, is rife with militant YECism, denouncing both Old Earth Creationism & Evolutionary Creationism with ceaseless vigour. I mentioned in a different thread how the UK’s Evangelical Times beats the YEC drum loudly in every issue. OECs & ECs huddle & mutter together, awaiting the dawn…

    I don’t know whether the SBC could be collectively called “Reformed Evangelical”, although Al Mohler is (isn’t he?). An American friend can perhaps enlighten us.

  21. richard williams - #20555

    July 5th 2010

    nowhere in the speech do i see the crucial distinction of using vs teaching. many elements of an ancient hebraic worldview are being used to communicate the OT, many elements of a 1st C greco-jewish worldview are being used to communicate the NT. in the US a terrible un-civil war was fought to eliminate the elements of greco-roman slavery from a scriptural worldview that created the american south, by confusing using with teaching, incidentals with message. far more quietly the elements of demonic possession vs germ theory for the origins of dis-ease has disappeared from our current christian worldview. like the flat earth, geo-centric universe, 3-tiered (heaven above, hell below) physical theories, young earth creationism confuses things being used versus things being taught, those things part of the cultural inheritance of the scripture’s writers versus those things God demands us to adhere to through the ages as part of the faith.

    shame. you’d think the american south would have learned this lesson.

  22. Argon - #20556

    July 5th 2010

    So, what these are people learning from Catholic and Jewish philosophers, who have examined these issues for much, much longer than the evangelical community? Why reinvent the wheel? The Baptists used to have a reasonably vibrant, open discussions (among scholars, if no among the lay people).

  23. William Doolittle - #20562

    July 5th 2010

    “How should BioLogos respond?”

    Whatever the response may be, it should be accompanied with the sort of grace and humility exemplified in this very post. As a former KJV-only subscriber, I know first hand that disagreements of this kind are less often settled by biting rebuttals than by the display of a truly Christian spirit.

  24. Headless Unicorn Guy - #20566

    July 5th 2010

    The “appearance of age” long ago ceased to be the main hurdle; indeed, for a number of reasons (ably outlined by Dr. Collins, among others), Mohler would now have to also maintain that God created an “appearance of evolution” (an “appearance of common descent”).

    OMPHALOS.
    by Gosse.
    Mid-Victorian times.

  25. JKnott - #20567

    July 5th 2010

    There is a good point made by Gabriel, no matter how much I disagree with his overall perspective.  The swords into plowshares is eschatological.  We aren’t over the struggle yet, not in the Church, not on BioLogos, not anywhere. Jesus said he came to bring a “sword.”  Not literal, mind you, but neither is the “swords” talked of in the post.

    On Reformed theology..I found it helped me a bit out of fundamentalism, because I figured God is able to get his message accross even with imperfect means (scripture). And in what may seem to many an “extreme” version of Reformed theology, supralapsarianism, one sees God’s plan of salvation preceeding, and thus pre-supposing and planning for (in a way), the fall.  So the universe was meant to be fallen, therefore could have been from the beginning.  In my view that helps with evolution.

  26. JKnott - #20568

    July 5th 2010

    So though I agree with Roger on a lot, I must demur from his view that the “point” of Genesis is that creation is good.  Seems to me things went fundamentally awry. And if you look at the eons of pain and suffering which we know about, can we deny this?  Do we need to?  The problem with literalistic readings of Gen., IMHO, is the issue of how and when things went wrong. Hence I’m helped by supralapsarianism.  My two cents.

  27. zane - #20570

    July 5th 2010

    ”...if BioLogos is not also a place where people can sense God’s Presence in the way the questions are framed and the manner in which we seek answers, then the BioLogos project deserves to fail.”

    Amen to that. I found this website when I was looking for answers to the evolution/creation controversy, but I kept coming back for the Christian spirit of the site. I found this blog, even more than the YEC ones (The speed of light changes? That’s your explanation!?), were full of a real love of truth, God, and the creation. This site most certainly does not deserve to fail. Keep up the good work.

  28. gingoro - #20574

    July 5th 2010

    penman @20548
    “I meant that the Reformed Evangelical world in the United Kingdom, where I live, is rife with militant YECism, denouncing both Old Earth Creationism & Evolutionary Creationism with ceaseless vigour.”

    Would you include evangelicals in the Presbyterian churches in Scotland and Northern Ireland in that generalization?  I read and used to comment on the blog of a UK reformed baptist who teaches at a seminary in Kenya and he is clearly YEC and also very ignorant of science.  He proposes that all the diversity we see now has occurred by RM + NS since the flood.  Amazing how fast evolution can work.
    Here in Canada I do not see much militant YEC in the reformed churches (mainline or CRC) although there are small splinter sepratestic groups that could be different.  I rarely see any of the smaller reformed groups as probably they would not consider me a Christian or maybe an apostate one at best.  The PCA have a few churches here and they could also lean to YEC although I do not recall any of that when we were members of a PCA church, 13 years ago.  I strongly suspect that lots of the Baptist congregations have a strong YEC position. 

    Dave W

  29. norm - #20575

    July 5th 2010

    The problem with an eschatological evaluation of scripture is that many aren’t prepared to interpret symbolism. Beating ones swords into plowshares is a symbol of the spiritual peace that comes from the Messianic fulfillment. A similar expression that often gets distorted by the literalist is Isaiah 11’s illustration of Domestic animals lying down with the wild untamed animals which is simply imagery of Jews coming together with Gentiles and is not a physical return to paradise lost courtesy of the YEC. 

      Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit.  …  (6)  And THE WOLF SHALL DWELL WITH THE LAMB, AND THE LEOPARD SHALL LIE DOWN WITH THE KID; AND THE CALF AND THE YOUNG LION AND THE FATLING TOGETHER; AND A LITTLE CHILD SHALL LEAD THEM.  (7)  AND THE COW AND THE BEAR SHALL FEED; THEIR YOUNG ONES SHALL LIE DOWN TOGETHER; AND THE LION SHALL EAT STRAW LIKE THE OX.  9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain

    Hos 2:18 And in that day will I MAKE A COVENANT FOR THEM WITH THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD,… and I WILL BREAK THE BOW AND THE SWORD AND THE BATTLE OUT OF THE LAND, and WILL MAKE THEM TO LIE DOWN SAFELY.

  30. ttotto - #20579

    July 5th 2010

    I think that trying to work with the denomination and in some case the seminaries of groups like the SBC is close to useless.  The only approach seems to be to work with individuals, pastors and in a few cases local churches.  In a local case I know of a baptist minister who was ostracized by many churches in his mainly fundy denomination simply for having fellowship with Christians of other denominations and not condemning other denominations as apostate.  In many cases, I think only time and God’s grace will change such people.  A friend who was best man at my wedding has totally cut contact over issues much more minor than Genesis.

  31. gingoro - #20580

    July 5th 2010

    unapologetic catholic @20539

    “I’ll be blunt.  Mohler is anti-Catholic.  This is yet another example of his polite anti-Catholicism.”

    If that is true then I would rank him with Ian Paisly which is getting pretty close to the bottom with me.  At a former church, an elder left because he was not happy with the minister that was called.  The elder went to the congregation that hosts Paisley when he visited our city.  I was not the least bit sorry to see that elder leave as he would fit in better in a splinter racist church.  Paisly may be a Christian, that is between him and God but his teaching is evil at least in this area.

    My mother’s family was from Ireland and were Presbyterians but mother would never stand for Paisley’s kind of anti Catholic rants.
    Dave

  32. Landon - #20583

    July 5th 2010

    I wonder if any of those who have recently advanced public criticisms of Biologos realize that their criticisms are probably increasing traffic to this site smile.  I certainly have followed Biologos more closely in the past month or so than I did over the preceding months.

  33. Matthew - #20587

    July 5th 2010

    Just another “me too!” I genuinely appreciate the gracious & thoughtful nature of this post. I think that Dr. Mohler is dead wrong here, but he is clearly a servant of God just trying to be faithful to the truth, just like Dr. Falk. Both are working hard, I believe, to preach Christ and bring hope to others, and I hope that by discussing these issues frankly and honestly there can be good communication and more glory brought to our Savior. I also hope that future discussions of this sort continue to follow the exemplary & charitable tone expressed in this article. Thanks so much for your work, BioLogos!

  34. dave - #20588

    July 5th 2010

    I guess you’ll have to lay out your criteria for determining which miracle stories in the Bible are real and which are metaphorical.

    Good luck with that.

  35. dave - #20592

    July 5th 2010

    Matthew’s comment is an excellent example of how “moderate” believers enable fundamentalists.

  36. Bilbo - #20596

    July 5th 2010

    So if we preach the gospel to people who believe in an old earth and evolution, should we make sure they repent of those sins, as well?

  37. unapologetic catholic - #20599

    July 5th 2010

    “If that is true then I would rank him with Ian Paisly which is getting pretty close to the bottom with me.”

    Rank him with Paisley.  Here he is on Larry King:

    ”“As an evangelical, I believe the Roman church is a false church and it teaches a false gospel” I believe the pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office.”

    I am not critical of any post here, specifically Norm’s.  Mohler’s position is not orthodox Christianity and it is uselees to pretend that it is.  Orthodox Christians can be YEC’s   What is not orthodox os declaring that YEC is THE ONLY orthodox belief.  That position rejects 2000 years of Christian thought.

    It also is a violation of the First Commandment.  Mohler should stop worshiping his unique interpretation of scripture and start worshiping God

  38. HornSpiel - #20603

    July 5th 2010

    A Baptist theologian went to the Grand Canyon for a retreat. At the edge of the chasm and savoring the sunrise, he asked, “Oh Ancient of Days, why did you make the earth to appear so old?”

    Soon a Park Naturalist came along and asked “Hi, what’re you doing?”

    “I’m wondering why God made the earth appear so old,” replied the theologian.

    “I’m about to lead a hike down the canyon to learn about the ancient history of this area. Want to come?” offered the Naturalist. “I’ll show you layers of rock that show different ancient ecosystems and fossils of the flora and fauna that lived there. It is clear they were laid down over millions of years.”

    “No thanks I am waiting for God to answer me.”

    About noon a Texas Oilman drove up. “Howdy. That must be your car with the Texas plates. What’s going on?”

    “I’m asking God why he made the earth to appear so old,” replied the theologian.

    ” I used to think the earth was young too, until I got into the oil business. I have charts that show the strata all over this area. It is clear that they were laid down over millions of years, and then the land started rising. Let me show you how the river carved this canyon as the land rose,” offered the Oilman.

    Continued…

  39. HornSpiel - #20604

    July 5th 2010

    Continued…

    “No thanks, I don’t need to see your charts. I’m waiting for God to answer me.”

    As the sun started to set, an Astronomer arrived and began to set up a telescope.

    “The stars are going to be amazing tonight. No moon. I’ll be looking for a quasar 8.7 billion light years away. By the way, what are you doing tonight?” inquired the Astromomer

    “I’m waiting for God to tell me why he made the earth to appear so old,” replied the theologian rather testily. “And no, I am not interested in looking at things supposedly billions of light years away.”

    Just then a bolt of lighting slashed through the darkening sky ushering the theologian into the presence of God.

    “Lord, I don’t mean to be rude, but why didn’t you answer my question about the age of the earth?” asked the theologian.

    “What do you mean? I sent you a Naturalist, a Geologist and an Astronomer,” Replied God.

    “I’ll be a monkey’s uncle!” the theologian exclaimed.

    “Well actually…”

  40. Karl A - #20607

    July 5th 2010

    HornSpiel, my daughter and I got a good laugh out of that one!  She’s traveling soon to meet her SBC best friend who is being raised YEC.  I don’t think I’ll recommend sharing that story though… smile  As the Wicked Witch of the West said, “These things must be done delicately.”

  41. Ashe - #20618

    July 6th 2010

    This guy doesn’t realize that plant death was likely rampant even under a young earth model. Plants aren’t alive you say? Well then, you have essentially undercut many anti-OOL-from-geochemistry arguments with that assertion.

  42. penman - #20623

    July 6th 2010

    Gingoro (otherwise known as Dave):
    <<Would you include evangelicals in the Presbyterian churches in Scotland and Northern Ireland in that generalization?>>

    Very much so. Northern Ireland Reformed Evangelicals are very militant over YECism; witness the furore over their attempts to get YECism put alongside mainstream geology in the National Museum in Ulster (see Jim Kidder’s website, scroll down to Tuesday, June 22, “More Trouble in Northern Ireland”).

    And Scottish Reformed Evangelicals (including Presbyterians) also have a strong YEC constituency - I know Scotland pretty well from first-hand acquaintance, although I’m English. There is a beacon of hope for the Free Church of Scotland, if only they’d look at their founding fathers like Thomas Chalmers & Hugh Miller, who were at least thoroughly Old Earth. Miller’s “Testimony of the Rocks” has the best defence of a local flood I’ve ever read - and Miller was a devout Calvinist.

    Looks like you have things a lot easier in Canada. Perhaps I should emigrate. For folks like me, BioLogos is a life-giving oxygen supply (although I wish a historical Adam of some sort could get a better theological hearing…)

    BTW do you prefer Gingoro or Dave?

  43. nedbrek - #20624

    July 6th 2010

    Ashe - #20618, the Bible says life is in the blood.  Plants do not have blood.  How does that undercut the YEC story?

  44. MF - #20646

    July 6th 2010

    “For example, since there is no doubt about the earth being old, what are the ramifications of that for an understanding of Genesis One? As another example: since there is no doubt that God created humans through a gradual process, what are the ramifications for the classical view of Adam and Eve?”

    I appreciate BioLogos’s mission, and I hold to evolutionary creationism. However, I don’t think we can ever say that there is “no doubt” about a current scientific theory (cf. also Peter Enns’s recent post on doubt in a theological context). Rather I would say we need to hold even these most supported beliefs provisionally.

    There is a mountain of evidence across many disciplines for an old earth, and it would seem nigh impossible to contradict and overrule that theory with future scientific discoveries. But we have to agree that it could happen. Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions has taught us that we must be humble as we work in our current paradigm.

    Sadly, such humility is hard to find on either side of this debate, as Dr. Falk’s phrasing indicates. Substitute “virtually no doubt” and I’d be with you.

  45. Kent Sparks - #20653

    July 6th 2010

    One notices how often this kind of rhetoric is coming out of Reformed theological circles. Conservative reformed theology believes that God unconditionally decides who will be saved and then picks only a select few as objects of his love ... leaving everyone else to burn in hell as objects of his eternal wrath. God loves everyone, but not in a way that actually expresses the love in Christ, who died only for the elect and not for the unelected. 

    I only point this out because I suspect there is some sort of epistemic connection between this line of theological thinking and a close-minded approach to scientific evidence. Namely, I suspect that one of the foundational issues is soteriological anxiety ... in a world were God is unconditionally picking and choosing who goes to heaven and hell, I will need all of my theology to lead indubitably and incorrigibly to a guarantee that I am saved. And when that’s the case, there’s not much room for an openness to options and questions .... almost any question leads inexorably to another slippery slope.

  46. Ashe - #20656

    July 6th 2010

    @20624 I think I know what you’re referring to but I don’t think that can be taken as general definition of life. I very much doubt that the answer we have all been looking for as to the boundary between life and non-life is one atom of iron.

  47. Kent Sparks - #20657

    July 6th 2010

    Hi MF:

    “I don’t think we can ever say that there is “no doubt” about a current scientific theory.”

    Though I agree with the spirit of your comment, I don’t think its quite right. There came a point, for instance, when we simply rejected without doubt the Ptolemaic theory of the cosmos. For the data that supported that view simply failed in comparison with other data and theories. In a similar way, I would argue that there are no longer any reasons, biblical or scientific, to suggest that the universe is young nor to reject evolution. So I’m with the Biologos rhetoric ... it’s not longer suitable to act as if a young earth, and a scientific reading of Genesis, are possibilities ... about this, I’d say there is “no doubt.”

    ... the only trick of course is that it’s always possible that even in cases where we should have “no doubt” we might turn out to be wrong ... c’est la vie as a human being.

  48. Mairnéalach - #20659

    July 6th 2010

    Kenton,

    I believe your theory that Reformed theology is particularly susceptible to young earthism is not supported by the evidence.

    For example, many Reformed stalwarts were quite open to an old earth and evolution, and they held to election in Christ. B.B. Warfield, etc.

    A competing denomination, Lutheranism, vehemently opposes “election unto reprobation” and makes a big deal of their difference with Calvinism. However, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod takes the most absolute hard line on young earthism of any confessional denomination in the U.S.A.

    I suspect the psycho-religious “fault lines”, if there are such a thing, lie somewhere else. Often, in these debates, I suspect that pure theological loyalties are not nearly as dominating as mere party ones. Often these men are driven by exactly the same thing they rightly accuse scientific academia of—driven by the desire to be “part of the team”, loyal, toeing the party line against the encroaching barbarians. Thus you see careful theological thinking go by the wayside, just as you do in academia, for the same reasons.

  49. nedbrek - #20663

    July 6th 2010

    Ashe - #20656, I’m not suggesting it as a general definition - but as the Biblical one.  When the Bible speaks of life and death it is about the blood.

  50. Kent Sparks - #20664

    July 6th 2010

    Hi Mairnéalach:

    You’re quite right that Reformed theology and young earth creationism don’t go hand in hand, and you’re also right that there are those outside of the Reformed tradition that eshew anything that look’s “unbiblical.” But I think that there’s still something to my point only because in casual conversations with TRs I find that the soteriological implications ... How can we be sure we’re right and going to heaven?” lurk in the background.

    Upon further reflection prompted by your comment, however, I do think that party loyalties play a fascinating and important role in all of this. There is a litmus test mentality that is tied not so much to what one believes as to whether one is on “our side” or “their side.” In this regard, its interesting how disconcerting it was when Bruce Waltke took a stand in favor of evolution, and how in recent months Sproul and now Mohler have come out in favor of young earth creationism. There’s a fear that the party is being split up ... so the party lines are being drawn quickly and thickly.

    Thanks for your insight.

  51. nedbrek - #20665

    July 6th 2010

    Kent Sparks - #20653, I don’t think that is a fair view of election.  Everyone wants assurance of salvation, and Arminianism is not really better in this regard.  There is always the doubt than one has believed rightly enough, or repented enough to attain to righteousness.

  52. Roger A. Sawtelle - #20666

    July 6th 2010

    The best way to describe Adam is the indicated by how the Bible does it.  Adam is a collective noun representing humanity.  Sin entered the world through the first human beings and has been passed from generation to generation by our collective behavior.  We choose to sin just as the first humans chose to sin, we perpetuate that sin by failing to acknowledge it just as the first humans did.  Sin has consequences, social and individual, for us just as it did for them.

    You can blame God for giving humans free will even if He knew they would abuse this gift.  I hope you don’t blame God for giving us life, even though He knows we are going to suffer and die.  Suffering is not the human problem, sin is.  Sin does cause suffering, but so living for God also means to endure suffering as Jesus knows.  Suffering for the right is good, but for the wrong is not.

    The story of the primal man and woman is true and historical, because it took place in time and space.  It sets the framework of the salvation story of Jesus Christ.  It may not be scientifically true, but who can say?  It is theologically and philosophically true and since this is the level of truth that we are discussing, this makes it true.

  53. nedbrek - #20667

    July 6th 2010

    Roger A. Sawtelle - #20666, humanity as a collective noun lived 130 years then fathered Seth?  Then lived 800 more years, then died?

  54. dave - #20669

    July 6th 2010

    Sin entered the world through the first human beings and has been passed from generation to generation by our collective behavior.  We choose to sin just as the first humans chose to sin

    If every single human being chooses to sin, then that indicates that God created us with a propensity to sin. If we truly had free will, you’d expect at least 10% of humans to choose not to sin.

    I’m not blaming God for sin, mind you. I don’t believe in God. I’m just pointing out how your story is not internally consistent.

  55. Roger A. Sawtelle - #20671

    July 6th 2010

    “There is always the doubt than one has believed rightly enough, or repented enough to attain to righteousness.”
                        nedbrek (or Kent Sparks) above

    If this is true then conservative Christianity is in serious trouble.  Salvation is based on faith which is the gift of grace, not by works, be they repenting or believing.  Legalism is the opposite of faith, whether its is based on right theology or right works. 

    Salvation is based on the gift of the the Spirit and is evidenced by the Fruit of Spirit.  It is based on righteousness which is the right relationship to God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  It is based on the Love of Jesus Christ for His people that nothing can sever.

  56. nedbrek - #20674

    July 6th 2010

    dave - #20669, God created Adam without the propensity to sin.  By Adam, sin entered the world - everyone descended from Adam does have a propensity to sin.  We are sinners from conception.

  57. Justin Poe - #20676

    July 6th 2010

    Kent’s comments on the Reformed Church are just not accurate.  As one who has been in conservative Reformed Churchs for years, I knew plenty that held to Calvinism and NOT the YEC model of Genesis.  Now, most, if not all, thought that Adam and Eve were literal created beings, and the two starters of the human race, many believed in the OEC.

  58. dave - #20677

    July 6th 2010

    nedbrek -so propensity to sin is hereditary? There goes free will then. Why did God design humans such that propensity to sin is hereditary?

  59. Zane - #20678

    July 6th 2010

    @Roger A. Sawtelle
    “Legalism is the opposite of faith, whether its is based on right theology or right works.”

    Right on! I think this right theology legalism is the real root of the problem, more than the reformed or armenian theology. Rather than relying on the “Love of Jesus Christ for His people”, Christians will start relying on a transaction with God where either (a) salvation must be repaid with good works/theology or (b) salvation must be earned with good works/theology. I think Calvinists would tend to fall more in the former group and Armenians in the latter (just an opinion), but regardless both views have the same fundamental flaw. They each ignore the unconditional love that is the heart of salvation and turn it into a business deal, where God wants something from us in exchange for our salvation (like orthodoxy so bold it is willing to defy the last century of scientific progress).

  60. gingoro - #20682

    July 6th 2010

    Kent Sparks @20653

    “One notices how often this kind of rhetoric is coming out of Reformed theological circles.”

    About a year ago Cameron Wybrow on the ASA mail list complained that there were too many reformed among the TE group.  So I take it that there are too many reformed who are YEC as well as too many who are EC/TE.  Something does not add up!

    As someone who has been in a reformed church since the late 70s I find Ligonier Ministries and RC Sproul take a relatively extreme version of reformed doctrine and I never hear about them in context of our local church (CRC) but only on blogs like this one.  I believe that many in the PCA are closer to Sprouls thought and teachings at least in some congregations. 

    Tim Keller who wrote a white paper for Biologos is a PCA pastor by the way.
    http://biologos.org/resources/timothy-keller/
    and maybe some might read him as YEC, I don’t.
    Dave W
    Address me either as Dave or gingoro I don’t care.  Gingoro means black and white colobus monkey in Ethiopia where I grew up. 
    http://www.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=colobus+monkey&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=2GczTNG6MsvsnQfDrMT8Aw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQsAQwAA
    Very pretty monkey.

  61. nedbrek - #20684

    July 6th 2010

    dave - #20677, for an excellent discussion on free will, try Luther’s _Bondage of the Will_.  In summary, a non-Christian’s will is free in regard to sin - what manner of rebellion he will choose next to express towards God.  It is never free in regard to becoming right with God; doing what is right and good.

  62. dave - #20685

    July 6th 2010

    “In summary, a non-Christian’s will is free in regard to sin - what manner of rebellion he will choose next to express towards God.  It is never free in regard to becoming right with God; doing what is right and good.”

    So we are not free not to choose sin, only free in the manner of what sin we choose? That’s not free will.

  63. nedbrek - #20689

    July 6th 2010

    It depends what you mean by free will smile

    A strict materialist would probably deny free will altogether.

    For a Christian, it is really soteriology - salvation talk.  We are totally unable to save ourselves (dead in sin).  To be able to be good apart from God’s saving grace denies this dead-ness.

    Put another way, you are free to do as you like, but your motives will never be right.  It will never be God honoring.

  64. penman - #20697

    July 6th 2010

    Mairnéalach:
    <<I believe your [Kent’s] theory that Reformed theology is particularly susceptible to young earthism is not supported by the evidence. For example, many Reformed stalwarts were quite open to an old earth and evolution, and they held to election in Christ. B.B. Warfield, etc.>>

    Alas, that’s confessional Reformed theology of a previous era. Most of the 19th & early 20th century Reformed theologians were indeed Old Earth, & some (notably Warfield) not hostile to evolution. But there’s been a sea-change since the 1960s, well documented in Ronald Numbers’ book “The Creationists.” You’d be hard pressed to name many leading confessional Reformed theologians of today who are overtly Old Earth or pro-evolution.

    At the grass-roots level in British Reformed churches, my universal experience has been the popularity of YECism via bodies like AiG. (Pastors seem less susceptible than their flocks.) And as I keep saying, the major UK conservative Reformed Evangelical mag, the Evangelical Times, is militantly YEC.

  65. Kent Sparks - #20705

    July 6th 2010

    Dear Nedbrek,

    “Everyone wants assurance of salvation ...”

    Yes, I think that’s right. But not everyone believes that one can have “indubitable” assurance, which is something the Reformers were after.

    I believe that in the end I will be saved and don’t worry much about it ... but I don’t know that this i the case indubitably ... after all, I don’t even know for sure that God exists ... I only trust and believe that he does.

  66. Kent Sparks - #20706

    July 6th 2010

    Hi Justin:

    “Kent’s comments on the Reformed Church are just not accurate ... I knew plenty that held to Calvinism and NOT the YEC model of Genesis.”

    My point is NOT that everyone in the Reformed churches are YECers. My point is that many of the YECers that I know seem to Total Reformed or from Bible churches.

  67. dave - #20707

    July 6th 2010

    Nedbrek, what you’re saying is that individual humans don’t choose to sin - they have no choice. So God thinks it’s OK to punish people for something they have no choice about? And you’re OK with this? That’s not a god I would want to worship.

  68. nedbrek - #20710

    July 6th 2010

    God punishes sin (He must do so, in order to be just).  We are morally responsible for our sin, regardless of our ability to do otherwise.

    Perhaps there is a better way of phrasing it.  God is not unjust or unfair.  That is the whole point.  In order to be just, He must punish sin.  That is why Jesus died, so that there is always a punishment for sin (either we are punished in Hell, or Jesus was punished on our behalf).

  69. nedbrek - #20711

    July 6th 2010

    Kent Sparks - #20705, that seems scary to me.  I don’t think I would be able to sleep if I believed as you do.  Isn’t all of First John about “so that you may know”?

  70. gingoro - #20714

    July 6th 2010

    Kent Sparks @20706

    What does “Total Reformed” mean?  That is not a term used in Presbyterian, PCA, or CRC churches that we have attended. 
    Dave

  71. BV - #20723

    July 6th 2010

    According to the transcript as linked, Dr. Mohler said: “a direct reading of the text would indicate to us seven 24-hour days”

    I still don’t get this.  The 24 hour day is predicated upon a rotating earth that itself orbits the sun.  Genesis 1 is written from a geocentric perspective, not because they’re stupid, but because it was entirely obvious (go outside and look up!).  The day was measured from sunrise to sunset; those living during the time when Genesis 1 was formed and written would have no idea what a 24 hour day was. 

    Why YECs refuse to acknowledge (they hardly even respond) is beyond me.  I just don’t get it.  Rant over.

  72. nedbrek - #20724

    July 6th 2010

    1) On day 4, one day = 24 h
    2) A day always equals a day
    3) On days 1-3, one day = 24h

  73. Scott Jorgenson - #20725

    July 6th 2010

    If I might add to the generalizations with a little deconstruction…

    I do think the basic observation that there are a disproportionate number of Reformed involved in this debate has a lot of validity to it.  But frankly I think this is a matter of self-selection.  From what I can tell, Calvinism is the most rationalistic of all the Protestant traditions, and thus the most doctrinally-detailed and confessional (a penchant toward rationalism leading naturally to wanting to set things down with precision, elaboration, and delineation between in and out).  As such, I suspect those attracted to Calvinism are more likely than others to be involved in the origins debate as well, on two counts:

    - First, since the things in question in the origins debate (science, history, philosophy, theology) also inherently attract a rationalistic mindset, there is a simple birds-of-a-feather phenomenon going on.

    - Second, since highly-elaborated doctrine by definition touches on so many things, the origins debate is almost inevitably going to brush up against Reformed confessions.  And since doctrine is so important in the rationalistic mindset, this leads to high interest among Calvinists in either integrating or rejecting that brush-up.

  74. Alan - #20727

    July 6th 2010

    Nedbrek,

    Never mind listening to scientists from Biologos, you would seriously improve your understanding (and your arguments) if you just listened to creationists who know what they are talking about. Try;

     

    Kurt Wise on transitional fossils

    and

    Todd Wood on vestigial organs

  75. Kent Sparks - #20728

    July 6th 2010

    Hi gingoro:

    You probably wouldn’t know the term because its an exonym used by the non-Reformed to describe extreme varieties of Reformed theology. The acronym is TR and means either “Thoroughly Reformed” or “Total Reformed,” depending on who uses it.

    Hi Nedbrek:

    ” that seems scary to me. I don’t think I would be able to sleep if I believed as you do.  Isn’t all of First John about “so that you may know”?”

    This gets back to my earlier point, that “soteriological anxieties” run deep in the Evangelical tradition and especially in TR traditions. To live life without knowing one’s eternal destiny is “scary.” But it needn’t be the case ... most of human beings who have ever lived got up in the morning, worked hard, went to bed, had children, and then died without “knowing for sure” they’d go to heaven ,... or that there even was a heaven. So it surely can’t be so necessary for living a happy life ...

  76. Kent Sparks - #20729

    July 6th 2010

    ... As for First John, there are lots of other biblical texts to consider, plus the fact that the author’s sense that “he knows for sure” doesn’t necessarily mean that he was right ... Jesus, in particular, points out the Pharisee who went up to the temple “knew for sure” while the “sinner” who stood warily at a distance went home justified.

    But to get back to the point, I still believe that for many Christians their commitment to things like YEC reflects their need for a world where everything points clearly and inexorably to their own salvation.

  77. nedbrek - #20733

    July 6th 2010

    “most of human beings who have ever lived got up in the morning, worked hard, went to bed, had children, and then died without ‘knowing for sure’”

    Right, and most of them probably went to Hell.  Ignorance of one’s fate may be bliss for a while, but not for eternity…

  78. nedbrek - #20734

    July 6th 2010

    Alan - #20727, thank you for those links.  I look forward to reading through them.

  79. R Hampton - #20739

    July 6th 2010

    nedbrek,
    When men claim to “know” they are mistaken. Instead, they believe what God has told them to be the absolute truth. That’s not direct knowledge, but trust in one who has direct knowledge, a.k.a faith.

    I have trusted in the Lord without wavering,
    Test me, O Lord, and try me,
    Examine my heart and my mind;
    For your love is ever before me,
    And I walk continually in your truth.

    Psalm 26:1b-3 NIV

  80. Kent Sparks - #20743

    July 6th 2010

    Nedbrek:

    “Right, and most of them probably went to Hell.”

    First, I don’t understand how you could know that given that “God is not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” ... and secondly, I think that my point would still stand, inasmuch as by saying “most” you admit that some “made it,” so to speak.

    But again, back to the main point, I think that soteriological issues run deep in all of these Evangelical debates about science and the Bible.

  81. nedbrek - #20744

    July 6th 2010

    Everything is interconnected in the Bible.  If you do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, it impacts your understanding of Jesus’ (and Paul’s) references to them.  If you do not believe that the patriarchs lived long lives (approaching 1000 years), in a literal Flood, that impacts your theology.

  82. Headless Unicorn Guy - #20746

    July 6th 2010

    What does “Total Reformed” mean?  That is not a term used in Presbyterian, PCA, or CRC churches that we have attended.—gingoro - #20714

    I first heard the term over at Internet Monk.

    I believe it means Hyper-Calvinists, AKA “Predestination Uber Alles”, who are extremely overbearing.  Parsing Theology letter-by-letter in a game of One-Upmanship, denouncing and anathemizing any and all who are not Themselves.

  83. gingoro - #20749

    July 6th 2010

    Kent Sparks @20728


    “You probably wouldn’t know the term because its an exonym used by the non-Reformed to describe extreme varieties of Reformed theology. The acronym is TR and means either “Thoroughly Reformed” or “Total Reformed,” depending on who uses it.”

    Maybe it is what I call the Hyper Calvinists who seem pretty close to determinists or fatalists to me, kind of like Muslims and ‘Insha Allah’.  Prayer for such calvinists seems to be only about praise,  adoration and confession but never petitions.  A few years ago I was reading such a theologian and I almost threw the booklet across the room in utter disgust. 
    IMO very sterile. 
    Dave

  84. R Hampton - #20750

    July 6th 2010

    If you do not believe in a literal…

    Which is why some Protestants - particularly Conservative Evangelicals - do not consider the 1.1 billion Roman Catholics to be truly Christian.

    Pope Benedict XVI, September 12, 2008—Scripture requires exegesis, and it requires the context of the community in which it came to birth and in which it is lived ... To put it yet another way: there are dimensions of meaning in the word and in words which only come to light within the living community of this history-generating word. Through the growing realization of the different layers of meaning, the word is not devalued, but in fact appears in its full grandeur and dignity. Therefore the Catechism of the Catholic Church can rightly say that Christianity does not simply represent a religion of the book in the classical sense. It perceives in the words the Word, the Logos itself, which spreads its mystery through this multiplicity and the reality of a human history. This particular structure of the Bible issues a constantly new challenge to every generation. It excludes by its nature everything that today is known as fundamentalism. In effect, the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text.

  85. Roger A. Sawtelle - #20752

    July 6th 2010

    “If every single human being chooses to sin, then that indicates that God created us with a propensity to sin. If we truly had free will, you’d expect at least 10% of humans to choose not to sin.”

    Unfortunately it seems that it is difficult to discuss theology in blog size bites.  In a sense humans are born with a propensity to sin because babies are born self centered.  That is okay for a baby or a child, but when we learn to think for ourselves, we must learn to live for the mutual good, rather than for ourselves. 

    Also humans are social beings, rather than the “rugged individualists” as most Americans like to think of themselves.  Thus when society is distorted and poisoned, it distorts and poisons all of its members with its sin.

  86. Roger A. Sawtelle - #20753

    July 6th 2010

    Only by accepting the fact that our lives are distorted and poisoned and using our free will to root them in the True and the Good, that is God, can humans avoid the trap of selfcenteredness and the distortions of popular opinion.  Free will then would seem to be the ability to choose to live for self in its many forms or to choose to accept the gift of divine forgiveness and salvation in order to love.  That is what it means to choose between good and evil. 

    The primal humans were not born, nor did they live in society, yet chose to go their own way and reject the divine way as we all have done.  At that point they ceased to be primal and became ordinary human beings.  How exactly this happened, we cannot say, only that it is true.  There are many things in life that we know must have happened, but we don’t know how they happened, like who invented the first wheel, when and how.

  87. Roger A. Sawtelle - #20756

    July 6th 2010

    “nedbrek#20667

    July 6th 2010

    Roger A. Sawtelle - #20666, humanity as a collective noun lived 130 years then fathered Seth?  Then lived 800 more years, then died?”

    Shucks, I thought that you would explain how the “adam” created in Gen 1 who was both male and female, could be the same “adam” created out of the dust of the earth in Gen 2.  Was adam male “ish” before there was female “ishah”? 

    Wouldn’t be true that the adam who lived innocent and carefree in the Garden would be a far different person from the old man who had to work for a living and had all the cares of a family?

  88. Roger A. Sawtelle - #20759

    July 6th 2010

    The simplest and most direct Biblical answer to Dr. Mohler is, The world appears to be old because it is.  If God had made the earth to appear older than it really is, then God would be a deceiver, and we know that is not true.  Jesus, “The Devil is a liar and the Father of lies.” John 8:44 paraphrase

  89. Kent Sparks - #20767

    July 7th 2010

    gingoro@20749

    Yes, gingoro, that’s the group I’m referring to by TR. I had my own TR phase at one point long ago (after agnosticism but before where I am now), so I do understand and even sympathize from a distance.

    nedbrek - #20744

    “Everything is interconnected in the Bible ... If you do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, it impacts your understanding of Jesus’ (and Paul’s) references to them. If you do not believe that the patriarchs lived long lives (approaching 1000 years), in a literal Flood, that impacts your theology.”

    This is the domino effect I was referring to in TR and in other tightly-drawn theological approaches. When one domino falls, they all fall ... its a terribly precarious way to live one’s ideological life. If evolution is true, then maybe Genesis is wrong, and then maybe Paul is wrong, and then maybe Jesus wasn’t God’s son ... then maybe there isn’t a God ... or maybe there is a God but I’m not saved!

  90. brian - #20776

    July 7th 2010

    First thank you for the kind response, and fruitful. I understand Dr. Mohler. I am very empathetic to their position, it is scary to think you are wrong about God, it is actually horrible and terrifying.  I use to buy the whole YEC, Special Creation, Literal world flood Rapture right around the corner, Jesuit controlled world order. But for their (YEC) position to be true there would have to be a vast conspiracy at all levels of the scientific community, in every nation of the Earth, all the Governments etc. I find that difficult to comprehend. It is not just Geology that would be effected, but Cosmology, Paleontology etc. I will be reading your site. I so want to hold on to my faith in the Lord Jesus. Thank You. Brian

  91. nedbrek - #20783

    July 7th 2010

    I would be lying to say I don’t occasionally have a doubt, and evolution is a big doubt maker.

    But, I know that God’s Word is true because of the effects it has had in my life.

    I grew up Catholic, and learned evolution.  For 30 years I struggled with depression and never really believed in God.  I never read the Bible until I was 30 (dutifully, and it didn’t make any sense).

    Then I became a Christian, and I could see the changes in my life.  I hated the sin in my life, and I trusted God.  I wanted to read the Bible (I hungered and thirsted) and it made sense to me.

    It was a few years later that I heard about YEC, and it just makes more sense in the Biblical context.

    brian, there is no conspiracy.  People are taught evolution and they believe it.  Most never hear the alternative, except through mocking.  They reconcile things as best as they can, and they work in that framework.

  92. John VanZwieten - #20805

    July 7th 2010

    nedbrek,

    If you must chose between trusting God and accepting old earth/evolution, then stick with trusting God, since that as you note makes the most difference in your life.

    However, you may come to a point, as many here have, when you can fully trust God and accept old earth/evolution at the same time.  Or you might not.  In the meantime, I suggest that you do your best to hold full charity for your brothers and sisters who have crossed that bridge and found welcome on the other side.

  93. Kent Sparks - #20825

    July 7th 2010

    Hi Nedbrek:

    “But, I know that God’s Word is true because of the effects it has had in my life.”

    I don’t deny that this should count as evidence that God’s word has positive effects on those who read it. What I would deny is that Scripture must be inerrant to fill that role. Just as God uses you, as a finite, fallen person, to minister to others, so he uses the discourse of Paul ... as a finite and fallen person who deeply loved God and his Church ... to minister to us. To be sure, Paul’s discourse was canonized and your discourse are not, so there is some difference ... but perhaps the difference is not as wide as you suppose. All of it is God’s Spirit in action. 

    We don’t really need or have an inerrant Bible. But what we have is good enough.

  94. nedbrek - #20826

    July 7th 2010

    Kent, I encourage you to reconsider your position on inerrancy.  You can believe in evolution and inerrancy.

    If you cannot trust the Bible to know truth, you will rapidly find there is no truth.

  95. steve hays - #20828

    July 7th 2010

    Kent Sparks - #20653

    “One notices how often this kind of rhetoric is coming out of Reformed theological circles. Conservative reformed theology believes that God unconditionally decides who will be saved and then picks only a select few as objects of his love ... leaving everyone else to burn in hell as objects of his eternal wrath. “

    Mr. Sparks,

    Feel free to quote some historic Reformed confessions which say that God picks out only a selected few as objects of his love. Or perhaps you can cite some Reformed denominations (e.g. OPC, PCA, URC) which say that. I look forward to your documentation.

  96. Kent Sparks - #20829

    July 7th 2010

    nedbrek - #20826

    “I encourage you to reconsider your position on inerrancy ... If you cannot trust the Bible to know truth, you will rapidly find there is no truth.”

    Of course, the point of my paper is that one can trust the Bible to know the truth without believing in inerrancy. So I simply don’t see this as an either-or, as you do. Lots of Christian scholars who reject inerrancy believe in truth, believe that the Bible offers it, and contend for the truth in academia and workaday life.

    For me, the evidence against inerrancy is too strong to make it a doctrine of vital importance. Believe it if you will, but I respectfully implore you not to make the gospel, and scientific research for that matter, hinge on it.

  97. Kent Sparks - #20845

    July 7th 2010

    Hi Steve (steve hays - #20828):

    From the Westminster Larger Catechism:

    Question 30: Does God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery ?

    Answer: God does not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery,into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the covenant of works; but of his mere love and mercy delivers his elect out of it, and brings them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant,commonly called the covenant of grace.

  98. steve hays - #20848

    July 7th 2010

    Ken,

    Your quote from the WLC doesn’t support your claim. It teaches unconditional election, but says nothing about God picking “only a select few.”

    Care to try again?

  99. unapologetic catholic - #20850

    July 7th 2010

    Steve:

    is it your position that the “elect” comprises 100% of humanity?

    When did Gid make his election? before the individually chosens elect’s birth?

  100. steve hays - #20857

    July 7th 2010

    unapologetic catholic.

    Your questions are irrelevant to Ken’s claim. They might be worth answering in another setting, but there’s no point derailing the issue until Ken can either justify his specific claim, or withdraw it in case the supporting material is lacking.

  101. dave - #20861

    July 7th 2010

    “God punishes sin (He must do so, in order to be just).  We are morally responsible for our sin, regardless of our ability to do otherwise.”

    How can we be morally responsible if we had no choice?

    “Perhaps there is a better way of phrasing it.  God is not unjust or unfair.  That is the whole point.  In order to be just, He must punish sin.  That is why Jesus died, so that there is always a punishment for sin (either we are punished in Hell, or Jesus was punished on our behalf).”

    How could it be considered just to punish one person for someone else’s sin? That’s not justice at all.

  102. dave - #20862

    July 7th 2010

    And really, justice does not have to require punishment for sin. God invented the concept of justice (in the Christian view), so he could have invented it such that it didn’t require punishment. He could have created humans such that they were free not to sin.

    If you believe God is omnipotent (which seems to be a Christian tradition, not something actually in the Bible), then it follows that everything in the world is exactly as God intended it to be.

    It would make more sense to believe God isn’t omnipotent, that there are some things he can’t do.

    Of course, to me it makes even more sense not to believe in the Christian God, or any other gods, at all. That also removes the need to reconcile scientific discoveries with mesopotamian religious writings.

  103. nedbrek - #20919

    July 8th 2010

    Hello Dave,
    It may make more sense through the moral law…

    When someone steals from you, you would like to see it returned - that is justice.  If not the exact item, something of equal value.  If they have nothing, they might work to pay it back.  Similarly, if you are hurt, you would like some recompense for your time or work lost.

    God’s law is the same way.  You say God is just making it up, but the law is an expression of God’s character.  In this sense, God is not omnipotent (able to do anything); He is all-powerful (more powerful than anything else).

    When you break God’s law (things like stealing, or killing) it is God who is injured.  We are created in God’s image, so our actions proclaim “This is what God is like!  He is a liar and sexually immoral!”  Like defamation or slander.

    Make sense so far?

  104. David Morris - #20962

    July 8th 2010

    Hi Penman, I hope I’m not too late to this conversation for you. I grew up in the UK, in a reformed leaning Baptist church affiliated with the FIEC. YEC started to manifest itself after I had left, and caused a fair amount of dissent. I don’t think it is the best position, in fact, part of me feels that it is dangerous to insist on it, but I can see the attractions of it.

    One of the most helpful pieces I have read on the whole thing is this one, by Melvin Tinker (a CofE vicar in Hull). Tinker is reformed and it was written for Evangelicals Now.

    http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-4522-No-conflict.htm

    Don’t leave the UK just yet. I found the situation in the UK to be much less tense than it is in the US.

  105. unaplogetic catholic - #21043

    July 8th 2010

    “God does not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery,into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the covenant of works; but of his mere love and mercy delivers his elect out of it.

    There’s no way areund it.  Ken’s claim is quite correct.  You just don’t like that fact and unilaterally decalred the support for his claim as “irrelevant.”

    God delivers the elect—unless ““elect” means “everybody”—whichit doesn’t—then God picked a few.

  106. steve hays - #21057

    July 8th 2010

    unaplogetic catholic - #21043

    “There’s no way areund it.  Ken’s claim is quite correct.  You just don’t like that fact and unilaterally decalred the support for his claim as ‘irrelevant.’ God delivers the elect—unless ‘elect/ means ‘everybody’—whichit doesn’t—then God picked a few.”

    That’s a false dichotomy. The mere concept of election carries no implications regarding the relative percentages of the elect in relation to the reprobate. It could be few, or many, or most.

    Moreover, if you actually knew anything about Reformed theology, you’d know that Reformed theology has no official position on the percentage of the elect.

  107. Scanman - #21073

    July 9th 2010

    nedbrek - #20667

    As a TE, I still believe in a literal Adam and Eve.
    Gen 2:7 is wide open to an evolutionary interpretation of the creation of Adam.
    My take on it, is that God drew Adam from the evolutionary ‘stream’ of hominids, and breathed into him his eternal spirit.

    Peace

  108. nedbrek - #21074

    July 9th 2010

    Interesting.

    How do you interpret Matthew 19:4, “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female” - since in the beginning the first sexual reproducers were effectively female (the Y chromosome is considered a defective X, also, the X will breed true for unisex organisms).

  109. Scanman - #21182

    July 9th 2010

    nedbrek - #21074
    I am not really sure what your point is…

    IMHO, Adam was unique…a pinnacle in the evolution of man. God took Adam and set him apart…made him ‘holy’...and placed him in Eden.

    It was later that God created Eve from Adam…how he did this…???  As for me, I only know how to barbecue ribs.LOL

    As a side note…why did God need to create Eden, if the world was perfect?

    Peace

  110. unapologetic catholic - #21266

    July 10th 2010

    “Moreover, if you actually knew anything about Reformed theology, you’d know that Reformed theology has no official position on the percentage of the elect.”

    I understand.  So Kent’s origianl point be correct.  It’scould be only select few or maybe nearly everybody.  Nobody knows.  His original poitn was that people can lead perfectly normal lives without “knowing” whether or not they will be saved and without beign disturbed byt he uncertainty.

    That seems to be true.

  111. jjcran - #21283

    July 10th 2010

    The thing I found odd about Mohler’s presentation was his appeal to a “natural” or “common sense” reading of the text.  This is odd for two reasons.  The first is that he seems to just skip over the importance of the question of interpretation, which scholars like Enns have worked hard to bring to our attention.  The second is his apparent belief that God has created the world in such a way that we cannot trust a “natural” or “common sense” reading of it.  Why should we trust our “common sense” reading of scripture but not our “common sense” reading of the book of nature?

  112. Ken Browning - #21409

    July 12th 2010

    I’m a former Pentecostal who’s been out of Christianity for nearly 30 years.  I’m struck, reading through these many comments, by the fractious nature of the Christian movement.

  113. nedbrek - #21418

    July 12th 2010

    Hi Ken, there is no harm in contending vigorously for the truth.

  114. dave - #21492

    July 12th 2010


    nedbrek - #20919

    July 8th 2010

    Hello Dave,
    It may make more sense through the moral law…

    When someone steals from you, you would like to see it returned - that is justice.  If not the exact item, something of equal value.  If they have nothing, they might work to pay it back.  Similarly, if you are hurt, you would like some recompense for your time or work lost.

    God’s law is the same way.  You say God is just making it up, but the law is an expression of God’s character.  In this sense, God is not omnipotent (able to do anything); He is all-powerful (more powerful than anything else).

    When you break God’s law (things like stealing, or killing) it is God who is injured.  We are created in God’s image, so our actions proclaim “This is what God is like!  He is a liar and sexually immoral!”  Like defamation or slander.

    Make sense so far?”

    Not in the slightest. But I do notice that you don’t cling to a belief in an omnipotent God. Besides being contradictory, it’s not Biblical, but that doesn’t stop many Christians.

  115. nedbrek - #21505

    July 12th 2010

    Yes, many people think “God can do anything”, but He cannot go against His own nature (or attributes).

  116. Karl A - #21529

    July 13th 2010

    Ken Browning: Although I disagree with nedbrek on some issues, I agree with him that vigorous discussion can be helpful.  It’s also good to step back sometimes, as Darrel F. and Merv encourage us to do, and remember the things we have in common (before continuing the argument smile).  My guess is you’d find little argument among the Christian contributors to this blog on the points of the Apostles’ Creed, for example.  Although I am not Reformed nor YEC I would still be happy to share fellowship (in fact I do) with those who are.

    If, in the past, you have been burned by fellow believers and that has turned you from God, please give God another chance.  He does a much better job loving and welcoming than some of us.  Okay, all of us.

  117. Sherry Holland - #23675

    July 27th 2010

    “The BioLogos Foundation exists in order that the Church, especially the Evangelical Church, can come to peace with the scientific data which shows unequivocally that the universe is very old and that all of life, including humankind, has been created through a gradual process that has been taking place over the past few billion years. BioLogos exists to show that this fact (and it is a fact), need not, indeed must not, affect our relationship with God”

    Wow. So, it is perfectly alright for me to question Scripture, but NOT appropriate or intelligent to question science? I do question science. I am told to test and question everything. Is it not even possible that science could be wrong or misguided? Their methods flawed?

    I am an evangelical Christian who is presently studying both sides of this argument. The above quoted paragraph put me off immediately. There was no room for debate.

  118. gingoro - #23682

    July 27th 2010

    Sherry Holland @23675

    “The above quoted paragraph put me off immediately. There was no room for debate.”

    While many/most of the writers of the headline posts accept the position you (and I) find unpalatable certainly there are comment writers who disagree with them.  Search for comments by Rich, Mike Gene or penman. 

    I also find troubling some of the methods of intrepretation of scripture that are being suggested.  Although I accept an old earth, common descent with modification I am considering no longer accepting the descriptive label of Evolutionary Creationist or Theistic Evolutionist as those terms seem to have connotations I can no longer ignore. 
    Dave W

    • Add Your Comment

    • Science & the Sacred welcomes both critical and supportive voices in our comments section. However, please be sure to read our Ground Rules for Commenting before posting. We reserve the right to remove any comments we deem inappropriate.

    • You have 1250 characters remaining.