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""
Michael T,
Exactly how do you propose to know if what was taught anywhere in the Bible, including the New Testament was truth that we should believe and act on in daily life or not? How do you pick and choose which things were right and which things were wrong?
By the way, such examples as the apostles arguing about the Gentile Christians and being mistaken about the finality of Jesus’ death really don’t do much for your argument as far as I can see. Those misunderstandings and disagreements were resolved at that time and the results were made plain for all of us to see that now read the record. That is, IMO, a vastly different thing than teaching being left to stand in the New Testament that has very little force because what they based it on was not valid.
Guys, I am getting complaints here. Things have been going well, but it is getting out of control and some of you are attacking each other in ways that are not acceptable. You know who you are. If things don’t change, I am going to ban someone…I have not done so in a few months so I am looking for an excuse 🙂
Please watch how you are engaging each other. Gentleness and respect. Gentleness and respect. Respect and gentleness.
CMP,
Could you please send an email to whoever it is your talking about. Cause personally I think I’ve been fairly patient with having my views continually misrepresented and being told I believe things that I don’t believe, despite explaining myself over and over again.
Cherylu,
“You end up with a pick and choose belief in the Bible…”
I appreciate you concern, but don’t you see how we all do that? I could show you many things in the Bible you choose not to believe to be God’s will for you, and you either ignore these or interpret them away. You, even with you inerrant New Testament, must choose which variant Greek readings to accept as genuine. When confronted with plain contradictions, you must choose which account to believe. No follower of Jesus is free from the need to “pick and choose”. In the end, we all must rely upon the Living Word, and the Spirit of Truth he sent to us to determine what in the Bible is normative and applicable truth in our lives. We all need the Spirit to read the Bible.
mbaker on 31 Oct 2009 at 2:01 pm #
Eric,
…You, for instance do not believe ‘ensoulment’, as you have called it occurred somewhere along the way, as you have said in your previous comments. Where, if you believe the scientific evidence is conclusive and that we are a higher form of life than apes, do you believe a spiritual awareness of God, or a higher power as some call it, came into being, and how?
mbaker:
Re: “ensoulment” – My point has been that the Genesis creation account does not support the idea assumed or held by many that God put a “soul” or “spirit” into man that thereby differentiates man from non-human animals, or thereby differentiates man’s creation from the way God created the non-human animals.
I don’t dispute that there is a part of man that has spiritual awareness. This could be what Paul is referring to when he speaks of his “inner man” and his “mind” as opposed to his flesh/body/bodily members in Romans 7 – though he differentiates his “spirit” from his “mind” in 1 Corinthians 14, so there could be a distinction between one’s mind/inner man and one’s spirit – i.e., man is trichotomous, not dichotomous or a unity.
David seems to identify his “soul” with his inner being, perhaps differentiating it from his physical body, in Psalm 103.
How man gets this spiritually-aware soul or spirit does not seem to be clear to me in the Scriptures – unless this is what is meant by man being made in God’s image and likeness, which appears to me to be what separates man’s creation from the creation of the non-human animals in Genesis.
Is man’s possessing of such an “inner” being and/or spirit what is meant by being made in God’s image and likeness? Or is the correspondence even more exact – i.e., to be made in God’s image and likeness is to have such an “inner man” and/or “spirit” – because God, too, has such an “inner man” and/or “spirit”? I’m not going there, just asking…. 🙂
Michael: “If you believe that we share in the guild and debt of Adam then you believe in an Augustinian conception. ”
I don’t believe that, so I don’t believe an Augustinian conception.
I also don’t see how this helps you, or at least if it helps you it helps you against an argument I don’t want to make, and I don’t believe I did make.
While we don’t inherit immediate guilt, we do inherit the fallen world. But you want to say that these human-looking yet soul-less creatures were dying, and in doing so improving the race. Then one (?) gets given a soul, and becomes immortal(?), and then the earth becomes perfected(?). Shortly thereafter he screws up, and humans go back to dying again, which is really what has been going on all along. It doesn’t fit the story of a perfect world, that then falls. Rather it is a fallen world that goes back to being fallen after a very brief respite.
“So you believe the disciples were omniscient then?”
It doesn’t matter because the Christian position is “men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” Not that they spoke from their own ignorance, but that they spoke from God. If that’s not true, then they are just some guys who had an opinion about some goings on.
“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.”
But they did say things about the faith based on a literal understanding of Genesis. So where does this leave you?
“The Apostle’s were mistaken about the mustard seed being the smallest seed.”
The apostles didn’t say that, Jesus did. That’s the guy who Christians believe is God.
“The ancient Israelite’s were mistaken as to the manner in which a rabbit eats.”
No, יְהוָ֛ה (Yahweh) said that. That’s the One whom Christians believe is God.
“SOOOO BLOODY WHAT!!!!!”
The “so what” is that the bible says God said certain things, and you are correcting God, or else you are saying that the bible lies about what God did. Both outcomes have very major problems that I think you can figure out.
“Honestly you are really expecting God to speak to the ancient Israelite’s in modern English and have them understand Him.”
I don’t understand the argument that Israelites were incapable of understanding any concept that God might have cared to explain to them. Nor that God couldn’t empart whatever things he wanted to empart without being untruthful at the same time. Remembering of course that God presumably knew that people 3000+ years later would still be reading it, and God didn’t set any cut off date for its applicability to end.
“The “so what” is that the bible says God said certain things, and you are correcting God, or else you are saying that the bible lies about what God did. Both outcomes have very major problems that I think you can figure out.”
Neither one of these is correct. God simply is using the understanding of the people to communicate his Truth. He doesn’t want the Israelite’s eating rabbits. The Israelite’s believe prior to this event due to their own ignorance that rabbits eat their excrement. So rather than trying to correct their understanding God simply uses that understanding to communicate Truth. If He had said instead said “do not eat rabbits cause they eat their poop” NO ONE would understand. In fact the Isarelite’s would probably accuse God of being ignorant. The point of the story is not what rabbits do, but that in order to be ceremonially clean you can’t eat them and the reason why is irrelevant to the command itself. The fact that God used the cultural understandings of the people to communicate that command does not make God a liar nor does it make God ignorant. It simply makes Him a realist in the same way that He was when he gave laws which don’t conform to His Eternal Law. Again your expecting God to correct every scientific misunderstanding of the Israelite’s which would destroy the Truth He’s trying to communicate.
“Remembering of course that God presumably knew that people 3000+ years later would still be reading it, and God didn’t set any cut off date for its applicability to end.”
So this is supposed to somehow prove God intended a literal meaning?? I mean God for whatever reason wrote what He wrote with full knowledge that some of what was written would be misinterpreted by many. I mean think just of Revelation. No matter which position is actually right at least 75% of people alive today are wrong.
This could also be said about anything else in the Bible. For instance the thing about women wearing beads and certain hairstyles in Corinthians (I think that’s where it is). Now clearly this was written to address a specific problem in the church Paul was writing to and there is clearly a principle which we today can get from these passages. Yet almost every theologian I have ever read would say that the part specifically addressing hairstyles or jewelry are not applicable to today as they were specific to the culture of the time. Yet God never put and expiration date on this either did He??? There are numerous examples where the Bible is addressing something culturally specific and while we can certainly extract principles from these events which should be followed, the specific matter addressed is no longer applicable.
I’m pretty sure CMP was referring to me. At this stage in the discussion I’m fine with that because I said some things that I thought needed to be said. I think posters on this thread are making pronouncements that they themselves cannot even answer for according to their own views. Then they look down on us when we cannot give a happy answer. I think its hypocritical, and I think it needs to stop.
I think this thread has largely become irrelevant because the evolutionary creationists are so busy having to pile explanation upon explanation.
Listen, we know we aren’t in total agreement with your traditional 100 year-old Christianity. We get it that you don’t like it either.
Stop calling us heretics, or accusing us of other vile shenanigans. You’d have as much trouble figuring all this stuff out too if you knew as much as we did.
There, I said it. We know more than you! Don’t act like you’re offended. You still take your car to the mechanic because they know how to fix it and you don’t.
Unless you’re willing to learn, unless your willing to ask honest questions, and unless your willing to take Holy Tradition off of its ungodly pedestal, I don’t have time for you. Would you put up with a student in a classroom that never contributes and spends all their time heckling the professor? I doubt it.
This is a discussion over premises, not conclusions. If the detractors of evolutionary creationism are never willing to question their premises, then this discussion will go absolutely no where.
And that’s what seems to me to have happened.
I wrote this on my blog last year after I was asked to leave a Genesis Bible study at my church for asking the wrong questions.
I think its relevant to this thread.
Bliss
All men by nature desire to know. -Aristotle
They say that ignorance is bliss. Some of us are not given that luxury. The glory of our senses compel us to seek out, understand, and revel in the world around us.
Others don’t have this desire to the same degree. They’re content with a simple world, with simple ideas, and simple motions. They don’t understand those of us who desire to know. They cannot understand us.
To them the world is black and white. As easy to understand as a newspaper. As easy to ignore as one too. A page is turned and produces instant enjoyment, while another is shuffled away because it is too frightening to understand. Seeking out color is heresy; it is war against the clear and plain ways.
These kinds of people can never understand those of us who see in color. They are too afraid to make the journey. The simple life is ideal and unburdened by knowledge. Child-like knowledge to go with their child-like faith. A mistaken virtue.
The world is complicated. Many times it does not make sense. Much of it will not make sense this side of Paradise. We know that. They don’t. We desire to know, and that is a journey wrought with danger, but also the sweet thrill of discovery. We travel through magnificent forests and up mighty mountains, to the depths of the seas and through the very reaches of space. We see the world in all it’s glory, as it was made to be seen, enjoyed, experienced.
Those that only see in black and white look down upon us and tell us we are mistaken. “The world is not as magnificent as you claim,” they say, “you make it too complicated, when in fact it is all so simple. Just stop looking at all the colors and you will understand. You will plainly and clearly see.”
Only the ones who have not seen would say something like that. Those who have never seen cannot know what real sight is like.
[To Be Continued]
[Concluded]
My Father in Heaven has blessed me with an unquenchable desire to know. To seek out and understand, to teach the glories of his Word and world to those less fortunate than I. Ignorance is bliss, maybe, but in the wonderful wisdom of His will, I have been denied this common curse.
I cannot unsee what I have seen. I do not have the luxury of ignorance to guide me in my life anymore. The church is the greatest sustainer of ignorance I have yet to encounter. As I walk through it I am struck by the childishness of the people, the simplicity they exhibit. At times I long to have again what they have now! Only to fit in, to be of a simple mind again, and not walk this road alone. But in the end, that would be like a man who can now see preferring instead his blindness. I prefer the color of the empty road.
The world is an amazing and complicated place. The Word of God is an amazing and complicated book. Both will confuse you to death. Those who do not see burn one in favor of another. That is not an option for me. Who am I to condemn a work of God to the fire? As God is the author of both, I have to hold one in my right hand and one in the other. I have to accept both no matter how confusing it may seem or how much guessing I may have to do. I am sure in my heart that my God is faithful and true, not one prone to duplicity, as those who do not see will have me believe.
The Word and the world are complicated. I embrace the challenge. I will glory in the magnificent creation my Father has put me in and pity those who do not see what wonders my God has created. Any who wish to see I will gladly help them. Those who refuse, I, ever praying, will leave them to their unrealized misery.
I’m not extremely fond of this ‘holiday’ either, but don’t have enough education or strength of opinion to try and proselytize about my feelings.
I am curious why I haven’t seen anything written/posted about the original history of All Hallows Eve/Halloween. I may not know much, or be very sure of my knowledge, but I seem to recall it didn’t start come from a place of evil intent.
The best thing I’ve heard all Halloween season was from an on air personality. She is not extremely fond of this time of year either. However, she does use it for good. Halloween is the ONLY time her neighbor come out of their houses and socialize, so she takes the opportunity to share God’s love with them.
“The Israelite’s believe prior to this event due to their own ignorance that rabbits eat their excrement.”
Israelis believe rabbits eat poop. Gotcha.
“If He had said instead said “do not eat rabbits cause they eat their poop” NO ONE would understand.”
Israelis wouldn’t understand if rabbits eat poop. Gotcha.
You’re self-contradicting, and you’ve got it all wrong.
Rabbits eat special pellets that come out of their behind. These pellets aren’t poop, but a form of half-digested nutrients. They take these half-ingested pellets through their mouth and ingest them a second time.
Just like Leviticus says they do, incidentally.
The atheist rabbit argument is that English translations of Leviticus say that rabbits chew their cud, and they are unclean thereby. Rabbits don’t chew their cud, thus the bible is wrong. The trouble with your argument is that if rabbits in fact don’t chew their cud, but if the bible says they do, then God lacks a correct reason for not eating them. He could have simply said “don’t eat them”, or he could have said “don’t eat them because they eat their poop”, both of which are perfectly understandable to the most ignorant of laymen. But he allegedly said “chew their cud”, which is simply factually without foundation. Thus your argument does not compute.
Of course since the Hebrew does not say “chew their cud”, the entire discussion is fallacious.
“So this is supposed to somehow prove God intended a literal meaning?? I mean God for whatever reason wrote what He wrote with full knowledge that some of what was written would be misinterpreted by many.”
But your entire argument makes a claim about the intended audience of Genesis as purely ancient Hebrews. Are you now ceding that argument in favor of a new tack that now everyone misunderstands everything anyway?
What exactly is culturally specific about a narrative of events that purport to have taken place before there were any cultures?
John,
Please stop being so bent on looking for ways to criticize that you start missing obvious typos or misstatements. It really shows your bias and inability to even have a remotely open discussion about this when you don’t start criticizing obvious misstatements. Anyone could recognize from earlier statements and the context of this whole discussion that I meant to say the Israelite’s ignorantly believed that rabbits chewed their cud (and not eat their poop as they actually do.) Thus an Israelite would think it was ridiculous if God told them they couldn’t eat rabbits because they ate their poop (or whatever you want to call these special pellets – it doesn’t matter the point is made and is immaterial). I can’t believe I had to correct this and you couldn’t see the obvious misstatement. Wow……
“But your entire argument makes a claim about the intended audience of Genesis as purely ancient Hebrews. Are you now ceding that argument in favor of a new tack that now everyone misunderstands everything anyway?”
Wow again you are being so blinded by you inability to have and open discussion and need to criticize that you can’t even make logical deductions. If you can’t make reasonable assumption about the meanings of the words I write in English how in the world do you even attempt to understand something written in Hebrew and Greek???
The intended meaning of what I wrote was that God (having foreknowledge and knowing what people would think in the future) knew that people in 21st Century America (and other time periods) would misinterpret the Bible. Yet He wrote what He wrote anyhow. It has nothing to do with whether the ancient Israelite’s understood or not, but the fact that God has allowed for words to be written in the Bible which various people at various points in history have interpreted wrongly whether by simple errors in logic, mistranslation, or a incorrect hermeneutic.
Also again where in the world did I say that Genesis was intended only or even primarily for ancient Hebrews??? You are again misrepresenting my views because of your own prejudice. I never said this nor does my argument rest on this being true. It is enough that Genesis was written in the context, culture and understanding of ancient Hebrews and should be interpreted according to this context, culture, and understanding. The theological importance of Genesis is for everybody, but in order to fully understand that theological importance we must understand Genesis in the correct context.
One cannot interpret any book of the Bible in a vacuum as if it was written to them personally according to their culture and understanding because it wasn’t. It was written in the culture and context (and even literary forms) existing in the cultures that the book was written in at the time it was written.
I apologize. My last post was too harsh. However, I am just really frustrated at the way people are twisting my words, misrepresenting what I have said, putting words in my mouth, accusing me of believing things I explicitly deny, and so eager to criticize that they don’t even stop to think reasonably about something and recognize a likely misstatement.
“You’d have as much trouble figuring all this stuff out too if you knew as much as we did.”
Oh, so you haven’t figured it out? That’s not the impression we’re getting over here. The impression we’re getting is we need to up and drop 2000 years of Christian belief and accept anything you tell us because now you’ve figured it all out.
“There, I said it. We know more than you!”
You know enough to be dangerous, I’ll give you that. Like when nylonase enzyme was name dropped as a slam dunk case of evolution, but sounder minds have said it is probably not a brand new feature and is in fact at best an unimpressive case of evolution.
“Stop calling us heretics”
I haven’t actually heard the H word used here. But let’s say that it had. “I know more than you” is not a defence against that accusation.
On the off-chance you do know more about science than people here, you don’t know more about Christian theology, and you don’t hold any position in the church as far as I know that would give you any standing to make pronouncements about it. You can go over to a science forum, and presumably they will judge whatever you do on whatever basis they choose over there. But when you’re discussing theology, knowing a lot about science doesn’t get you any further than it would get me knowing the bible and poking my head in over there.
“Would you put up with a student in a classroom that never contributes and spends all their time heckling the professor? I doubt it.”
This classroom is the theology classroom, and you are the science heckler.
“If the detractors of evolutionary creationism are never willing to question their premises, then this discussion will go absolutely no where.”
The point is that our side considers certain premises to be un-Christian. We could question them, but thereby leave Christianity behind. My question for you would be what are the foundational axioms and epistemological basis for Christian doctrine according to you, and then show that these are in fact a sufficient basis for actually having a religion that bears any relationship to something that might be labelled Christian.
It’s all very well to rail against what you label “Holy Tradition”, but what you rail against, we call the axiom from which the whole religion stems. Having someone hacking away at the foundations while saying “don’t worry, we know more than you, so shutup”, isn’t actually an approach likely to win friends or influence people.
And being unable to answer basic questions about where it leaves the foundations doesn’t inspire confidence because you are supposedly an expert in some other area. We are worried about the Christian foundations. Being right about the science, but drawing the entirely wrong conclusions about the theology still…
“Anyone could recognize from earlier statements and the context of this whole discussion that I meant to say the Israelite’s ignorantly believed that rabbits chewed their cud (and not eat their poop as they actually do.) Thus an Israelite would think it was ridiculous if God told them they couldn’t eat rabbits because they ate their poop”
(a) You’d better have all your pins aligned before saying the bible is wrong.
(b) I might have given you the benefit of the doubt if the argument made any more sense with that substitution, but it doesn’t. As I showed previously, even children have noticed that “rabbits eat their poop”. Thus it is hardly going to confuse an Israelite to say not to eat rabbits because they eat their poop. So we are back to saying that God got it wrong.
“Also again where in the world did I say that Genesis was intended only or even primarily for ancient Hebrews?”
Because you keep going on about “ANE culture”. That either means it wasn’t written by God, but was written from a mistaken ANE world view. Or else supposedly it was written by God FOR AN ANE audience. That much is clear, no? Which poison do you choose?
John,
“Oh, so you haven’t figured it out? That’s not the impression we’re getting over here. The impression we’re getting is we need to up and drop 2000 years of Christian belief and accept anything you tell us because now you’ve figured it all out.”
Nope but apparently you do so I’ll just bow to your vastly superior intellect.
“You know enough to be dangerous, I’ll give you that. Like when nylonase enzyme was name dropped as a slam dunk case of evolution, but sounder minds have said it is probably not a brand new feature and is in fact at best an unimpressive case of evolution.”
The incorrectness of those “sounder minds” has been addressed.
“On the off-chance you do know more about science than people here, you don’t know more about Christian theology,”
Hmm making assumptions about our understanding of Christian Theology here aren’t you??? You yourself have admitted to not holding to Augustinian original sin and not holding to Penal Substitution something that many this forum would consider heterodox and some fundies might even consider heresy. So perhaps from their perspective you don’t know enough about Christian theology either!! I am well aware of the traditional understandings of things. In addition I am aware of other understandings that have existed in church history that may be more compatible with evolution. Finally there are some places where I think Church History is mistaken in the same way that Calvin thought the Early Church was mistaken about Ransom Atonement.
“and you don’t hold any position in the church as far as I know that would give you any standing to make pronouncements about it.”
What position would suffice to you??? Want me to be a professor, a pastor, what??? In the Protestant faith no such “position” exists”. In the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths it does and both of those are accepting of evolution.
“The point is that our side considers certain premises to be un-Christian. We could question them, but thereby leave Christianity behind.”
There you go – any attack on your personal subset of beliefs (which are quite frankly unorthodox at points) is an attack on the faith in general. Don’t bother looking to see if other understandings can be supported from the text. Just admit defeat and stop believing or dogmatically keep restating what you’ve always restated as if saying it one more time will make it true. Futhermore, what are these premises, because I find nothing in the ancient creeds of the Church, the foundational doctrines, which is even remotely impacted by this debate.
cont.
“My question for you would be what are the foundational axioms and epistemological basis for Christian doctrine according to you, and then show that these are in fact a sufficient basis for actually having a religion that bears any relationship to something that might be labelled Christian.”
I have addressed this more times then I can count. Since you can’t understand no matter how many times things are explained to you I won’t waste my time rewriting what has already been written.
“I might have given you the benefit of the doubt if the argument made any more sense with that substitution, but it doesn’t. As I showed previously, even children have noticed that “rabbits eat their poop”. Thus it is hardly going to confuse an Israelite to say not to eat rabbits because they eat their poop. So we are back to saying that God got it wrong.”
For the love of all that is good and holy go back and read all the posts. You will see that this was just a possible explanation as I said earlier “ASSUMING THAT “CUD” IS A ACTUAL PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE LANGUAGE. Others in history have made this mistake of thinking rabbits chew their cud and the ancient Israelite’s could have too and if they understood things this way it would make sense for God to give the command he gave. I already gave other possibilities for this earlier if you actually bothered to read my posts (I am really convinced you don’t actually pay any attention to the content of our posts but just look for anything you can attack”). Other explanations include a mistranslation of the Hebrew words involved, or as some have suggested that this is actually so similar to chewing cud that the prohibition would make sense to apply to rabbits as well as cows in the context of ceremonial cleanliness. For all intense purposes cows and rabbits do the same thing, the process is just slightly different.
Misrepresenting my views and not paying attention again…..
John,
Also a question which in your usual fashion you will probably never bother to answer, yet I’ll ask it anyhow.
IS TRADITION ABOVE GENERAL REVELATION???
You seem to be arguing that it is and that if general revelation (the universe as can be understood physically) contradicts our traditional understanding of the Bible or theology we should stick with tradition. Yet if this is the case you should really still be believing in a Earth centered universe since we only get a Sun centered Solar System from scientific understandings of the universe.
Tradition up until after Galileo held to a Earth-centered cosmos and was only changed by a better scientific understanding of general revelation which in turned changed the very way Scripture was interpreted. Since general revelation changed tradition and the interpretation of Scripture you should be disturbed by this, but you don’t seem to be.
John,
I love you man, but you’re wrong. When two people come up to you and explain that you are misrepresenting them, you need to take it to heart in all seriousness.
We’ve been incredibly patient with you these last few weeks, taking hours of our time to try and help you understand these difficult things. We’re frustrated because you aren’t willing to return the effort. All you want to do is argue. We really do want you to understand, but we’re getting very tired of your accusative nature.
I know you are very fond of what you believe to be the historic Christian faith. I am too, actually. Considering the essentials, you and I believe the same. Believe it or not, I’m very strong in theology and Biblical studies. I hope to become a professor of theology at some point in the future. My family and I don’t have the money for that type of education, which is why I’ve spent the last five years getting a degree I have no love for so I can use it to fund a serious theological education. I don’t know about you John, but in my book that’s called dedication.
My expertise is theology, more so than any science, which is why I’m fine deferring to the experts when the need arises. I said as much in a previous thread. I may be young, but I am passionate about understanding every aspect of my faith as best as I can.
I know you don’t like our take on inerrancy. But given that it is a new doctrine with an even younger definition, and that its certainly not a universal belief among Christendom, I think there is room for improvement.
CMP thought so too on his blog here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/07/my-definite-stance-on-inerrancy/
His stance on inerrancy mirrors my own very closely. Inerrancy needs to find its standard in one’s hermeneutic. And a good hermeneutic takes into account a given text’s cultural standards and historical roots.
Now CMP is a trained theologian, and one who we’d certainly call an expert on these matters. If he can look at inerrancy that way, why can’t we?
We see ancient science in scripture and have to account for it. So a non-essential doctrine needs to go under the knife so the whole thing can be saved. And scripture comes out stronger because of it. No longer are a thousand inconsequential details subject to the rigors of our modern standards. They shouldn’t have been subject in the first place.
You are passionate John, but you are also wrong. Ancient science in scripture is a fact. Evolution is a fact. Nothing that you do can change any of these truths. Uncomfortable bits and pieces of theology does not disprove science.
When, not if, the evidence for evolution becomes commonly believed in the church, I hope you don’t lose hope. I hope you don’t leave the faith because your house of cards has fallen down. Remember us, and keep in touch if you want to. Find me on Facebook even. Only Greg M on CMP’s friends list.
I wish you well in your faith. This is my last…
To anyone who wants to check it out:
Earlier in this thread, Dennis Venema gave a link to a talk he gave recently at a conference discussing the very issues we have. He looked at the scientific side of things, but there were some speakers there who discussed the issue from a theological perspective.
Here’s the link: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/baylor2009/Baylor_paperlinks.html
There seems to be lots of good topics that I’m certain many people here would be interested in hearing about. Lots of experts talking about the very issues we have been. Theologians and scientists.
What follows is a listing of topics that I think would interest people here. Check out the link though cause I left a lot out!
Paul H. Seely: “Does the Bible Use Phenomenal Language?”
Carol A. Hill: “The Worldview Approach to Biblical Interpretation and Origins: What It Is and How It Differs from Accommodation”
Denis O. Lamoureux: “The Sin-Death Problem: Toward an Evolutionary Creationist Solution”
Rodney J. Whitefield: “The Fourth Creative ‘Day’ of Genesis: Answering the Questions about the Sun and the Moon”
Ray Williams: “What Kind of Days Are These?”
Dick Fischer: “Historical Adam”
Robert Bishop: “The Doctrine of Creation and Cosmology”
John W. Hall: “How to Think about Chance and Purpose”
Don Petcher: “Methodological Naturalism: Necessary for Science or Superfluous”
Fred S. Hickernell: “A Church Course on Science and Faith for Adults”
John C. Munday: “Elements of the Scientific Method in Scripture”
Ken Wolgemuth and Gregory S. Bennett: “Pastors Need to Hear from Christian Geologists”
Loren Haarsma and Bruce Gordon: “Four Myths about Intelligent Design and Four Myths about Theistic Evolution”
Dennis Venema: “Human Genomics: Vestiges of Eden or Skeletons in the Closet?”
C. John Collins: “Were Adam and Eve Historical Figures? Yes, Indeed!”
Daniel Harlow: “Adam and Eve as Symbolic Figures in Biblical Literature”
John Schneider: “Genetic Science and Christianity’s Story of Human Origins: An Aesthetic ‘Supra-Lapsarianism'”
Edward B. Davis: “Evolution and the Image of God: Historical Reflections on Science, Morality, and Human Nature”
Sara Joan Miles: “Body and Soul: Biological Theories of Generation and Theological Theories of Ensoulment”
Rodney J. Scott: “Relating Body and Soul: A Collision between Theology, Science, and Good Intentions”
Robert Kaita: “Personal Computer Application Programs as Tools for Conceptualizing Aspects of Evolutionary Theory”
Richard Sternberg: “The Generation of Essential RNA Messages from Pseudogene Transcripts by Exemplar Causation”
Douglas Axe: “The Information Required for Metabolic Innovation, and Why the Darwinian Mechanism Is Not Apt to Be Its Source”
Robert J. Marks II and William A Dembski: “Evolutionary Informatics: Measuring the Cost of Success”
David Campbell: “The Origin of Higher Taxa”
David Snoke: “Is It Wrong to Quantify Wonder?”
William A. Dembski: “The Retroactive Effects of the Fall
“For the love of all that is good and holy go back and read all the posts. You will see that this was just a possible explanation…
….Other explanations include a mistranslation of the Hebrew words involved”
Sigh… if now you’re conceding it could be just a mis-translation of Hebrew words, then you’ve conceded that the whole Rabbit thing does zero to help your argument. Why not just say “our side blew it on the whole Rabbit fiasco”??? Why keep torturing us with a failed argument?
“Nope but apparently you do so I’ll just bow to your vastly superior intellect.”
Believing what God said is not about superior intellect. It is your side that raised the spectre that it is all about you guys knowing more.
“Hmm making assumptions about our understanding of Christian Theology here aren’t you?”
Despite your protestations, you have yet to enunciate a foundational epistemology that would allow you to with certainty state any kind of theology, Christian or non-Christian, orthodox or heterodox. Anything the bible says about theology is revisable according to the latest modern ideas, so how you would delineate the Christian from the non-Christian is an open question.
“So perhaps from their perspective you don’t know enough about Christian theology either!!”
No doubt, and my objections to them have many similarities to the objections for you, that they lack sufficient foundation for their beliefs.
“Finally there are some places where I think Church History is mistaken in the same way that Calvin thought the Early Church was mistaken about Ransom Atonement.”
It doesn’t surprise me, since everything is revisable for you.
“any attack on your personal subset of beliefs (which are quite frankly unorthodox at points) is an attack on the faith in general.”
Despite your attempt to reverse reality, nothing I’ve said is about what I personally think, it is based on what christianity has always thought. I’ve defended what יְהוָ֥ה said, what Jesus said, what Paul said, what the Church fathers said. Pretty much all the traditional sources for knowing what Christianity is EXCEPT myself. Remember your side rapidly deteriorated into challenging the bible in general, and statements made by יְהוָ֥ה and Jesus, instead of making any kind of presentation that the bible is compatible with with what you’re saying. And I’m still under attack because I believe what יְהוָ֥ה said and I believe what Jesus said. And you reckon what you’re on about is good for the church?
“IS TRADITION ABOVE GENERAL REVELATION???”
Another word for tradition is the special revelation.
Special revelation is what God told us to believe and told us to do.
General revelation are the inferences we choose to draw.
General revelation in the Garden of Eden was that “the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise”.
Special revelation was “in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”
Whether the general revelation as Eve perceived it was accurate or not, following the special revelation leads directly to salvation. Following the general revelation, as you perceive it, is far less certain.
“Yet if this is the case you should really still be believing in a Earth centered universe since we only get a Sun centered Solar System from scientific understandings of the universe.”
You seem to be still trotting out the notion that the ancients thought the earth was flat. Aristotle in 384BC said the earth was a sphere. Around 240 BCE, Eratosthenes made an accurate calculation of the circumference of the earth.
But you want to tell us that we had to wait for Gallileo before some unmentioned verse could be correctly interpreted? I think you assume what you want to prove.
“I know you don’t like our take on inerrancy. But given that it is a new doctrine with an even younger definition”
I already pointed out way up in the thread that it is not a new doctrine.
And its not just inerrancy per se, even though I think there are difficult problems in all errant theories. It’s a bit different between arguing that say Chronicles makes a mistake in geneology, or the count of soldiers at some battle was wrong, versus claiming that God or Jesus directly misspoke, or that Paul draws errant theological conclusions because he mistakenly believes Genesis is literal. If there is no dividing line where you are willing to say that God definitely said this, and therefore I’m going to believe it, then clearly the floodgates are opened to compromise. There remains no special revelation that can’t be corrected from whatever one perceives is right in their own eyes.
“When, not if, the evidence for evolution becomes commonly believed in the church, I hope you don’t lose hope.”
You’re outnumbered at least 2:1 in the churches of one of the best educated countries in the world. It might not be a good idea to hold your breath. If nothing else you’re betting that the average Christian’s interest in science rises to anywhere near their interest in the bible.
John’s definitions of general and special revelation (see his comment 525) are interesting but are not the traditional ones used in discussions of theology or hermeneutics. The definitions that have been used, and used for so long that there is extremely little likelihood that they would ever change, are:
General revelation is God’s revelation of Himself through the created universe (the Romans 1:20 thing).
Special revelation is God’s revelation of Himself through his prophets and apostles, which has resulted in the written word of God in the Bible.
regards,
#John
Cherylu, Baker, etc:
I disagree that believing in a simple, LITERAL, physical resurrection is necessary for Christianity.
1) I submit that if you look more closely, the Bible itself doesn’t really quite say that. Even in Gospel John, it never actually SAYS that Thomas actually put his hand in the wound; only that Jesus makes the offer. No account of Thomas actually taking him up on it.
2) While indeed, the incident at Emmaus is approved as a resurrection of Jesus; one that is somewhat allegorical. But the Bible often says things are “figurative” or metaphorical.
3) And if “only” the spirit of Jesus is resurrected, isn’t the spirit enough?
Do you value the body, over the spirit?
Renton on 02 Nov 2009 at 12:02 pm #
Cherylu, Baker, etc:
I disagree that believing in a simple, LITERAL, physical resurrection is necessary for Christianity.
1) I submit that if you look more closely, the Bible itself doesn’t really quite say that. Even in Gospel John, it never actually SAYS that Thomas actually put his hand in the wound; only that Jesus makes the offer. No account of Thomas actually taking him up on it.
2) While indeed, the incident at Emmaus is approved as a resurrection of Jesus; one that is somewhat allegorical. But the Bible often says things are “figurative” or metaphorical.
3) And if “only” the spirit of Jesus is resurrected, isn’t the spirit enough?
Do you value the body, over the spirit?
Renton:
How do you understand Luke 24:36-43, esp. 24:39:
36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41 While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; 43 and He took it and ate it before them.
– – –
Also John 20:16-17:
16 Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher). 17 Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'”
Obviously she was clinging to something (assuming that’s the proper translation/meaning of the present infinitive here), not a vaporous spirit.
Renton,
I was going to bring up the same Scripture that EricW did about Jesus eating the fish but he beat me to it. You notice that the reason Jesus ate the fish was to prove to them that he was really there in body and was not just a spirit.
Well after more than 530 posts, I’m not sure anything has been resolved here. I am closing my subscription to this thread so my email in-box can relax awhile.
I will close with a HUGE AMEN to Greg’s posts #509 and #511. If you missed them, go back and read them. Despite John’s protestations, Greg’s comments in those posts are profound, and they represent my thoughts perfectly. No more need be said.
Greg,
If you don’t mind, I would like to use those two brilliant comments in an original post on my own blogsite. I don’t know that I need your permission, but I’d like to have it.
John,
Again you have dodged a question that undermines you whole argument. This time you have done so by redefining terms to mean something that no theologian I have read and no theology course I have taken would ever define them to mean. You have also side stepped the Galileo incident since it was in fact the official position of the Church in keeping with tradition that the Sun revolved around the Earth. So in essence you haven’t answered the question again. Here’s a couple of definitions to help.
Special Revelations = God speaking directly through prophets, writers, etc. In the case of modern Christianity the Bible is the only infallible source of special revelation (if you are a continuationist you might believe in other sources, but these are generally considered fallible).
General Revelation = God as revealed through creation. Here’s a very good post from the author of this blog on the subject. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/09/is-natural-revelation-also-gods-word/. I would highly suggest you don’t ignore this link and actually read it for once.
Tradition = The manner in which Special Revelation (and General Revelation) has been understood and interpreted by the church over time. Catholics hold that tradition as embodied in the catechism is infallible, while Protestants hold that tradition is fallible thus leading to the Protestant Reformation which was ultimately a result of traditions in the Catholic Church which Protestant’s believed violated Scripture. If tradition simply equaled special revelation as you (ridiculously) state then there would have been no Protestant Reformation. It was a conflict between Tradition and Special Revelation which created the Reformation.
So again I’ll ask my question. If General Revelation and Tradition disagree on something (as in the Galileo Incident) which should win out?
And if you say Tradition then how do you handle the Galileo incident?
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/10/waltons-lost-world-of-genesis-one.html
Go to the above for the links in the article.
Walton’s ‘Lost World of Genesis One’
Alice C. Linsley
John H. Walton has written an excellent book titled The Lost World of Genesis One which I recommend. In this book Dr. Walton presents Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology and thereby sheds light on the origins debate. He argues that Genesis 1 is about function as understood by the ancient Semites, not about origins. He states, “The truest meaning of a text is found in what the author and hearers would have thought.” (p. 43)
He later states, “Believing in the Bible does not require us to reject the findings of biological evolution, though neither does it give us reason to promote biological evolution. Biological evolution is not the enemy of the Bible and theology; it is superfluous to the Bible and theology.” (p. 166)
Amen to that! From beginning to end, the Bible is about God with us, a reality which took human flesh in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He is the new temple, as John explains: “He was speaking of the temple that was His body, and when Jesus rose from the dead, his disciples remembered that He had said this and they believed…” (John 2:21)
Drawing on his knowledge of Hebrew and the ancient Near East, Walton interprets the creation of the cosmos as the inauguration of God’s Temple with 7 tiers. Genesis 1:1 tells us: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ‘Heavens’ is the accurate rendering of the Hebrew ‘shamayim’ which is a plural form, suggesting a multi-layered or tiered cosmos. When the Apostle Paul speaks of being mystically transported to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2), he is interpreting his experience in the context of this ancient worldview. Temples in the ancient Near East were constructed with 7 tiers and where we find the number 7 in Genesis we encounter the thumbprint of temple priests.
Walton insists that there is danger in forcing Genesis 1 into the concordist view of writers such as Hugh Ross. Concordists insist on reconciling Genesis 1 with modern cosmology. Walton makes it clear that this is both unnecessary and dangerous. He writes, “If we accept Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology, then we need to interpret it as ancient cosmology rather than translate it into modern cosmology. If we try to turn it into modern cosmology, we are making the text say something that it never said. It is not just a case of adding meaning (as more information has become available) it is a case of changing meaning. Since we view the text as authoritative, it is a dangerous thing to change the meaning of the text into something it never intended to say.” (Read more here.) (snip)
CMP, I suggest using EricW’s post 535 above as the lede for a new thread on the interpretation of Genesis 1.
Good idea, # John1453. But I suspect that CMP stopped reading this thread a long time ago! 😀
EricW, I suggest you email me at [email protected] and let’s compose a lede article and then send it to CMP’s general email address and suggest that he use it as the start for a thread on the interpretation of the first chaper of Genesis. I like Walton’s book a lot, though I’ve only read excerpts and blogs and reviews. I’ll be getting my own copy shortly, but I think we could set out in summary form the main interpretations and then let people go at it.
regards,
#John
I emailed you, John
Eric, John, Cheryl, B:
How far can we reconcile science and the Bible? Consider physical resurrection. I suggested that in the account of Emmaus, Jesus is reborn, resurrected, when we and others read scripture; his spirit is invoked, and enters us.
But is this JUST spiritual? If so, how do we explain that later on in Luke, Jesus seems very, very physical; and even asks for a fish to eat? In fact note, in this theory, Jesus DOES find a physical body; when we read scripture, and accept the ideas or spirit of Jesus, his thoughts enter our minds … and Jesus finds a physical home or body after all. As we in effect, loan him our own body.
(Remember, we are the Church … and the church is the “body of Christ.”)
So it’s not just spiritual; Jesus finds a physical embodyment here.
And all in a way acceptable to science.
Renton:
There is nothing in that Luke 24 account that says that the physical body Jesus had was IN the people he was talking and eating fish with.
It sounds like you’re spiritualizing and ignoring or bypassing the surface level meaning of these passages that are presented as historical narrative and turning the events into an account of one’s spiritual relationship to God a la Spiritualist churches, Christian Science, etc.
Renton,
I’m going to have to go with Eric on this one. Everything seems pretty much in agreement that it was a physical resurrection. Furthermore, I don’t see how what your advocating helps us in reconciling science and scripture at all since the whole spiritual mumble jumble is just as problematic as a physical resurrection. As I have said the only way one has to reject a physical resurrection is if one believes in naturalism, since I don’t believe in the that philosophy I have no problem with a physical resurrection. And if one accepts naturalism they are going to reject the idea of God anyhow so the point it mute.
I think an important difference between the resurrection and origins is that in the case of origins we have physical evidence saying that “this is how it happened” and in the case of resurrection we have no evidence whatsoever other than that it doesn’t happen naturally. Which again I’m fine with cause I don’t believe that the “natural” is all there is to Truth. It is a part of Truth, but not the whole thing as a naturalist believes.
In Luke, it never firmly, explicitly SAYS that Jesus lives on, is resurrected, in others. But 1) that passage is never inconsistent with that understanding. While 2) dozens of other parts of the Bible seem to firmly allow that. As when we are told that the physical church on earth is the “body of Christ.”
Remember Eric, your own discussion on the physicality of the resurrection? When you ended up with Paul on that subject? Certainly, Paul seems to leave the subject pretty open-ended; even admitting that (his) biblical account itself might be inaccurate; Paul seeing things “through a mirror, darkly.” Certainly there is enough leeway in the BIble’s account(s) of resurrection, to include the above. WHich is consistent with science, by the way (Anthropology).
By the way, I’m not a Christian Scientist; though I do have some graduate training in Cultural Anthropology. Where what we’re really talking about here, is called the “cultural transmission of ideas.”
Note here by the way, that finally the spirit of Jesus is ALSO quite physical; Jesus lives on in the physical bodies of others.
“In persona Christi”
Renton:
My comments about Paul were kind of a what-if devils’ advocate thing, IIRC.
I don’t totally disagree with what you’re saying. After all, Paul said that he was again in labor for the Galatians until Christ was formed in them. There is a sense in which Christ is in us, or is to be in us and increase in us, as we are in Him.
Norman Geisler called Murray Harris a heretic or something similar for Harris’s views of the resurrection. Based on the documents/statements in the appendix to Harris’s book on the subject/debate/argument, Geisler was misguided and perhaps even willfully malicious in his attacking and perhaps libeling of Harris.
Renton,
I am sorry. But I honestly do not see how you can get that reading from the Luke account at all. It says Jesus took fish and ate it and He also said, “It is I. See I have flesh and bones and a spirit does not.” (paraphrased)
It would seem to me that to come up with the idea you have you have to be reading something into the text that is explicitly denied there.
Renton,
There are numerous verses which contradict you on this one. In addition you are taking some verses literally which no one has ever taken literally and in the original texts are clearly symbolic or figurative (i.e. being the body of Christ, Jesus being the vine and us the branches, etc etc etc). This again shows the importance of understanding the culture and the literature of the Bible. If you don’t your apt to take things literally which aren’t intended so (i.e. I still have my eyes despite them causing me to sin, but there have been people who have actually plucked their eyes out believe it or not).
However, this gets wayyy off the subject of this post which is whether or not Evolution and Christianity can be compatible with one another. In that light I’d like some thoughts on this issue as Jesus’ resurrection is another issue.
There are many places where the BIble tells us that it is often metaphorical, or allegorical; where it tells us it uses “allegories,” “figures” of speech, “parables.” All related forms of symbolic talking.
Therefore, the Bible allows us to take many, many things – arguably, all things – not LITERALLY, but METAPHORICALLY.
Which might be applied to Genesis too. Where a “day” is not necessarily 24 hours.
Yes Renton, but the Bible also in many places intends things to be taken as literal history. The crux of the disagreement on this forum is differentiating between the two in terms of Genesis 1 and the scientific discoveries regarding evolution.
And I am arguing that almost nothing in the Bible needs to be taken absolutely literally; as strict history. Including Genesis. Certainly, there is much flexibility in the Bible and its “history”; enough to match our ideas of Evolution.
For example: in the Bible, the Universe is created in six “day”s; is this time frame compatible with scientific Evolution, that says the universe was created in say, 14 billion years? Indeed it is; if we take “day” to be a metaphor, or inexact term.