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 on 26 Oct 2009 at 1:41 pm #
Kaz,
I’m really uncomfortable with your statement that non-humans gave birth to humans because I think it not only mischaracterizes what I have said, but mischaracterizes what a human is.
The only way your statement could be accurate is all that composed humans was physical. Since all Christians believe that humans are greater then just what physically composes us (soul and spirit) this argument loses it’s force. No non-human could ever give birth to a human because creating a human requires a supernatural intervention of God in giving humans a eternal soul. Now the idea that God gave this soul to a preexisting creatures does not mean that a non-human gave birth to a human, rather that God gave birth to humans. Oh yeah and God guided the process from the beginning with the intent of that happening all along.
Would those of you who continue to use language that suggests that God “gives” humans (as opposed to animals) a “soul” (eternal or otherwise) please respond to what I wrote about how this belief does not stand up to a reading of the Hebrew chapters of Genesis?
I don’t know when or how this idea came into the synagogue or the church (Greek thought? Zoroastrianism (about which I know nothing)?), but it does not seem to be Scriptural.
I will be happy to be shown that I am wrong. That would remove one pet peeve from my life! 🙂
Mbaker, John, John1453,
I think you guys are continually missing what we are saying about the nature of evolution. Evolution is neither atheistic or theistic. Thus to expect science to construct a theory of “theistic” or “atheistic” evolution is completely absurd cause you are asking science to answer questions science can’t answer. This is the realm of philosophy. I have laid out three phrases below and their definitions to help out.
EVOLUTION – Merely the idea that more complex forms of life evolved from less complex forms of life.
ATHEISTIC EVOLUTION – The marriage of evolution with a philosophy of naturalism which believes that the material is all that exists and there is no God. Holds that mutations are in fact random and without any guidance from an outside source whatsoever.
THEISTIC EVOLUTION – The marriage of evolution with one of a number of philosophies that hold there is a God. Holds that evolution is the process through which God chose to create and that what appear to us as random mutations are not random at all, but were planned by God from the creation of the universe.
I think the biggest problem that many of you are having is that you are unable to separate evolution itself from the atheistic context people like Richard Dawkins and others present it in. For this I can’t blame you. Evolution has unfortunately become so entrenched in the philosophy of naturalism that it is difficult to unentangle from it. It would do us good to remember that as soon as someone has taken a scientific theory and drawn conclusions about the existence or nonexistence of a God they have moved beyond the science and have entered the realm of philosophy. The conclusions an atheist draws from evolutionary science are no more valid or scientifically supportable then the ones I draw on the theistic side. It’s philosophy not science.
Michael,
You demonstrate a phenomenal misunderstanding of evolution, of what actually happened around Galileo, and a very deep lack of respect for the experience of John MacArthur as it relates to the effect of evolutionary thought on Christianity and its underpinnings (Scripture). Even though you say you respect Dr. MacArthur, you demonstrate this to be false in this blog post.
God could not have (by His nature, not the laws of logic) used a process which excludes His existence by its own definition.
Go re-read the history of Galileo and who said and did what at that time.
Give Dr. MacArthur a break. This ain’t his first rodeo. I’m sure he would be much more charitable with your comments than I have. That is his experience showing. It (and he) deserves more respect than, “I would have taken the bait and swallowed this hook, line, and sinker.”
Eric W,
I’m unfortunately unable to adequately respond to your post because I admittedly don’t have the background in Hebrew necessary to address it. I must admit my own ignorance on the matter here. When I was in undergrad I actually took a course devoted to the issue of interpreting Genesis in the light of what the Scripture says and what modern science says (At Bethel University, not some secular school, if it matters). I will try and find a number of the articles I read in connection with this class and on my own time which may answer your question, but I honestly have no idea if I even still have them or where they would be.
I do however wonder if your argument matters much if one accepts, as I accept, the literary framework conception of Genesis. It seems to me that your post assumes a literal or at least somewhat literal interpretation of Genesis as opposed to a symbolic one. Like I said I don’t know and don’t have the requisite knowledge to respond, just wondering is all.
Doc B,
Sorry man I’ve read too much of Johnny Mac talking about Arminianism, Continuationism, Evolution, Eschatology, etc. etc. etc. to have even a shred of respect for him. He is a over the top reactionary who believes that anyone who disagrees with his particular perspective on any given issue is destroying the Christian faith and misleading the flock. He regularly draws caricatures of his opponents which are inaccurate and then proceeds to burn the straw man he has created. I find the titles of his church and radio program amusing at best since grace is not a thing I have ever heard from JMac directed to anyone who disagrees with him.
NOTE!!!! – To be clear I am not CMP, the author of this blog post. He posts under the tag C. Michael Patton – I have changed my tag from Michael to Michael T. to avoid any confusion.
Michael:
The only thing I’m questioning is whether or not the Old Testament specifically (Genesis in particular), and perhaps the New Testament as well, teaches that God puts a “soul” in a human or gives a human a “soul” such that this “soul” or this act of giving a human a “soul” thereby differentiates a human from a non-human animal.
My post/comments was to point out that a reading of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-2 and 7 does not say that God gives humans a “soul” or that the creation of animals is any different than the creation of humans in that regard. Rather, the thing which Genesis seems to say differentiates humans from non-human animals is that the adam/human was/is made in God’s image and likeness, and animals were/are not.
This does not depend on one’s interpretation or reading of Genesis being either literal or symbolic. It simply has to do with what Genesis and the Old Testament say about the creation and life process of man and animals and about the meaning and use in the Hebrew text of the word(s) we translate as “soul.”
And I am arguing that the Genesis text in particular does not support the concept of what is popularly called “ensoulment” – i.e., that God somehow and at some point in the embryonic process gives humans something called a “soul” that differentiates a human from the way Genesis says animals were first created or are created thereafter.
Bottom Line: Christians shouldn’t IMO assume and teach the concept of “ensoulment” until they can show that the Scriptures teach it, and that it wasn’t instead a later concept deriving from, e.g., Greek philosophy.
Michael T:
I, too, recall finding this straw man construction and then destruction evident in MacArthur’s books on Charismatics (both editions) – e.g., using quotes out of context and then arguing against what he is saying the person is saying/believing/teaching.
Also, his study Bible repeats the fallacious argument from Spiros Zodhiates, I believe, that there is a difference in Acts and 1 Corinthians 12-14 between “to speak in tongues” (plural) and “to speak in a tongue” (singular) such that one refers to a true language and the other refers to the mindless gibberish he characterizes tongues-speakers as exhibiting. This distinction cannot be proven from the Greek text, and indeed it fails at a couple points.
[The comments and opinions expressed by my post do not necessarily represent the views of the author of this blog or the views of others who post here.]
“EVOLUTION – Merely the idea that more complex forms of life evolved from less complex forms of life” is not an adequate definition because it defines itself by itself. It’s like defining blue as “the colour of the blue sky”. It obscures what is meant by “evolved from”.
Also inadequate is the definition, “THEISTIC EVOLUTION – The marriage of evolution with one of a number of philosophies that hold there is a God. Holds that evolution is the process through which God chose to create and that what appear to us as random mutations are not random at all, but were planned by God from the creation of the universe.”
Theistic evolution is not the marriage of the two at all, unless it’s a marriage in which the couple live in different cities from the get go and never even meet. It’s more like parallel lines that are (maybe) within shouting distance from each other.
What is the significance of the statement, “God guided the process of evolution”? None. It is a speculative statement without content. It serves merely as slogan identifying one as a person who believes in both God and evolution. It can be reduced to “I’m a Christian so I have to believe that God guided the process”. One certainly can’t tell from looking at evolution that God guided it, nor can one come to that conclusion from Scripture.
Evolution has, as a core concept, “unguidedness”. Except for being able to retain one’s faith, there is no value to believing that God actually guided a process that looks unguided. It’s like saying, the picture is actually white, even though it looks like it was painted black. The artist actually used white, but it appears to us as black.
If one believes that God moves each atom around like it was a snooker or pool ball then it is possible to belief that God ‘guided’ the process of evolution. Yet, at the same time, it empties the notion of “guided” of any substance or value. Why believe that God manipulated the movement of atoms and genetic material in such a way that we cannot now detect the fact that he did it? That the only thing we can detect is a process unaffected by God? Does that even make sense, except as an after the fact rationalization of a belief in God. “I don’t need God to account for the existence of the present state of nature, but I believe in Him, so I’ll speculate that He did it in such a way that I can’t tell if He did it”.
The speculation that God guided an unguided process is mandated by the fact that the process of evolution is defined from the get go as one that is entirely material and random. The methodology of materialist and naturalistic science is limited to the box it creates for itself and cannot get outside of that box. It can only create explanations that do not have God in them, which leaves Christians who accept the metaphysical assumptions of such science in a position of saying incoherent things like “God guided evolution”. or “God did it in a way that doesn’t…
Eric W,
Ok, I think I understand where your going a little more clearly. I think that this is a tough issue. As you are probably aware there has been significant disagreement on what exactly makes up a human being in the Christian Church for millennium. There are in fact three major views on this issue. Trichotomists believe humans are body, soul, spirit. Dichotomists believe humans are body and soul. Finally there is a view holds that man is body and spirit, but that these are inseparable into their individual constituents. I believe Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy actually address each of these views in their book “Across the Spectrum”. Not sure if you have that book, but I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard to find.
John 1453,
I just have one question. Do you believe that God acts through natural processes and that things in the natural world which appear to us to be simply “natural” may in fact be caused by God???
missing part of my post 208: or “God did it in a way that doesn’t require that He actually did it.”
How is the belief that God created in an undetectable way any different from gnosticism or the mystical and unprovable claims of cults?
How is that belief consistent with Romans 1:20?
or Isaiah 42:5, “This is what the true God,10 the Lord, says –
the one who created the sky and stretched it out, the one who fashioned the earth and everything that lives on it, the one who gives breath to the people on it, and life to those who live on it”
How is that belief any different than the belief in the invisible gardener? Where two explorers accidentally came upon a garden in a jungle. In this garden, there were many beautiful flowers and weeds. One explorer says, “some gardener must tend this plot”. While the other disagrees, “there is no gardener”. So, these two
explorers tried to figure out who was right and who was wrong. They waited the whole night, but no gardener was ever seen. Then the “Believer” said that there must be a gardener, that he “is an invisible gardener”. He tried everything he could to convince to the “Sceptic” that he was right, barbed-wire, electrifying fence, patrolling bloodhounds. But no gardener was ever found. Still the
“Believer” was not convinced. He gave the “Sceptic” many excuses as to why they couldn’t see the gardener. The “Sceptic” told him that he was crazy because what started out as a simple assertion that there was a gardener, turned into “an imaginary gardener”.
The God of the theistic evolutionist is an imaginary gardener who moves around each atom in a manner that is indistinguishable from the godless materialist and naturalist explanation.
****
I also don’t let off teachers of creation either.
JMac, for instance, may have been in many rodeos, but he keeps riding the same lame horse in every one.
It is fundamentally wrong for teachers to remain or claim agnosticism about Genesis and origins. The statement, “I simply believe that when it is interpreted rightly, it is true” is a tautology (I believe that what is true, is true) and so is completely unhelpful and irrelevant. We need to, and can, determine what is true.
The determination of truth respecting Genesis 1 & 2 is important because, first, God gave it to us so He at least thinks it’s important. In additin, evolution attacks not only the how, but also the who and the what. Christianity is a faith grounded in history and fact, and without a way of viewing our origins that is consistent with that we have a deficient belief system, one that raises-and rightly so-suspicions about its veracity and validity, and one that provides justification for unbelief and a barrier to evangelism.
The reason that a seven 24-hour day creation 6,000 years ago seems so evident “on its face” is because teachers have failed to teach us correctly and properly about it.
A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol. –Deitrich Bonhoeffer
Re post 212
“A God who let us prove his existence would be an idol.”
Whether Bonhoeffer is correct or not depends on what is meant by “prove” and also on whether that statement is just one of his many intentionally provocative statements.
What constitutes proof depends on one’s ontology and epistomology. Certainly Romans 1:20 indicates that sufficient “proof” of God exists such that no person can ever argue that they didn’t have enough.
In the above quote from Bonheffer, which appears in his book “Letters and Papers from Prison”, he meant that the final proof of God lies in faith, not in scientific testing. “A God who let us prove [scientifically] his existence would be an idol.” God’s existence cannot be verified, or disproved, by scientific means, rather God is known by revelation, given to us in the Scriptures. To do otherwise is to raise up science as the final arbiter of knowledge, as a “God” to whom we give allegiance for all that we know and can know.
With respect to post 210 above, whether God uses secondary means in which His presence is not detectable to accomplish some things is not relevant to the issue of origins or to the meaning and purpose of the quotes from either Romans or Isaiah.
regards,
#John
re the poll
CMP’s poll, like all other polls on blogs, is statistically irrelevant and meaningless and contains no information that can be used to make any inferences about groups other than the group of votes itself.
However, the bare fact that 70 votes would be registered in favour of YEC is interesting in light of the facts that it can be conclusively proved that the earth is not young (unless God made it with the appearance of age) and that very few YECs seem to leave comments on the blogs relating to evolution or creation.
regards,
#John
#John,
re: Romans 1:20 – no one here is arguing that the natural world allows one to escape the natural conclusion that God is behind it all.
Romans 1:20 is about how looking at the created order obviously implies a Creator. TEs do that just as OECs do – they just don’t look for “gaps” in natural theories to do so. TEs/ECs argue that everything – what we call natural, and what we call supernatural – is part of God’s domain. God works through direct causes, and secondary causes – as you yourself accept. Why can’t God use evolution as a secondary cause? The evidence strongly suggests that He did.
#John,
It cannot be conclusively proved that the earth is old – it’s just that every line of evidence we have points to that conclusion, and as of yet there is no credible evidence to the contrary.
Just like for evolution.
Michael: “I can’t figure out why you keep saying that the arguments for evolution necessitate no God.”
No, I didn’t say all arguments for evolution necessitate no God. What I said is that many of the arguments presented here are the equivalent of saying “there is no God”.
i.e. when someone points to the genetic data and says “See, this is not consistent with a designer”, then they are saying there is no designer, which is equivalent to “there is no God”.
When people want to make their case without having to resort to the argument that the data indicates no designer, then MAYBE we can see if there is a Christian case or not. Until then, it is just atheism repackaged.
Michael: 2. “Creationism (God creating humans from a completely blank slate)”
Why does creationism necessitate the blank slate? As I’ve said, Adam made Eve with a rib which is non-blank slate. God made the world first formless, and then formed it which is non blank slate. You are presenting a false dichotomy.
Michael: “Now of course He could put this junk DNA in there if He so pleased, but it seems kinda deceptive to me to put a feature in our DNA which would lead one to believe He had created in a evolutionary process.”
It seems kind of deceptive to me that God would on the one hand say he created every creature according to its kind and according to his will, and on the other hand actually created everything with the appearance of random selection and mutation where things are how they are through apparent chance and apparently without the need of a deity. This whole “God is deceiving us” argument cuts both ways for the theist.
John,
RE# 219. I agree!!!
I have made a statement/question here some time ago that no one has attempted to answer.
While I can see how the days in Genesis one may very well not refer to literal days, there are other aspects of the creation story that the explanations for are not nearly as easy to come by if any form of evolution is true.
The one that troubles me most is the creation of Eve, from Adam’s rib. Now that is obviously not in any way, shape or form true if both of them were a product of evolution and not a special creation as the account would seem to indicate.
Could someone that believes in evolution please tell me what they think this symbolizes if it is not to be taken literally?
On a personal note, while I say more power to you if you can reconcile Christianity and evolution, I cannot. Therefore considering the evidence presented in this thread for evolution, I find to be a profoundly depressing experience because for me it is asking me to look and see the evidence there is no God. So I feel pretty sick to my stomach, faithless and hopeless from having done it, despite the good intentions of those who think they are telling it how it is.
This guy also apparently looked into the chasm, and acted consistently with what he saw there.
I can see no possible benefit in promoting evolution in any place or forum or context, even if per se, it is true.
Greg says:
“I think we’ve been going about this all wrong. One of the things I am firmly against is trying to find modern science in ancient scripture. This is why I’ve emphasized reading and understanding Genesis through ancient eyes, a rather basic hermeneutic, but one that is constanly overlooked in the debate over origins.”
And one of the things I disagree with is the other extreme: dismissing ancient scripture with modern science. That is a man-invented hermeneutic, not a proper contextual theological interpretation of what scripture says. While I agree historical and cultural context is important to our understanding, it does not in any way change the core message, simply because there are not enough specific details provided to fulfill modern scientific scrutiny of it. As Christians, we cannot simply dismiss the theology of our beginnings on the grounds that it is simply ancient history, or aimed at the ancients alone. Using that kind of selective hermeneutic method, we could then easily claim that because it happened 2000 years ago, Christ’s death and resurrection was ancient history, and not relevant to us, when we know it was and is now central to our modern faith.
Greg claims: “Of course Genesis doesn’t have anything about theistic evolution in it! The concept itself didn’t exist.”
I agree with you on that part. And it doesn’t now, because of your insistence that the science of evolution and philosophy, as you call your theology are two different things.
I can’t remember if I have mentioned this here before or not. Please excuse me if I have. However, it seems to be fitting into the context of the conversation at the time.
But for the life of me I can not wrap my mind around the idea of the Holy Spirit who call Himself the Spirit of truth, speaking of totally false ideas as if they were fact. Why would He choose to give His people the story of their creation using total lies to get His point across?? That just does not make sense to me in any way.
Hi Cheryl,
Jesus also uses the mustard seed as “the smallest of all seeds” in one of His parables. Biologically speaking, this is false – orchid seeds are far smaller than mustard seeds, for example.
Now, Jesus’ contemporaries would have had no clue that orchids even existed – should Jesus have corrected their false biology, or accommodated His teachings to their (erroneous) understanding of the relevant science so that they would get the theological point of what He was saying?
Hi John,
I’m sorry you find the evidence for evolution discouraging – but I would ask you to consider that perhaps the issue is our (human) problem, in that we have failed to retain what the original intent of Genesis is / was, and instead have replaced its original intent with unfair, modern, scientific demands the original authours would know nothing of.
Dennis
Just looking on that youtube channel where Dennis’s talk is, there are some good lectures by Denis Lamoureux, Karl Giberson, and Richard Colling that discuss the relationship between evolution and Christianity.
I don’t think Christians have anything to fear, if evolution is how the world is then so be it. If the evidence shows it is ultimately somehow wrong then that’s fine too. But I struggle to see how anyone could argue that it would be better for us to remain ignorant of the facts lest we somehow find them to be uncomfortable.
Dennis: this has little to do with Genesis and everything to do with lack of a designer, which is why Muslims have the same issues.
And go explain it to Jesse Kilgore who saw the obvious conclusions.
“Jesus also uses the mustard seed as “the smallest of all seeds” in one of His parables”
Smallest of all seeds “sown on the ground”, is what I think it says.
John,
I firmly beleive that God is still on the throne and very much in control of all things. Please don’t let this conversation get you down and destroy your faith in Him. I’ll bet if you think about it, you can remember many times that He has proven Himself real and faithful to you and probably to those around you. Hang onto those memories!
Hi John,
As far as I can see, no one here is using the evidence for evolution to argue that there is no designer (i.e. that God doesn’t exist). You’ll notice that in my talk I compare common descent with a Non evolutionary Designer. TEs hold that God designed life through evolution.
As for Jesse Kilgore, I agree, his actions are tragic. I suspect he came from a community (like has been argued here) that believes evolution and God are incompatible. When faced for the evidence for evolution (mixed with Dawkins’ atheistic philosophy), he was set up for a tragic fall. If only he knew that other Christians think otherwise…
If for no other reason, this is a good one to discuss these issues openly in the church.
Cherylu,
This theistic evolutionist also believes that “God is still on the throne and very much in control of all things.”
Please don’t let this conversation get you down and destroy your faith in Him.
Accepting evolution hasn’t destroyed my faith one iota. In fact, it’s strengthened it, made it more vibrant and robust. If you think acceptance of evolution would destroy your faith, perhaps your faith is focused too much on the written word rather than the living Word.
Hi John,
Matthew 13:31 -32 was the reference I had in mind. Here it simply says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds.
Thank You Dennis as you have pointed out one of the major flaws that I see with appealing to Genesis to discredit evolution. Assuming for a minute that evolution is true and that God guided this process to create all that is would we really expect to find a accurate and full explanation of this process in a story that is thousands of years old even if this story was directly spoken by God to Moses?? I posit that we wouldn’t for the simple fact that if God had fully explained evolution to the ancients no one would understand it. Rather God gave the Israelite’s a symbolic story which conveyed the Truth that was necessary for them to understand while not intending to give a scientific account of creation. To interpret Genesis (or the Bible for that matter) as a scientific text is to force meaning and demands on the text which was completely unknown to the ancients. It is no better then trying to read Revelation in a literal manner.
I think we may have compromised the text prior to the past few years in trying to make it say more than it does.
Personally, I’m undecided on the whole thing. I have difficulties with certain arguments each make.
I do agree, though, that this is not the battle we should be fighting.
Dennis: “Matthew 13:31 -32 was the reference I had in mind. Here it simply says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds.”
It’s the same incident with the same context of sowing seeds.
But look where we are now. You’re not only claiming ignorance of the author of Genesis, you’re claiming God doesn’t know what the smallest seed is, or else he is lying about it.
And this is compatible with Christianity how?
mbaker, Re Post #223,
And one of the things I disagree with is the other extreme: dismissing ancient scripture with modern science.
For what its worth, I’m not doing this. I interpret Genesis in the framework of an Ancient Near Eastern Israelite, to the best of my ability. Just because the outcome is different than your expectations doesn’t mean I’m dismissing it.
That is a man-invented hermeneutic, not a proper contextual theological interpretation of what scripture says.
All hermeneutics are man-invented. What theology have I missed out on? Is my hermeneutic bad because I cannot answer the same questions you cannot answer? What about your theology? I asked you some questions in a previous post to you that I’m interested in the answers to. Other posters have added some interesting Hebrew word studies on the idea of the soul that would be good for you to look at and respond to, I think.
While I agree historical and cultural context is important to our understanding, it does not in any way change the core message, simply because there are not enough specific details provided to fulfill modern scientific scrutiny of it.
Historical and cultural context is important because it is essential. I have not changed any core messages. I still say God is the creator of all things, we are made in his divine image, and we can trust him fully for our survival (though this meant more to the ancient Israelites than it did to us, given the historical context). These are the core messages found in the opening chapters of Genesis written to a post-exodus group of wandering Israelites. Nothing has been changed that wasn’t there to begin with.
Making the case that ancient scripture cannot influence modern science, and modern science ancient scripture isn’t dismissing anything except bad hermeneutics.
As Christians, we cannot simply dismiss the theology of our beginnings on the grounds that it is simply ancient history, or aimed at the ancients alone.
I’m not dismissing any theology of our beginnings. Since it was aimed at the ancients first, we must start with the ancients before we go on to us. It was written to them, for our benefit. You can benefit from reading a love letter from your dad to your mom. But it wasn’t written to you, and you’d run into a host of problems if you interpreted it that way.
Using that kind of selective hermeneutic method, we could then easily claim that because it happened 2000 years ago, Christ’s death and resurrection was ancient history, and not relevant to us, when we know it was and is now central to our modern faith.
I’ve never dismissed anything simply because its old. I do insist it be interpreted accordingly. Understanding the historical context of a passage is essential to a proper interpretation.
[To Be Continued]
[Continued]
The great thing about understanding the death and resurrection of Christ is discovering that his sacrifice is good for all people everywhere from then on forward. That’s according to my “selective hermeneutic” that thinks ancient scripture is best interpreted within its historical and cultural context.
So maybe its not as bad as you say it is.
I agree with you on that part. And it doesn’t now, because of your insistence that the science of evolution and philosophy, as you call your theology are two different things.
Agreed. But do you understand the reasoning behind it? My “philosophy”, as you say? I’ll explain some of it if you want to take the time to read it.
To begin with, I am not bound by trying to make science fit my interpretation of Genesis. Nor am I bound trying to make Genesis fit what modern science currently claims. I hold the two separate because to combine them requires compromise in some way.
Let me repeat that: If anyone uses one to decide the other, they are compromising. They compromise God’s special revelation or his natural revelation. Either way, they compromise some aspect of God’s revelation. I think this is a concept relevant to this blog post that has been overlooked.
If Genesis determines science, then science is restrained. If science determines Genesis, then scripture is restrained. You will always lose something essential if you use one unrelated subject to impose boundaries on another unrelated subject. Its like using modern meteorology to decide what an English professor can or cannot teach about 16th century British Literature.
Genesis should be interpreted by first taking into account ancient standards, conventions, and understanding. Starting off with any other culture, standard, knowledge, or science and you confuse its meaning. It becomes compromised, and anything built off of that will be slanted. Once original meaning has been established to the best of our knowledge, then the gaps between ancient and modern can be bridged and the fruit of that applied to our contemporary setting. (An entire commentary series, the NIV Application Commentary, is based off of this very basic concept, by the way.)
If the process of modern scientific enquiry has any influence from ancient scripture placed on it, the results will be slanted. They will be slanted towards whatever group’s interpretation of Genesis has the field at the time. It’s like two children arguing over a toy. In this case, the best thing to do is take it away from both of them.
No influence from either subject should be allowed to interfere at this point.
[To Be Continued]
[Continued]
Because this is true, findings in one subject do not affect findings in another. Genesis contains ancient cosmology that we know now doesn’t exist. Who cares? Genesis isn’t about ancient cosmology anyway, but ancient cosmology God explained that he is the creator and sustainer of this world, that he created time, weather, and food for our benefit, that he made us in his image, and we can trust him in all our needs.
That’s the point and teaching of the creation account, and if that’s been missed, then the whole point of the creation account has been missed. Its not about Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology, but ANEC does help us understand what the account is about. That’s what should be focused on when we interpret it.
If someone wants to find whatever modern science they currently accept in Genesis, they can go ahead and try it. After they’ve found it, integrated it into their understanding, and built this or that theology off of it, they should not be surprised when science comes around and says its previous assertions have been overthrown and hands them a new theory they can use to define their religion around.
That’s how modern science works….and that’s why it doesn’t belong as any foundation for timeless truths in scripture.
Understand ancient Genesis and modern science for what it is. Anything further and one or the other will be weakened. Because I do this, I am free to believe what science reveals about God’s created order at present. I have no theology based on modern science, and I don’t have to fight a useless and losing battle with any and all science I have a bone with. I also don’t have to alter my interpretation of scripture according to current science, or any new theories that come to light over my lifetime. My interpretation is time-bound to scripture, and the truths it reveals timeless because of it.
When I have the results of both in my hand, boundaries are set that I have to operate within. My faith in God is held high above all else. I may not understand how these things go together immediately or completely, but I will persist in my search for a reconciliation that honors both subjects because I believe that all truth is God’s truth.
If anyone does not have faith in that, then they aren’t ready to handle truth.
[Finished]
“As far as I can see, no one here is using the evidence for evolution to argue that there is no designer”
Au contraire, we have been told in this thread that “common design is refuted”, by an evolutionary proponent.
“You’ll notice that in my talk I compare common descent with a Non evolutionary Designer.”
And we’ve seen that non-evolutionary designing humans come up with designs with the same artifacts. So where you you’ve done your random sample of designing deities and how they behave remains an open question.
“If for no other reason, this is a good one to discuss these issues openly in the church.”
If for no other reason this is NOT a good topic to discuss. Jesse Kilgore was not ignorant. He apparently prided himself on being a debater. Some ideas are dangerous, and this is one of them.
But look where we are now. You’re not only claiming ignorance of the author of Genesis, you’re claiming God doesn’t know what the smallest seed is, or else he is lying about it.
John,
We certainly want to help you understand, but it is very difficult when you respond to us with accusations. I think you should reread this thread again. Multiple people have explained these things to you very well, but it seems you have not yet understood what we are talking about.
If we have confused you, it would be better for you to ask us nicely to explain them to you again, perhaps with a bit more context if you need it. It is better to do that than to proceed directly into accusing us of various things that are not true.
Your responses tell me you do not understand what is being discussed. It also tells me that you may not be reading replies given to you. Or not doing so carefully.
Before you assume the worst, make sure you understand what we are saying. Ask questions to clarify if you have to. Once you understand what is being said, then you are in a position to critique it.
Criticism is always helpful in a discussion like this. But it needs to be relevant before it can be helpful.
It’s not an accusation Greg, I’m just repeating what I’ve been told here. Christianity teaches Jesus is God. The claim is on the table that God stated something that… and I quote “is false”. The author of that statement said God is saying false things, not I.
Now quit the condescending nonsense that I am ignorant and I don’t understand. True and false are pretty simple concepts, even for an evolved monkey.
The Catholic Church thought that the Earth revolving around the Sun was also a dangerous idea and beyond that if it’s so dangerous maybe you should stop responding rather than carrying on the conversation further since debating this is so dangerous.
Also where in the world does Greg claim that God is ignorant with regards to what the smallest seed is?? On the contrary Greg seems to affirm (and I certainly affirm) that God is well aware of what the smallest seed is. However, when this passage was written the people who were being spoken to were unaware of orchid seeds so they were spoken to in terms of the smallest seed known to their culture. God is not ignorant about what the smallest seed is, but the people He is talking to are. Rather than correct their understanding he uses what they know to communicate a theological Truth. The science is immaterial to the Truth being communicated just as it is in Genesis. In Genesis God is using the cosmological understandings of the people He is communicating with to communicate theological Truths and is not concerned with trying to correct their scientific misunderstandings because they are immaterial to what is being communicated.
John,
Dennis said this:
Jesus also uses the mustard seed as “the smallest of all seeds” in one of His parables. Biologically speaking, this is false – orchid seeds are far smaller than mustard seeds, for example.
Now, Jesus’ contemporaries would have had no clue that orchids even existed – should Jesus have corrected their false biology, or accommodated His teachings to their (erroneous) understanding of the relevant science so that they would get the theological point of what He was saying?
If you read it carefully, and his further replies, you will see that is not what he is saying at all. Your “sown in the ground” comment doesn’t change anything. After all, orchids are sown in the ground, are they not?
One thing that I think you do not understand about God is that he meets those he created where they are.
For example, when he speaks to people in the Bible, he does so in the language they speak. Nothing would benefit from this exchange if the people couldn’t understand God, right?
He meets people where they are, like when God put on flesh and dwelt among us. He become one of us and took up our own limitations and frailties so he could save us.
It is like a parent speaking to a toddler with words the toddler can understand. Of course the parent can use more complex words and sentences, but the toddler just wouldn’t understand them.
Likewise, if a scientist gave a lecture to a lay audience and spoke only in scientific jargon, the audience would gain nothing from it except a frustration with scientists!
What Dennis is saying here is that Jesus Christ simply used an example that would be known to the people he was talking to. He could have used orchid seeds, but no one there knew about those and how small they were. He could have gone into the science of it all, but that would have distracted his audience away from his parable.
I think our discussion is a very good example of what would occur if Jesus talked about things the people didn’t understand. Dennis, myself, and a few others are talking to you in a way that assumes this basic understanding about God, that he accommodates himself to his people so they can understand him.
But it seems we were wrong in our assumption, so you do not understand the things we are saying. We are speaking in ways that are foreign to you, and the effect, unfortunately, is frustration. You think we are misrepresenting God and scripture.
If God spoke to people about things they did not know about or understand, then that would likely result in confusion on their part. Instead, as I’ve said, he meets them where they are and uses their knowledge to reveal some new, amazing things about himself to them.
I hope, after explaining this to you, you are able to understand better what we are saying God did many times in scripture.
Keep in mind that as he did with our flesh, he does with our knowledge.
“After all, orchids are sown in the ground, are they not?”
People were farming orchids circa 30AD? I think not.
“Nothing would benefit from this exchange if the people couldn’t understand God, right?”
How does it add to the story to make a statement that is false biologically? He could have said “one of the smallest seeds” or “a very small seed”.
In any case, if one wants to say Jesus lies to assist making theological points, I have an issue with that. If you don’t have an issue with that, as it appears you don’t, so be it, but that is no reason to accuse me of ignorance because I point out what you advocate.
If one wanted to use the mustard seed verse as an example of a verse that could lead to false scientific conclusions, I don’t have a problem with that. But to say it is false is different entirely. Either there was a problem with what Jesus said, or there is a problem with our interpretation. Saying it is “false” is to state the former.
Now if people were being careless in their wording, a retraction is welcome. But if they are sticking by the claim it is false, then I stand by my observation.
John,
What is said in regards to the mustard seed is false in the context of what we know now. However, in the cultural context God was speaking in it was not false. I have no problem with the idea that God used cultural norms and beliefs to communicate theological Truths even when those norms and beliefs were false in and of themselves. I just don’t see this as God lying, but simply meeting people at their level of understanding (in which the mustard seed was the smallest seed) and using that understanding to make His point. Ultimately what God said was the truth in the culture he was speaking too.
I honestly think that if you see this as God lying you are going to have a whole lot of problems with other parts of the Bible. By way of example under the Old Testament Law it was permissible for a husband to divorce his wife if he gave her a certificate of divorce. However, in the New Testament Jesus comes along he tells his audience that it is a sin to divorce your wife. Now was God lying when he told the Israelites that they could divorce their wifes??? Or perhaps the eternal Law of God somehow changed??? Neither of these!!! The Bible in fact explicitly tells us why God gave a law in the Old Testament that was different from God’s eternal law revealed in the New Testament. He was meeting the culture where they were at and because of the corruptness of the culture he gave them a law which was designed not to tell them what was necessary to fully conform to His standards, but was rather designed to curb the evilness of men. Ultimately God gave a law which if followed to the letter would still result in sin.
Also just think about things logically. If you are trying to tell a story to a group of people by way of using analogies and have to stop to explain your analogies by giving all sorts of scientific background your not going to be very effective. In the same way if Jesus had to stop and explain that thousands of miles away there was this seed called an orchid which was smaller then a mustard seed and the Kingdom of God was like this orchid seed the whole thing would be ridiculous to the audience he was speaking too. So he just met them where they were in their culture and there level of knowledge.
Also according to some sources orchids have been cultivated in China since 550 BC!!!
Only cultural statements are true or false depending on culture. The reason this statement is not false is because the context is the cultural farming practices of 1st century Palestinians. Had the context not been 1st century Palestinian farming, the statement about seeds would be a lie regardless of the ignorance of 1st century Palestinians. Interpreting a statement in context and concluding it is true is a vastly different proposition to saying the statement is false, but excusable in light of ignorance. I for one would not make false statements to ignorant people and claim it is truth. Arguments about whether Jesus might have gone onto a discourse about orchids are irrelevant, as if Jesus had only the 2 options, to lie or to speak to things his listeners knew.
I don’t see any relevance to divorce rules, as if changes in commands are equivilent to factual untruths.
Michael,
You said:
“I’m really uncomfortable with your statement that non-humans gave birth to humans because I think it not only mischaracterizes what I have said, but mischaracterizes what a human is….
The only way your statement could be accurate is all that composed humans was physical. Since all Christians believe that humans are greater then just what physically composes us (soul and spirit) this argument loses it’s force. No non-human could ever give birth to a human because creating a human requires a supernatural intervention of God in giving humans a eternal soul. Now the idea that God gave this soul to a preexisting creatures does not mean that a non-human gave birth to a human, rather that God gave birth to humans. Oh yeah and God guided the process from the beginning with the intent of that happening all along.”
I’m glad that you are uncomfortable with the statement, not because it mis-characterizes what you’ve said, but because it shows you where your belief in creation via evolution ultimately takes you. Yes, of course there are different types of “births”; everyone (except Adam and Eve, I would argue) was born via the normal process of procreation; others are born again when they become Christians. My physical father impregnated my mother and I was physically born. My spiritual Father opened my mind to his love through Christ and I was born as a Christian.
But let’s not equivocate here, Michael. I’m speaking of the act of procreation. I’m speaking about what it was that had a womb in which the first man began as a fertilized egg, which then gradually grew into a fetus to ultimately be born as a baby. Your view requires that what gave physical birth to the first man was non-human. You can deny this if you’d like, but just know that you can only do so by rejecting the scientific method, which, via testable, observable, measurable experimentation tells us that apes beget apes and humans beget humans, etc.
As for God “giving” the first ape-man (or whatever you would call it) a soul and thereby making him the first hu-man, EricW is correct that the biblical account doesn’t say that God gave a non-man a soul thus making him a man. It says that God breathed into Adam the breath of life and he _became_ a living soul. The Bible teaches that man _is_ a soul, and modern science supports this.
~Kaz
Michael,
You said:
“I’m really uncomfortable with your statement that non-humans gave birth to humans because I think it not only mischaracterizes what I have said, but mischaracterizes what a human is…The only way your statement could be accurate is all that composed humans was physical. Since all Christians believe that humans are greater then just what physically composes us (soul and spirit) this argument loses it’s force. No non-human could ever give birth to a human because creating a human requires a supernatural intervention of God in giving humans a eternal soul. Now the idea that God gave this soul to a preexisting creatures does not mean that a non-human gave birth to a human, rather that God gave birth to humans. Oh yeah and God guided the process from the beginning with the intent of that happening all along.”
I’m glad that my statement made you uncomfortable, not because it mis-characterizes what you’ve said, but because it shows you where your belief that God created via evolution ultimately takes you. Yes, there are different types of “births”. My earthly father impregnated my mother and I was physically born a human male child; my heavenly Father placed the seed of his love for me through Christ in my heart and I was born a Christian. But let’s not equivocate here, Michael. I’m speaking of the act of physical procreation. I’m talking about what it was that had a womb in which the an egg was fertilized that would grow into a fetus and ultimately be born as a baby which would later grow into an adult human being. What was that thing that had that womb in which the first baby grew that would ultimately grow to be the first human adult? Was it human or was it something else? You tell me.
~Kaz