The BioLogos Forum: A Place for Conversation

Bookmark and Share

December 6, 2010 Tags: Adam, the Fall, and Sin

Today's entry was written by Darrel Falk. You can read more about what we believe here.

The BioLogos Forum: A Place for Conversation

Today's post comes from BioLogos President, Darrel Falk and Board of Directors, Chair, Randy Scott.

In a recent blog post, Dr. Albert Mohler suggests that Biologos promotes the relinquishing of inerrancy, that Paul was wrong about Adam, and that the Fall was not historical. We thank Dr. Mohler for pointing out that this impression was raised by the website and we would like to respond with some constructive remarks.

First, we want to emphasize that the Biologos site intentionally seeks to represent a broad set of voices, including those of evangelicals holding minority opinions. Among the large number of posts on the site one can find writers who deeply disagree with one another on various aspects of biblical scholarship and theology. This will continue to be the case in the future. Modern science emerged from a Christian worldview in which the Bible was highly influential. BioLogos is committed to the fact that mainstream science and evangelicalism (within the framework of historic, creedal orthodoxy) complement each other and can peacefully co-exist as they have done over the centuries. At the same time evangelical Christianity has long been noted for the diversity of views held by its adherents over matters that are not essential for salvation. We think this is healthy and we will continue to show that many of these evangelical traditions are fully consistent with mainstream science. Moreover we will continue to foster a conversation between scholars, pastors, and laypersons as they each, frequently staying within their own traditions, seek different pathways for maintaining the traditional friendship between science and faith.

Second, we want to affirm that we do not think that evangelicals must relinquish inerrancy, believe that Paul was wrong about Adam, or believe that the Fall was not historical in order to accept the Biologos model. A careful reading of the Biologos site should make it clear that these traditional evangelical views are also represented and defended. We will ensure that this continues to be the case in the future.

Third, we want to maintain Biologos as a space where a wide variety of views can interact, with the hope that we can all learn from one another. In that light, we are grateful to Dr. Mohler for explaining why he disagrees with particular views that were expressed on the site. "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another" Proverbs 27:17. Therefore, we welcome and anticipate such interactions, trusting that we will be learning together under the common Lordship of Christ.


Darrel Falk is former 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.


Share your thoughts

Have a comment or question for the author? We'd love to hear from you.

View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Loading...
Page 9 of 9   « 6 7 8 9
Tom Oord - #43780

December 14th 2010

Thanks for this concise response, Darrel and Randy. I agree that there is no necessary connection between evolution and the inerrancy of Scripture and other issues you cite. We need a place for all perspectives at the table. In the course of conversation, those in the dialogue should feel free to move and change perspective as seems justified. But any a priori dismissal of these views as necessarily at odds with evolution is unjustified.


Kim Mark Lewis - #43971

December 16th 2010

The main issue between Mohler and BioLogos is that Mohler believes that believing in a literal six day creation less than 10,000 years is a choice equal to belief in God or not.  BioLogos sees that there are no evidence for a creation of the universe 10,000 and all evidence points to an old universe.

If you read Mohler’s blog, he sees the belief in a 10,000 year universe as a choice between being a real believer or at best a highly confused illogical believer.  The problem is that the framework that creates his theology is also defined as inerrancy so from his position there anything radically different from his theology is grounded in deception and not inerrancy.

From the BioLogos perspective, the Bible was not written with a 21st century literary scientific outlook.  We have to take into account that there are many things that the ancients would understand that we from a modern peoples don’t have the perspective to understand.  For example the Two Angels visiting Abraham and destroying Sodom is a story of Virtue where Abraham treated the two angels as he wished to be treated while Sodom dishonored them.  The ancients would not see this as “Destroy all Homosexuals” but as they get what they give to God.


Roger A. Sawtelle - #44039

December 16th 2010

The real problem Dr. Mohler has is he seems to believe that the Bible is God’s Word, not Jesus Christ.  Thus he thinks that the first chapter of the Gospel according to John got it wrong.


J.R. Richardson - #44183

December 17th 2010

The Christian love is simply bubbling over in these comments. I’m sure glad that the spirit of confrontation, misrepresentation, dogmatic denunciation, and above all else self-righteous pride masquerading as humble adherence to strict orthodoxy doesn’t permeate our “dialog” with each other.


Roger A. Sawtelle - #44309

December 18th 2010

J.R. Richardson,

Thank you for your reminder of the dangers of debating on the web.  However, I do not think that being judgmental helps the discussion. 

Arguing about anything does have its dangers, because it does mean taking a stand and we must be honest as to whether motives are right or not.  It can be easier particularly in these relativistic times to pretend that ideas do not mean anything.  However I hope that we are being honest in saying that ideas are important and why we think they are important. 

Love does not mean agreeing with others.


ozie - #49271

January 27th 2011

IT’S A MATTER of BELIEVING GOD AND NOT BELIEVING GOD.

If you believe that there’s God who created the earth, naturally the world is old when God created it, because God did not create the earth from single tiny organism. He created the earth as already grown up and fully matured like when He created Adam. He did not create Adam in a fetus form. When Adam appeared he was already a matured man. If the scientists were there during creation and did the autopsy and DNA testing naturally they will say he is already about 20, 25, 30 years old, etc… because God really created him as fully grown and matured man… so the scientists will say…“ohh! Adam was created 20, 25, 30 years ago, etc!” LOL!..bear in mind..that’s how God created him (already grown up).

In science, the scientists will say that the earth is already million years old or so… Yes!... because that’s how old it is when God created it from the start. He created the earth as fully matured and complete planet. When it was created, there were already old rocks, stones, dried leaves, etc. included in the creation… The scientists will show that as evidences. LOL!!!  to deceive people from believing God. If you don’t believe in God… whose lost?


Stan Green - #50969

February 13th 2011

My problem with this post is that Biologos has made concrete, bold, dogmatic, prescriptive prounouncements on critical issues concerning theology and science; has published and marketed school curricula based on these ideas; has slammed those it sees as retrograde ideological opponents . . . and yet now in this post seeks to smooth everything over by saying that it does not really believe all of the very strong ideas to which is gives a platform, and is still “learning together” with the very parties and ideas is has said are wrong and dangerous. 

With all due respect, this does not come off as being single-minded.  Obviously, no one ever has all of their thinking nailed down 100 percent.  But this post doesn’t quite sync with an organization that pushes one’s strong, controversial ideas with the zeal Biologos has.

To be honest, I’m not in agreement with Biologos science or their theology of origins, yet I have respected their zeal.  However I now wonder about how clearly Biologos is thinking through what it believes.


Page 9 of 9   « 6 7 8 9