"Natural" and "Supernatural" are Modern Categories, Not Biblical Ones
When we make distinctions between natural and supernatural activity in Scripture, not only do we push our modern categories into the Bible, but we also limit God’s action.
In both form and content, then, Genesis 1 reveals that its basic purposes are religious and theological, not scientific or historical.
By getting rid of the miracle stories in the Bible, Bultmann and his followers hoped to make the Christian story more palatable to modern man. Although I recognize the emotional weight of this sentiment, I am not convinced that it is an intellectually coherent approach, mainly for reasons of self-consistency.
When non-believers in France or in Spain read what young-earth creationists are writing about evolution, geology, or astrophysics, they frequently conclude that the Bible is at best an interesting fairy tale.
The story of the Genesis Rock reminds us of how biblical and scientific accounts, despite their different purviews and purposes, remain inexorably linked in our understanding of origins.
Collection of the best articles of the past several weeks on science (and faith) from around the web.
Some of the Christian objections to evolutionary creation come from a misunderstanding of what the Bible means when it says “God created”.
Wright reminds us that robust Christian faith takes evidence on board, but fuses reason with faith, hope and love.
When we sit down to read sacred Scripture, we need to develop a rapport with the Bible’s various authors and their worldviews. Otherwise, we will unintentionally demand they communicate in the same manner we do.
At BioLogos, we believe that a serious and faithful reading of Scripture doesn’t call for a recent origin to the earth, and we are persuaded that God has shown us through the natural world he created that his creative work began much earlier.
We now take for granted an understanding of the Christian story that was largely worked out by Paul and later theologians. Even though the Gospels were composed after Paul’s letters, they were concerned to tell the story itself in all its strangeness as it had been preserved by the first generation of Christians. And what we find in the stories themselves is the shock and wonder and surprise that the resurrection caused.
Critics of Christianity look to evolution to show how the emergence of human life on earth demanded enormous ruin and ravage, billions of years of apparent waste and futility, species extermination and organism road kill. Not only was the massive dying off rampant, it’s mandatory too.
So what then does Resurrection mean? For Benedict it represents a new dimension of reality breaking through into human experience. It is not a violation of the old; it is the manifestation of something new.
To understand more clearly where Polkinghorne lies on the larger landscape of science and religion, let’s consider his approach to the Resurrection. Many contemporary thinkers, including some theologians and clergy, believe that “science” has somehow made it impossible to believe in the Resurrection, the deity of Jesus, and even belief in the transcendent God of the Bible.
There’s a word beneath the water, and the Bow River belongs to God. Have you been listening?
Although committed to the principle of sola Scriptura, Calvin recognized that the Bible would have been written in terms its original recipients would have understood. Calvin inherited the medieval cosmology of his time, a way of viewing the world heavily influenced by Greek thought and one which was about to receive shocks from astronomers such as Copernicus and Galileo. But not just yet.
The God who created the cosmos is the God who came to us as a child in Bethlehem.
In our sixth BioLogos videocast, we take a look at the age of the Earth. We explain four methods scientists have used to determine that age: tree ring, lake varve, radiometric, and seafloor spread dating, and also offer some theological insight on how an old earth can fit with the first chapters of Genesis.
In this talk, originally delivered at the BioLogos President's Circle meeting in October 2012, Dr. John Walton discusses the origin stories of Genesis 1-3, and why their focus on function and archetypes mean there is no Biblical narrative of material origins.
“I flatter myself,” Hume triumphantly proclaimed, “that I have discovered an argument . . . which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures.”