John MacArthur on the “lie” of Evolution:
“The evolutionary lie is so pointedly antithetical to Christian truth that it would seem unthinkable for evangelical Christians to compromise with evolutionary science in any degree. But during the past century and a half of evolutionary propaganda, evolutionists have had remarkable success in getting evangelicals to meet them halfway. Remarkably, many modern evangelicals . . . have already been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is not a true historical record. Thus they have not only capitulated to evolutionary doctrine at its starting point, but they have also embraced a view that undermines the authority of Scripture at its starting point.” (from “The Battle for the Beginning“).
There was a time, ten or twenty years ago, when I would have taken the bait and swallowed this hook, line, and sinker. Today I won’t. Not because I am now convinced about a God-guided theory of evolution, but because I just don’t know. I am not confused or disturbed about the issue, nor does it put any of my faith in jeopardy in any way. I just don’t know whether or not God used evolution as a means to create humanity. Neither do I know how long it took to create the earth. I don’t know if Genesis 1 is meant to be taken literally, metaphorically, symbolically, ideologically, mythologically, or accommodatingly. I simply believe that when it is interpreted rightly, it is true.
But I don’t think that it is here we find the central battle for our faith. I believe that there are more important issues. Much more important issues.
What I do find is that if Christians get sidetracked on these type of things, believing that if this city goes undefended then the Christian empire crumbles, we are in trouble. The “Battle for the Beginning” is not the battle, at least in my book.
But John MacArthur is a man I respect very much. While he is not a scientist, he does seem to be a very wise leader in many respects and he knows the Bible well. This is why I have to pause at what would otherwise seem to me to be an over-the-top statement. He is right that the last two decades have seen many (if not most) evangelical leaders concede to the real possibility of a God-guided use of evolution. It would seem that there is quite a bit of pressure out there to do so. Evolution is quickly becoming the if-you-don’t-accept-it-then-you-are-committing-the-same-mistake-that-the-church-did-in-the-Galileo-incident type of issue. You remember: back when we insisted that the Bible said the earth was the center of the universe and then ended up with egg on our face.
I don’t really see evolution in the same light. There is quite a bit of observable data that shows us the earth is not the center; it is not quite as cut-and-dry with evolution (I think).
Either way, the gauntlet is going to continue to fall and Christians who believe in evolution are going to continually be accused of compromise. Maybe they have compromised; I don’t know. But to me, it only makes a difference when people push for it to make a difference.
What do you think? Has Christianity been compromised?
668 replies to "John MacArthur on the "Lie of Evolution""
I’m trying to ask the kind of questions that give me more information and others here, more information about this subject, not make quid pro quo arguments which go nowhere. In fact, I think I have mentioned that several times now.
But, if any of you have really not seen that, I’m wondering why you are bothering to interact with me at all. It really doesn’t matter to me who answers. I will interact with anyone here who wants to discuss the situation rationally, and similarly won’t waste my time with those who won’t, but since I know so little about where some of you are coming from theologically speaking, I ask questions. I’ve already answered where I am in my theology as best I can.
If you can’t handle that yourselves, then by all means please don’t interact with me.
” Christianity doesn’t have to bow to the philosophy of naturalism to survive – it just has to not contradict the verifiable evidence.”
There seems to be differing standards of what contradicts the physical evidence. On the one hand TEs say that similar genes between apes and humans settles the matter, and any other conclusion can’t be anything but God deceiving us. On the other hand, an equally non-natural theory of a resurrection doesn’t have to conform to the same standards.
I’m reminded of the blind man Jesus healed, and the Pharisees didn’t believe was blind from birth. His sight was an act of special creation if you will, but I’m sure the verifiable evidence would have said there was never anything wrong with him.
John,
I agree that there seems to be a double standard regarding what constitutes proof here, as far As TE’s theology goes.
Thus far, there has been a dearth of scripture, and a whole lot of other ‘facts’ from outside sources to back up their position, and not much else to go on.
EricW,
My response wasn’t directed at you. I apologize if it came off that way.
Mbaker,
I understand what you are saying, but at the same time, I just get the impression that at least what I’ve written for you was ignored.
The answers I gave you barely got a response, and certainly not any decent critique either. The questions I asked you were also ignored.
I see you to continue to talk negatively about TE’s theology when you’ve never really taken the time to actually explain why it is wrong. Mine included.
For example, you recently said this: But you guys get really testy when we ask you to similarly back up your claims about theology.
How does one back of their claims about theology? What should that look like to you? Do you want scripture? I’m fine with that, but where do you stand on ancient science in the Bible, or the Ancient Near Eastern context that we have to interpret the Old Testament in?
As far as I remember, you haven’t commented in any helpful fashion on whether you accept these premises or not. That will affect how we explain and justify our theology to you.
But with that said, how were the posts explaining my theology to you insufficient? What were they lacking? Why was it “weak”?
I’m completely open to the idea that I’m mistaken, but it takes more than just declaring it so for me to reconsider. Its just annoying seeing you claim we haven’t justified our theology when I have, and it got no response from you.
I think if you want this discussion to be productive you kinda have to let us know what you are looking for and where you are coming from.
John,
There seems to be differing standards of what contradicts the physical evidence. On the one hand TEs say that similar genes between apes and humans settles the matter, and any other conclusion can’t be anything but God deceiving us. On the other hand, an equally non-natural theory of a resurrection doesn’t have to conform to the same standards.
As far as we know, from scripture and from the physical world, there is nothing but the supernatural that can perform a bonafide resurrection of a human being.
Both science and scripture assert this fact, but that’s not the case for human evolution. Science finds strong support for common descent, and Genesis, properly interpreted, certainly allows for it to be a viable possibility.
No contradictions or double-standards here.
mbaker,
Thus far, there has been a dearth of scripture, and a whole lot of other ‘facts’ from outside sources to back up their position, and not much else to go on.
Explain to us what a theology you would accept would look like. Tell us what it is exactly that you are looking for.
Its starting to seem this is your prepackaged answer to just about everything.
“Science finds strong support for common descent, and Genesis, properly interpreted, certainly allows for it to be a viable possibility.”
How do you know that Genesis properly interpreted allows for it?
You agree that the human authors and original audience knew nothing of evolution, so what odd hermeneutic allows you to insert evolution in there? Does it also allow that we were put here by a race of pan-dimensional and hyper-intelligent mice to figure out the meaning of life? What exactly does your hermeneutic actually rule out, if anything?
John asks, “How do you know that Genesis properly interpreted allows for it?”
Many Theistic Evolutionists, including the Harvard prof emeritus of astronomy and the history of science, Owen Gingerich (whose little book “God’s Universe” is a quick and easy read that would answer many questions being raised here), have noted how the phrase “Let the earth bring forth” (Genesis 1:11 and 24) suggests, or at least allows the possibility of intermediacy in the creation process.
Let the earth bring forth according to their kinds. It seems to me evolution is the teaching that that the earth brings forth things not according their kinds.
John,
I’m really convinced that you don’t understand that there is a difference between people who ascribe to TE and naturalists. Your posts assume over and over again that TE people either are naturalists or are inconsistent for not being naturalists. Yet people of faith have always accepted natural causes for certain things (why the ball comes down after I throw it in the air) and supernatural causes for others (why Jesus rose from the dead). There is no inherent contradiction or inconsistency in accepting that some things are caused naturally (according to the laws God set in motion in the beginning) and some are caused supernaturally (by the intervention of God acting outside of natural laws).
On another issue you said,
“How do you know that Genesis properly interpreted allows for it?”
How do you know it doesn’t?? I mean this question can be asked both ways. You’ve provided much evidence showing that your understanding could be mistaken. You’ve also offered some arguments to show that our understanding could be mistaken, but nothing that hasn’t been addressed or overcome by a slight change in understanding. Ultimately in this light you seem more concerned with tradition then truth.
Greg,
I haven’t answered some of your questions regarding your statements, for example about transitional fossils, for two reasons (1) because I am looking more for live transitional examples which would compare with the evidence from evidence given upon live tissue by folks such as Dennis Venema. An intermediacy in the evolutionary view of the evolutionary creation process, as Cliff mentioned in #437, so to speak which would give me a real conclusive reason for changing my m mind about traditional creation(2) and because when I ask a question and someone gives me as honest an answer as possible, I don’t generally argue it simply to prove an opposing point, unless I see they are avoiding my questions, or answered in incompletely. As I’ve repeatedly said, I don’t think tit for tat arguments do much to advance the discussion, or to bring forth new and helpful information which enlightens folks who do not understand such a different viewpoint from traditional Christianity as TE seems to present. My questions are simply those we traditionalists genuinely wonder about how you got around to believing theologically. Do you have scriptural backup that indicates a valid reason to differ from traditional Christianity regarding the creation account?
Having a journalistic approach to things, because that has been my background, rather than a scientific one, my posts are usually going to ask to the why,what where, when and how of things, and I will generally persist in a question until all those things are answered, whether I agree with the answer I receive or not.
And finally I am an issues person, and when it starts getting accusatory, like I’m not being productive, or delberately attacking TE’s personally, and when people start telling me I don’t understand, when they have not responded fully to my own questions that is generally a turn-off for further interaction to me. I do not seek to intimidate anyone here, not am I easily intimidated. That type of thing unfortunately is sometimes, mean to or not, how I see some, and please notice I said some evolutionists come across when interacting with more traditional Christians. it’s inferred that we are somehow out of date or against evolutionists personally because we don’t believe our own faith should rest strictly on the latest scientific discoveries.
If you need any further explanation as to where I come from personally, I really don’t know what else to tell you, unless you want to be more specific in your questions. I do not believe that the ANE explanation of Genesis is completely sufficient, no,even though i believe history and culture play a role in proper hermeneutics. And I would really appreciate it if we could get back to the issues here, and leave off the personal stuff.
On the issue of Christ’s Resurrection vs. Origins
I don’t see the relation between these two at all. We have every reason for thinking that the account in Genesis is allegoric, written to a ANE culture, and not meant to be taken literally. I would go so far as to say that Genesis is agnostic as to the exact process by which the universe was created because this isn’t the point of the story recorded in Genesis. Genesis doesn’t support any position on the exact process of creation because God isn’t trying to communicate exactly how the universe was created. Rather he is telling us why the universe was created, who created it, that it was created good, that it has fallen and how we see it now is not how it was intended. That we are in need of redemption. The process is not at all important and if God had gone into the exact process the people of the ANE wouldn’t have understood it and it would have destroyed the point of the story. You can’t talk to a kindergartner like he’s a Ph.D and expect him to understand you. God simply spoke to that culture in the form of a story they could understand which taught them theological truths about creation that were necessary for them to know.
On the other hand the Bible makes clear that the resurrection of Christ was literal and attributes this directly to being an act of God. Science in some sense supports this because science would say that there is no way this could be explained naturally if it in fact occurred. Of course from this a naturalist would conclude that it couldn’t have occurred, but since TE’s ARE NOT NATURALISTS we are perfectly fine accepting this as a miracle. Especially in light of the overwhelming historical evidence that it did in fact occur.
There is no double standard since you are talking about two very separate events both in terms of the nature of those events and the context of the writings in which those events are described.
BTW I’m trying to find all the articles from my class in undergrad still, but one of them pointed out that Genesis bears striking similarities to other ANE creation myths, but with a number of striking and theologically significant differences (ie one God vs. many, universe being created as an act of love rather than out of evil, humanity as the image bearers of God rather than an evil creation).
“Let the earth bring forth according to their kinds. It seems to me evolution is the teaching that that the earth brings forth things not according their kinds.”
John, my point was simply that Genesis suggests the possibility that God used secondary causes in Creation. Clearly there is language that favors the special creation of species. I am convinced that Moses would have assumed that each species was created individually. No one from that era of antiquity had any idea about evolution. So what else would he think?
But it is equally clear that Moses assumed the cosmology that was common to all ancient near-easterners. The firmament, the waters above, the separation of the waters, etc. Moses thought about cosmic canopies and he thought about special creation of the species. I grant that. But he also thought about God creating by means of secondary causes.
I think the issue, Michael, is that what we’ve seen here is not TEs who accept naturalistic causes, but TEs who are evangelists for naturalistic causes over and above supernatural causes as described in the bible. That’s why we have been informed that the Mosaic law is written by an ignorant God, and the apostles were sucked into a literal interpretation of Genesis leading to dubious conclusions, and the actions of the God of the OT are sub-moral and therefore clearly not the actions of God at all.
If a naturalistic explanation trumps the bible, then logically it all collapses, because you can always come up with some naturalistic explanation of anything, including the resurrection sightings.
It’s like the nylonase bacteria issue. Someone triumphantly quoted that to me as a clear evidence of evolution. But I quoted back a non-Christian non-creationist who says that not only are the facts wrong, but the chances that this feature evolved in the time specified are 3 x 10^-35. But TEs are not content for traditional Christians to have their simple faith, they need to be evangelised into accepting their viewpoint, even if it means pushing out a lot of “facts” with a lot of holes, and generally undermining the bible in its entirety.
If I did, per se believe there was some error in the bible, and let’s say perhaps there are good reasons for believing that – what I would do is shut up, unless it was particularly causing someone a crisis of faith. That’s what I take Christ to mean in saying we should have a faith like little children. Telling people not to believe the bible is rarely helpful for anyone’s salvation
“The intellect that begins its search for divine wisdom with simple faith will eventually attain a theology that transcends the intellect and that is characterized by unremitting faith of the highest type and the contemplation of the invisible.” – St. Thalassios the Libyan
“”How do you know that Genesis properly interpreted allows for it?”
How do you know it doesn’t?? I mean this question can be asked both ways. You’ve provided much evidence showing that your understanding could be mistaken. You’ve also offered some arguments to show that our understanding could be mistaken, but nothing that hasn’t been addressed or overcome by a slight change in understanding. Ultimately in this light you seem more concerned with tradition then truth.”
Michael, the teachings of Christianity are entirely of the nature of tradition. These things are Christianity not because they are tested empirically, but because these beliefs are passed down or traditioned to us. “Hold to the traditions” Paul said. No matter what you think the boundaries of those traditions might be, those things are in fact Christianity in its entirety.
I know for sure that the traditional interpretation of Genesis is an exegetically viable interpretation, since it is the one that existed before people starting inserting, or eisegeting…
…………….
If you want to claim another interpretation is viable, the burden on you is to answer basic questions. I think the objection is that TEs are not answering questions beyond saying that we need to adjust our whole world view to realise that the bible is full of errors anyway, so don’t worry about it.
John, Re Post 456
You agree that the human authors and original audience knew nothing of evolution, so what odd hermeneutic allows you to insert evolution in there? Does it also allow that we were put here by a race of pan-dimensional and hyper-intelligent mice to figure out the meaning of life? What exactly does your hermeneutic actually rule out, if anything?
You can reread my previous posts and they will answer your question.
Re Post 464,
I know for sure that the traditional interpretation of Genesis is an exegetically viable interpretation, since it is the one that existed before people starting inserting, or eisegeting…
What is this traditional interpretation you are referring to?
Joshua 10:13, traditionally interpreted, was an exegetically viable interpretation before people started inserting all that heretical astronomy into it and what not.
If you want to claim another interpretation is viable, the burden on you is to answer basic questions.
Such as? I’m still waiting on you to point out that huge ocean above the sun that Genesis says is there, according to how you interpret things.
Cliff,
I not quite synching with you when you say Genesis simply suggests the possibility that God used secondary causes in creation. Could you tell us where in Genesis you find that?
Thanks.
John,
I don’t believe there is anything to gain by lying to people or simply not telling them the whole truth. If the Bible has error in it we should be honest about it and deal with it as best we can rather than try to shove it under the door. Believe it or not people are actually more willing to listen who are open about their struggles (whether they be personal or theological) then those who dogmatically state whatever the accepted line is.
Of course I think this is irrelevant because I don’t believe that the examples given, when understood properly, are errors or God lying. They are simply examples of God using a story that people will understand to convey Truth (i.e. Genesis), or God taking something the people already understood to be true (i.e. the mustard seed and the passage about the rabbit) and using that understanding to communicate Truth.
BTW I think the rabbit is a bad example of error in the Bible because the Israelite s obviously knew what God was talking about when He gave this command. Also the words used there have an unclear translation (gerah – cud and alah – to bring up). Furthermore even assuming the translation is correct God could, once again, be giving a command according to the understanding of the people at the time who thought that hares chewed their cud for whatever reason.
I think you want the Bible to be a science book and not a theological book. Think about how long the Bible would be if God corrected every error in the understanding of the ancient Israelite’s!!!! It would be hundreds of thousands of pages long (as if it’s not long enough already)!!! Then think of what that would do to the story God was trying to tell and the Truth He was trying to communicate. It would destroy it. The people would lose the trees in the forest.
No one is saying God is ignorant. The people God is trying to communicate are ignorant so God simply uses their understanding to communicate what needs to be communicated. God isn’t telling the people that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, they already believed that. He’s not telling them that hare’s chew their cud, they already believe that. He’s just not correcting these already existing mistaken beliefs BECAUSE IT’S NOT IMPORTANT. The point of the story loses nothing if the mustard seed really isn’t the smallest seed. In the context of ceremonial cleanliness the command to not eat hares doesn’t make any less sense because hares eat their partially digested poop instead of chewing their cud (if anything it makes more sense).
John,
I would note that I have met many more evangelists for the Young Earth position then I have for any other position out there. Furthermore, TE people like myself often find ourselves on the defensive simply because our view is not what people have traditionally believed and therefore it is assumed that we are heretics.
“If a naturalistic explanation trumps the bible, then logically it all collapses, because you can always come up with some naturalistic explanation of anything, including the resurrection sightings.”
Simply because a possible naturalistic cause can be found for something like the resurrection (i.e. hallucination) it doesn’t mean that these explanations are probable (believe me when I say most naturalistic explanations put forth border on laughably ridiculous). And even if they were probable they couldn’t be certain because they would have to prove the non-existence of a supernatural cause which is something science can’t do. So long as you don’t accept that the philosophy of naturalism, that the physical is all there is, the resurrection could never be disproved scientifically. And accepting such a philosophy would take more faith then I have quite frankly.
In the case of Genesis we have something else entirely. For starters we have good reason textually for understanding it to be symbolic rather than literal. We also have good reason historically for believing this. Then we have the physical evidence of evolution and see what appears to be solid evidence (in my mind) for common descent. So I can really only see coming to one of two conclusions again. Either the literal interpretation of Genesis is mistaken OR God created the universe to appear like it is old and evolution occurred. Both of these admittedly pose problems – but I think the first one poses less problems then the second.
“Rather he is telling us why the universe was created, who created it, that it was created good, that it has fallen and how we see it now is not how it was intended.”
Even you are now saying the sequence of events was (1) universe created good _then_ (2) fallen, and not how it was meant to be.
But our side doesn’t see where this fits TE. Evolution is the story of animals competing with each other, killing each other and dying in favour of the most adapted species. This is the TE creation story. But these are the very things that people associate with fallenness. The good and the fallen are indistinguishable.
“We have every reason for thinking that the account in Genesis is allegoric, written to a ANE culture, and not meant to be taken literally. ”
We have every reason to believe the Christ story was written to a culture expecting a messiah and fascinated by the idea of resurrection. Why doesn’t that make it allegorical, since this is your stated reason for making Genesis allegorical?
Furthermore, while you might put Ge 1 into your ANE world view, Ge 2 and the story of Adam is a whole different story and would require a whole new justification which we haven’t heard yet.
“BTW I’m trying to find all the articles from my class in undergrad still, but one of them pointed out that Genesis bears striking similarities to other ANE creation myths”
Point being what? That Genesis is a rehash of a myth?
mbaker, Re Post #460,
If you need any further explanation as to where I come from personally, I really don’t know what else to tell you, unless you want to be more specific in your questions.
I meant theologically. Where do you stand theologically on these issues. You said you lean towards OEC. Expand on that. How do you fit an old earth into Genesis and still maintain a decent respect for inerrancy? In fact, what is inerrancy to you?
What species of OEC are you? Are you a gap creationist, a progressive creationist, a day-ager, a cosmic timer, or do you just really like the framework hypothesis?
Does a day mean a thousand years, an epoc or two, or a 24-hour period of revelation?
Biological diversity. How did life get to where it is now, when did it start out, and what accounts for its diversity?
Since you lean towards OEC, how do you decide where to draw the “this literally happened as its written” line? Think days of creation vs Adam out of dust.
What about the flood? I know we haven’t discussed it here, but as an OEC, I know you’ve thought about it before and I’m just curious. Local or global? Were all the animals ever made included, or just some? Why do you interpret it that way?
Ancient science in scripture. How do you reconcile this with modern science? How do you relate ancient scripture to modern science, if you do? Do you even think the Bible contains ancient science? If not, why not and do you have a clear example?
For me personally, I’m a six-day literalist in my interpretation of Genesis 1. Do you find that interesting?
I’ve wondered all these things about you since we’ve been discussing here. Mostly because I’m pretty familiar with them myself, having figured most out and held to them in various forms at one time or another. So I’m always interested in what another believer is currently believing.
And I like tit for tat discussions. It helps me weed out bad beliefs and trade them for better ones. I’ve changed my mind many times because of persuasive arguments, so you never know what sort of influence your criticism could have on me.
By the way, I don’t base my faith on the latest scientific discoveries. I see science and faith as independent things, remember? Established science can certainly influence my theology, but only by showing me what needs rethinking. It never establishes a theology. The last thing I want is to have my faith based on science!
One more thing: are you a boy or a girl?
“I am convinced that Moses would have assumed that each species was created individually. So what else would he think?”
That’s the fundamental disagreement – whether the bible is just what some random Jews thought at points of time, or whether it is the word of God.
If Genesis records what some random Jews think, so what? I’ve got better things to read.
John, Re Post #471,
But our side doesn’t see where this fits TE.
What’s the one thing in the creation account that, according to God, wasn’t good?
Look what state it is used to describe, and that will give you a clue as to what God means when he describes this or that as “good” when he’s creating. Something is good or bad only in relation to something else. Can you figure out what that is?
Remember, don’t automatically assume that you have the same concept of “goodness” as someone who lived 3,500 years ago did.
As other clues, look at the pinnacle of God’s creation, i.e. the most important thing that he made. The creation is good only in relation to THAT!
John, re post #472
Point being what? That Genesis is a rehash of a myth?
Nope. But since its part of the ANE, the author of Genesis most likely drew from the culture’s common experience and beliefs. Studying other creation accounts can and do help us identify those common threads.
Kinda like how you, as a Western Christian, draw from your Western culture’s frame of reference when you read the Bible.
John, re post #474
That’s the fundamental disagreement – whether the bible is just what some random Jews thought at points of time, or whether it is the word of God.
What if its both? You know, kinda like how Jesus was both a “random jew” and the Word of God?
Wow, Greg.
It would take me forever to answer all your questions. And that is not what this post is all about. As I recall CMP’s question was: do you think evolution compromises Christianity? I have tried to keep to answering that, and to determine why or why not others do, or do not think so. I think we need to keep it at that.
However, if you will go back over to the older thread, where we all covered so much of the YEC/ OEC argument in detail, you can have at least some of your questions answered.
I don’t know what time it is where you are but it’s 12:48, where I am and I’m going to bed.
“One more thing: are you a boy or a girl?”
Neither, I’m an adult.
John,
What exact position do you hold?? Because almost every position other then the Young Earth position has the problem of animal death before the fall. Furthermore, this problem I believe has been sufficiently explained in numerous articles I have read. Just entering “animal death before fall” into google will bring up numerous articles on the subject from just about every perspective imaginable.
The first one is from a progressive old earth creationist. It is fairly representative of some of the stuff I have read, though others go further in depth and address more verses. Suffice to say I think the problem you have stated is actually one of the least serious objections to TE out there.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/animal-death-before-the-fall
mbaker,
Of course you won’t, because that would open yourself up to criticism, and you don’t like that.
::plucks out the splinter in my eye::
Neither, I’m an adult.
Can’t even give me a simple answer.
For what its worth, I envision you as a girl (or a female, if you prefer).
P.S. – Does evolution compromise Christianity? No, of course not. I explain why in all my posts. No need to repeat it all.
Michael: “For starters we have good reason textually for understanding it to be symbolic rather than literal.”
Certainly the apostles understood many parts of it literally.
Which is why you have to tread very carefully not to bring the whole house down, and the TEs here are not doing that. If the apostles misinterpreted the fall, then they can misinterpret the redemption. And if you misinterpret that, you have a guy resurrecting for no known or certain reason.
“Then we have the physical evidence of evolution and see what appears to be solid evidence (in my mind) for common descent.”
But the TE crowd can’t resist in their evangelism of this view in starting from naturalistic assumptions. I criticised a number of them already. Obviously I can see the naturalistic logic that people get genes from their parents, people have genes similar to apes, therefore people got their genes from a proto-ape. You believe this natural logic above the word of God.
But this is the exact same sequence of natural logic that says people do not rise again after they die, therefore if the word of God says someone did, its probably an artefact of the particular beliefs of a particular culture, with God just explaining some principle-or-other with a fancy story that these people would relate to.
You might think the evidence in favor of literalness one is better than the other, but the point is the same hermeneutic and the same epistemology leads to both.
John,
“We have every reason to believe the Christ story was written to a culture expecting a messiah and fascinated by the idea of resurrection. Why doesn’t that make it allegorical, since this is your stated reason for making Genesis allegorical?”
No we don’t. First of all different time period. Second of all different genre of writing. Third of all the evidence of actions of the disciples after the ascension. Fourth the way the author’s specifically tell us they are writing history (at least in the case of Luke in Acts) and claim that their accounts came from eyewitnesses. Fifth the later books of the NT are letters which are clearly not written in allegory (accept the parts that are – but again there is a shift in the style of writing which notes this – often to the apocalyptic genre). The list goes on and on. Suffice to say the NT gives us every reason to believe that we are reading history of actual historical events. The first 11 or so chapters of genesis don’t give us this.
John,
Can you prove there was no animal death before the fall?
You can use Paul, just read what he says very carefully.
As an extra bonus, was the serpent lying in Genesis 3:4? Compare that to what God said in Genesis 2:17.
What really happened to Adam and Eve on that day? Who turned out to be right? The serpent or God?
And John, after reading all your posts here, I think I can say with certainty that you haven’t been following anything that we have been saying.
You just don’t get it.
“Remember, don’t automatically assume that you have the same concept of “goodness” as someone who lived 3,500 years ago did.”
I don’t understand your cryptic point. Genesis actually says that God found it good that creatures were brought forth “after their kind”. That’s what the text says. That’s what God found good.
John,
“You might think the evidence in favor of literalness one is better than the other, but the point is the same hermeneutic and the same epistemology leads to both.”
No it doesn’t because you keep on associating TE with the wrong epistemology. This epistemology says that all that can be known can be known through the scientific method. It doesn’t just put he scientific method ahead of a supernatural understanding – it says that this is all there is. TE’S DO NOT BELIEVE THIS!!!!!!!
Let me ask a question. Do you believe that there is a supernatural explanation for why a ball comes down when you toss it in the air???
Your argument works for this too. As soon as you take the supernatural out of anything and replace it with a naturalistic explanation (i.e. GRAVITY!) you have started down the slippery slope you describe.
Let me ask another question. Do you believe everything in the Bible should be interpreted literally???
I mean Jesus said to pluck you eyes out if they cause you to sin. Now one thing I know about you almost without a doubt is that if your a male living in America over the age of 14 your eyes have caused you to sin. Yet I doubt your blind. Simply replacing a literal interpretation with a non-literal one doesn’t change the validity of the argument. One must use all the knowledge available to them in trying to understand what the Bible was intending to say and if it was intending to say it literally or figuratively or symbolically or allegorically etc. etc.
John,
Define “good”. Explain it to me.
Use scripture.
“Furthermore, this problem I believe has been sufficiently explained in numerous articles I have read. Just entering “animal death before fall” into google will bring up numerous articles on the subject from just about every perspective imaginable. ”
None of the OEC arguments help the TE, as far as I see. They agree with the premise of no human death before the fall, and just allow animals to die, which doesn’t help you.
Not being a scientist, I don’t feel the need to reconcile the beliefs of scientists with those of the bible, except in so far as people want to publicly challenge the bible on dubious foundations. Knowing how old the earth is does not help anyone’s salvation, as I said before. However, knowing if the apostles were trustworthy I would imagine does, as does knowing the nature of our predicament – aka the fall.
John,
Depends on what type of TE and how that type of TE sees the fall. Since I believe that God chose two pre-human ancestors to give souls to thus making them human and the literal Adam and Eve I don’t believe there was human death before the fall either. Thus these answers do apply to me at least. Other TE’s not so much but they also have fairly convincing arguments – you might just have to read more of the articles cause there were some from TE’s listed on that page that I didn’t read cause the first one was good enough for my position.
I believe the ASA is a TE website and there was one from them there somewhere i’m sure.
“No we don’t. First of all different time period.”
That’s not a reason.
“Second of all different genre of writing.”
That’s assuming what you want to prove.
“Third of all the evidence of actions of the disciples after the ascension.”
What about the actions of the Jews after receiving the Law and Torah from God? Same thing.
“Fourth the way the author’s specifically tell us they are writing history (at least in the case of Luke in Acts) and claim that their accounts came from eyewitnesses.”
According to the NET bible notes “The expression this is the account of is an important title used throughout the Book of Genesis, serving as the organizing principle of the work.” That sounds to me like the founding principle of Genesis is that it claims to be a history.
“Fifth the later books of the NT are letters which are clearly not written in allegory”
But these books refer to Genesis assuming that *it* was not written in allegory. Isn’t it bit odd that you think Genesis is allegory because you think science has forced you to, but those with no such preconceptions disagree?
John,
I believe Genesis is allegory because of it’s context in the ANE, just like I believe that Revelation is symbolic and allegoric because of it’s context as 1st Century Jewish apocalyptic literature. Science simply supports this view, makes it more likely, and makes other views less likely.
“No it doesn’t because you keep on associating TE with the wrong epistemology. This epistemology says that all that can be known can be known through the scientific method.”
You’re assuming that everyone who denies the resurrection also denies the supernatural or God in entirety. That’s not true and I’m not assuming it to be true. What I’m pointing out is that that a hermeneutic that puts one’s personal understanding of science above the word of God can equally deny the resurrection on the same basis. That’s why we have bishop Spong who thinks he is a Christian. Spong says there is a god, even though I can’t figure out who he thinks He is. As far as I can tell, he thinks of the resurrection the exact same way you refer to ANE world views that just teach us something very vague and general about God.
“TE’S DO NOT BELIEVE THIS”
Right, but I’m explaining the slippery slope thesis of non-TEs.
“Let me ask a question. Do you believe that there is a supernatural explanation for why a ball comes down when you toss it in the air?”
Why? Does the bible say something about it? If it does, then I say yes. If not, then I hold judgement.
” Do you believe everything in the Bible should be interpreted literally?”
If the apostles interpret it literally, then yes. If the bible can’t interpret the bible, then all is lost.
“Since I believe that God chose two pre-human ancestors to give souls to thus making them human and the literal Adam and Eve I don’t believe there was human death before the fall either. ”
And what do you do when the gene gurus tell you that the human genetic pool does not support the notion that there was ever less than 1000 members?
That means that some of us may not be human because we have human-like genes, but don’t descend from Adam. Or else that humans were breeding with apes. Or various other notions.
John,
Also of note is that your whole understanding of human falleness and the exchanges in Genesis and writings of Paul is predicated on an Augustinian understanding of Original Sin. This doctrine wasn’t articulated until the 5th Century and though accepted at some time after this by the Western Church (largely because of the debate with Pelgius who was an extremist on the other side) it to this day has not been adopted by the Eastern Church.
The understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Greek Father’s with regards to original sin could with very little tweaking support human falleness and need for redemption even without a literal Adam if Adam and Eve are instead understood to be figurative for a group of early humans .
John,
Are the apostles capable of not understanding something? I mean they weren’t omniscient were they??? When Jesus told them the story of the mustard seed they all believed (incorrectly) that the mustard seed was the smallest seed. Simply because the apostles still believed Genesis to be literal is not evidence that it was intended by God to be literal. If evolution were true Jesus wouldn’t have had any easier time (short of just putting all the information in their brains which doesn’t seem to be God’s modus operandi in Scripture) explaining evolution to them then he would have to Moses. He just continued to use their defective understanding to convey the Truth he needed to in a manner that they and everyone else could understand.
“Also of note is that your whole understanding of human falleness and the exchanges in Genesis and writings of Paul is predicated on an Augustinian understanding of Original Sin.”
I highly doubt that since I do not hold to an Augustinian notion of Original Sin.
“The understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Greek Father’s with regards to original sin could with very little tweaking support human falleness and need for redemption even without a literal Adam if Adam and Eve are instead understood to be figurative for a group of early humans.”
Since you don’t tell us how any distinction between Augustine and the Eastern Fathers is germane here, I can’t comment, other than to doubt you’ve found anything to help you here.
“Are the apostles capable of not understanding something? I mean they weren’t omniscient were they???”
No, so maybe they got it all wrong, huh?
I’m still interested to find out where TE’s believe the spiritual awareness to recognize God as such came into the evolutionary picture, especially regarding the ANE belief that they couldn’t understand simple precepts like mustard seeds, firmaments and cud chewing rabbits. That would, taken to its logical conclusion. suggest they couldn’t understand the commands of God not to eat forbidden fruit.
If TE’s who do believe in a literal Adam and Eve but do not believe the breath that God breathed into Adam was the defining moment, where do we know in the evolutionary chain when that occurred?
I should think that would make a huge difference in whether we could have a literal Adam or Eve, especially as someone else mentioned, if they were simply allegorical representatives of the larger gene pool. And if they were only allegorical representatives, it then follows that the fall would be in question, as well, and subsequently the need for Christ to become the sacrifice for sin in order to reconcile the world back to God.
By the way, Paul used the creation of Adam and Eve in a very literal way as the reason for more than his belief in original sin and explaining the fall. It was also used in his explanation of the relationship of men and women in the church.
So, if Paul misunderstood and had it all wrong, again we have something in the Bible, in the New Testament even, that loses a very large share of it’s force if it is based on false understanding.
It seems to me that this certainly is a slippery slope. If we can’t believe Paul on this one either or on his understanding of a literal Adam and Eve in relationship to the fall, how do we know we can believe him on other issues?
(Someone is probably going to say regarding Paul’s instructions in this passage, “But this was just Paul’s opinion being spoken here. After all he said, ‘I don’t let women..’.” However, he was an Apostle trusted by God to give His directions to the church, so I don’t personally see how that argument holds up.)
John,
I could be wrong, but it seems somewhat unlikely that you don’t hold to an Augustinian conception. If you believe that we share in the guild and debt of Adam then you believe in an Augustinian conception. It may not be exactly what Augustine believed cause the view has evolved over the centuries, but it is still close.
The best explanation for the Orthodox view is this,
“Orthodoxy believes we are all born innocent of any guilt, but we are born into a world corrupted by Adam’s sin. We suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin as a child born aboard the sinking Titanic suffers the effect of the captain’s poor choice of course and speed.”
and another quote in an article regarding the Orthodox view of the Atonement,
“This means that something else is missing—guilt. Now, of course we are responsible for our sins, and guilty in that sense. But we’re not born carrying the debt of guilt for Adam’s sin. That’s what the fourth-century theologian Augustine of Hippo meant by the term “Original Sin.” But his theory was not widely accepted in the early church (in fact, not all Eastern Christians call him a saint, and he was far from the towering figure that he became in Western thinking later on.) The idea of inborn debt compelled Augustine to say that, logically, a baby who died before baptism would have to be damned.”
Now if one views Adam as a representation of a group of early humans rebelling against God as many Eastern Orthodox in fact do) this understanding of original sin and the fallenness of the world still holds.
I am not personally Eastern Orthodox, however me and them share a number of beliefs in common that more Evangelicals don’t hold to (I tend to lean towards a Ransom view of the atonement for instance). I also find it interesting that a Christian tradition which dates back to the beginning of Christianity holds views which could be (and many many Orthodox argue are in fact) compatible with evolution.
Slippery slope?
Indeed, an acceptance of evolution and calling rigid inerrancy into question may launch folks onto a slippery slope, of sorts. But I weary of the phrase. It says nothing of the truth of a position, only that the position has potentially dangerous consequences.
Did I feel safer, more comfortable when I found myself on the “safe” plateau at the top of the hill? Was it more secure believing in an inerrant Bible and YEC? Well, I suppose the answer is yes. Does that mean that safe position is true? Does it even argue that it might be true? I think not.
If the truth happens to be situated on a the side of a hill where the footing is slippery, where there are risks, then I will walk there! Such a place (presuming it is the place of truth) is the only truly safe place to be … but it certainly requires faith, constant seeking, continual reliance upon the Spirit of Truth, etc.
So, those buzz-words, “slippery slope”, have no compelling force for me. I suggest they are not at all helpful in our quest for truth.
No, so maybe they got it all wrong, huh?
So you believe the disciples were omniscient then? I find it ridiculous to throw out the whole NT because the Apostles didn’t understand science. They didn’t understand a whole lot of things, even about God. You can see this clearly in the back and forth between Paul and Peter and the occurrence of the Jerusalem culture. The Apostle’s disagreed among themselves about whether or not Gentile Christian’s had to follow the OT Law.
Acknowledging that the Apostles weren’t perfect doesn’t undermine the ability of them to be used as tools by God and to speak infallibly about matters of faith when inspired by God to do so. We simply must remember that when the spoke under inspiration they spoke to a people at a certain time and in a certain culture. For instance every last one of Paul’s letters was written to a specific church and dealt with issues specific to that church and the culture in which that church was located. Being written in a certain time we can expect the letters to contain an inaccurate conception of the universe (in this case it is still largely an ANE view). Yet the science isn’t the point of the letters nor does it have anything to do with the Truth the letters are conveying. It is simply a human understanding used by God in the same way he used the Greek language to help the people understand the Gospel.
The Apostle’s were mistaken about the way the universe was made. The Apostles were mistaken about the finality of Jesus’ death. The Apostle’s were mistaken about the mustard seed being the smallest seed. The ancient Israelite’s were mistaken as to the manner in which a rabbit eats. SOOOO BLOODY WHAT!!!!! It doesn’t matter. It’s irrelevant and has nothing to do with the truth being communicated. It is simply the vehicle of understanding God used to communicate Truth in the same way he spoke to the Israelite’s in Hebrew.
Honestly you are really expecting God to speak to the ancient Israelite’s in modern English and have them understand Him. This would be absurd and is just as absurd as expecting God to speak to the ancient Israelite’s in modern science terms and have them understand.
Cliff,
So forget the buzz word. The fact remains that if you start questioning if the Apostle Paul or any of the other Bible writers, specifically those in the New Testament, knew what they were talking about, you call into question the veracity of the whole New Testament.
How can you then continue to believe that what those same writers claim is historical fact in the NT as some one above did, don’t remember who, is accurate either? You end up with a pick and choose belief in the Bible. Believe it if it agrees with what you believe from other sources and disbelieve it if it doesn’t. If the Scriptural writers were not inspired by God and much of it, including Paul’s instructions to us, is just the ideas of some ancient men, there is no real reason to put confidence in it anymore is there?