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""
Further, and final, explanation of my participation in discussions on this blog.
First, on lawyers and court and the absolute wrongness of the expression “playing lawyer”. In order for the justice system to work and actually find truth and achieve justice, the people in the system (either civil or criminal) have to be able to put their best foot (case) forward. To do that they need help (lawyers). The lawyer’s beliefs are irrelevant, what we do is help the client put forward their case in the best way possible. Moreover, lawyers do not establish truth and it is wrong for them to act as gatekeepers (both wrong according to their oath, and also it would make the system unworkable). It is the judges and the juries who determine what truth is. So what a lawyer believes is irrelevant to both his duties to the client and to the court (and to the final determination of truth and justice). A lawyer does not argue for what he does not believe, but for what his client believes or for what the court system requires him to argue (i.e., force the prosecutor to prove his/her case beyond a reasonable doubt). With respect to criminals, our system is intentionally set up so that guilty people go free and lawyers are to help achieve this end. Only those that are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt are to be convicted, so as to maximally protect the innocent. Everyone else (both the factually innocent and guilty) is declared “not guilty” (“not guilty” is not equivalent to “innocent”).
Discussions on the blog often become vigorous debates. In debating, it is not improper to argue one side or the other, regardless of what one believes. The point is to test the strength of arguments.
As to my personal position, I had not previously thought about the concepts of “compromise” and “evolution” together. I don’t spend enough time at AIG or CRI, or I would have realized its a big point for them, but I do now after having researched their web sites during this blog exchange. My initial thought over the first few comments was that there was no compromise. Then some bloggers brought up some good points. So I changed my mind. Then only the pro-evolution side was being argued forcefully, so I took up the compromise mantle. Since then I have wavered back and forth (on the compromise issue, not on the is evolution the best explanation issue).
When I replied to Michael T (with whom I had exchanged so hrd knocks), the concept in my mind was in the area where “convinced” and “settled” overlap in meaning. I can see how “convinced” can be interpreted in different ways. A more specific expression would have been “fully convinced” or “settled” as I did lean to one side but not with any sense of finality.
In any event, the strength of one’s arguments and the attacks on the weaknesses of others, bears no correlation to one’s beliefs or the strength thereof, and so it is unwarranted to form settled opinions about the beliefs of others…
[continuation of my post 249]
It is unwarranted to form settled opinions about the beliefs of others based upon how they argue in a blog. The disruption of settled opinions can be disappointing or shocking, which is unfortunate.
That being said, I expect no apologies and don’t feel any are needed. What happened is all part of participating in a blog. I bear only good will toward cherylu and any others who had formed specific opinions about my beliefs, and I look forward to further interesting discussions and debates with them (whether they share my beliefs on a topic or not). I have enjoyed, and learned from, their comments in the past.
As to my extended discussion of lawyers, I thought that since the topic came up (even though off topic to this thread), it was an opportunity to address some misconceptions that I regularly encounter.
Now, back to evolution and compromise. I do have a busy day today, so am not likely to post much, unless I’m sitting on hold, or eating lunch.
regards,
#John
re post 235
mbaker, is there any history of alien abduction in your family background? Aliens are universally lactose intolerant. I’m just askin’ . . . .
Thanks for your further explanation, # John.
Another way I think evolution may compromise Christianity is that it sometimes condescends to those of us who have no background in science by inferring that if we were just more educated we would see the light.
I don’t think one has to be a PHD to understand or to study the core theories, even if we may not understand all the terms and methodologies used.
As a photojournalist, for example, I know a lot about nature and habitat, because it was my specialty, but that doesn’t mean that I would disqualify someone’s honest critique of one of my photos because they know nothing about cameras, or reject a critique on one of the conclusions in my written pieces because they aren’t journalists.
Yet all too often, I see a certain smugness in some of the theistic evolutionists toward creationists because they do not hold degrees in science. However when the theistic evolutionists speak on theology, they are not called down by creationists because they are not professional theologians.
I think this a double standard that shows in almost every one of the creation/evolution debates I’ve participated in, or watched in recent years.
# John,
I posted my last comment before your last one came through.
You said, “That being said, I expect no apologies and don’t feel any are needed. What happened is all part of participating in a blog. I bear only good will toward cherylu and any others who had formed specific opinions about my beliefs, and I look forward to further interesting discussions and debates with them (whether they share my beliefs on a topic or not). I have enjoyed, and learned from, their comments in the past.”
Thank you. And I have also enjoyed and learned from your comments in the past. I too am looking forward to more. And thanks for your extended discussion on lawyers. It certainly does help to know the things you discuss.
RE: #351,
It could have happened one halloween, when I was drinking milk while dressed as a monkey. No, maybe that was the time when I went as Cinderella and got turned from lactose tolerant to intolerant at midnight.
Sorry folks, not trying to be snarky, but just couldn’t resist a little Irish humor. That’s how we evolved you know.
re mbaker’s post 255 and 257
Is there a reason you are avoiding the alien abduction issue in your subsequent comments?
BTW your midnight spell comment has given me pause for thought. I became lactose intolerant in the space of about a month when I was 34. Mysteriously sudden, don’t you think?
“Is there a reason you are avoiding the alien abduction issue in your subsequent comments?”
Absolutely. Just between us, I didn’t want to let anyone know, but some folks say we Irish actually evolved from leprechauns.
How’s that for genetic code? 🙂
To keep on track here, after my brief lapse ( and hopefully not deliberately insulting to anyone here) into evolution humor, it seems to me that evolution is also in one sense a salvation issue.
To wit: Even if we accept that evolution and theology can co-exist without leaving God out of the equation entirely, why wouldn’t Jesus have addressed such an important issue, especially when God gave men dominion over animals in Genesis? If we have dominion over animals wouldn’t we get to decide whether they go to heaven or not? And, how could man fall, and bring condemnation to the entire human race, if he wasn’t a man to begin with?
Also, if we simply physically evolved in the beginning why couldn’t we, as humans with a bigger brain, simply become so advanced in our spiritual state that we could evolve into heaven in the end?
If the YECs won’t pipe up, I’ll have to do their work for them.
There is a conference coming up in which conventional dates for sedimentary rock layers will be challenged. One of the participants has this to say,
“Ce qui mesure le temps, ce sont les durées de sédimentation, sur lesquelles tout le monde est plus ou moins d’accord, et non celles des orogenèses et des « révolutions » biologiques. »
(Translation: Time is measured by the time taken for sediments to deposit, a fact upon which everybody is more or less agreed, and not by orogenesis or “biological “revolutions”)
Prof. Gohau mentioned in his work how Charles Lyell was influenced in the construction of the geological time scale by his belief in biological « revolutions» occurring over 240 millions of years. . . . [surely many of you bloggers are familiar with the old chestnut of dating rocks by the fossils and dating fossils by the rocks?]
The problem of exaggerated time scales resulted from the work of Nicolas Stenon, originator of geological principles in the seventeenth century. Stenon did not take into account the effect of a turbulent water current on the formation of strata. His principles were based upon his observations but since no hydraulic laboratories existed at the time his principles were not tested experimentally.
Our experiments on the formation of strata are fundamental because they demonstrate, ‘inter alia’, that in a continuous turbulent current many superposed strata form simultaneously and progress together in the direction of the current; they do not form successively as believed originally. These experiments explain a mechanism of strata building, showing empirically the rapid formation of strata.
The important advances in sequence stratigraphy that have been taking place during the period of our research harmonise with our experiments. For instance, systems tracts composed of several strata are considered isochronous by sequential stratigraphy; a fact that we have demonstrated in the laboratory. Recent paleohydraulic analyses undertaken by our colleagues in Russia confirm the limited time required for rock formations to deposit (Lalomov, Lithological and Mineral Resources, 2007).”
So perhaps it did not take hundreds of millions to form sedimentary rock, though we’re still past 6,000 years.
regards,
#John
We may have lost the ET’s (no pun intended this time) from the thread here too.
Just when we were all having so much fun.
mbaker,
Not sure I understand the bit about dominion over animals. But I can say for me, I have no trouble at all with the idea that Adam (whether literal or not) stands in for the entire human race in our unanimous rebellion. Whether he was a literal stand in (which is entirely possible in my view) or an allegorical one, the story of the fall of Adam (whose name, of course, means simply, “man”) accurately represents the fall of the race of humans. A parable, or an allegory, can convey truth accurately even if not literally.
Is it possible that we are evolving spiritually? A nice Post-millennial thought. I don’t know the answer. Some Scriptures suggest to me that it could be. But it makes little practical difference for me in my life and how I interact with God and with the Bible. (Wow, did just open a new Pandora’s box?)
Actually, the idea of evolving spiritually is certainly not a new concept to those that are involved in the new age movement.
And it seems to me that it isn’t that much different from what the Manifest Sons of God folks believe. But that IS opening another whole pandora’s box and certainly would take us far afield from the topic of this thread.
And I’d better not get started on that one. It is too close to home on some of the hyper charismatic stuff I came out of.
Cliff,
Let me rephrase the question about dominion so hopefully it will be more clear. I meant that if we evolved from animals, then were given dominion over them, and then we as sinners fell, why wouldn’t Jesus have died for our common ‘ancestors’ as well, who were simply acting on instinct, but had no choice? It’s always been my understanding that animals do not get to participate in the afterlife.
So, if God was the guiding factor in evolution, what happens according to theistic evolutionism to those primates who by accident(?) just happened to fall on the other side of the time line, and didn’t knowingly sin as Adam did, but simply innocently followed their natural instincts?
And if we now have dominion over them, why can’t we be responsible for their salvation?
re post 65 by mbaker
Now that was puttin’ yer thinkin’ cap on!
Very thought provoking.
regards,
#John
I’m still lost. Sorry.
I presume that when and however God “breathed” his spirit into “man” (Adam), that an entirely new being came into existence: a highly developed primate now imbued with a spirit. Whether that happened to one individual, or to an entire species, I do not know. But a line in the sand was drawn. This new spirit endowed race became responsible to its Creator in a way no previous beings ever were.
Does this help?
In figured that mbaker was also referring to earlier discussion in which one blogger argued that there was no additional breathing in of spirit to humankind, that all living things got the same breath.
If that is so (that is, no distinctive additional breath giving humans a soul or otherwise distinguishing humans from animals), then the difference between modern humans and animals lies in the complexity of the brain. Going back in time we would have various points in the past where a change in genes increased brain complexity.
Under this scenario, at what point would humanoids become morally responsible? And if there is common descent, isn’t there a vicarious and federal headship in which the first sinner, Adam, is responsible for the introduction of all sin into the world and his salvation linked to that of all other animals?
regards,
#John
That helps. But I do not believe that all TE or EC people would agree that God breathed his spirit into all living things. In fact, I have never heard of that view.
I have no idea how someone with such a view would answer your questions, so of course I will not try.
These are issues that necessarily involve a great deal of speculation. In the end, we must say that we do not know.
True, Cliff (your post #269), but I’ve actually read similar arguments from people who were discussing whether or not there are animals in heaven and whether or not they correspond to animals that were previously alive (will my puppy be in heaven?).
I was actually a little surprised that the Old Testament was not more clear.
Calling CMP, we have another potential lede post for you.
For the word mavens out there:
Q: The word is lede, and it refers to the opening lines of a newspaper article, also called the “lead.” It is used in alerting the printer to them but distinguishes them from the word “lead” (Pb), since that metal was used in the printing of the ink. The two homophones needed to be distinguished, and hence the variant spelling lede was invented. I’m a little hazy on all of this, but it seems that the word has survived into the computer age and is still used by some journalists.
A: This explanation of lede as it’s used in modern journalism is correct–it’s “lead” (rhymes with greed)–the first, or leading, paragraph–spelled phonetically to avoid confusion with “lead” (rhymes with led), which is more or less what type was made of once it replaced wooden type in the 19th century. A “lead” (hear led) was also a thin strip of metal used to put space between lines of type, an act referred to as “leading” (sometimes spelled “ledding”). That last word persists today even though metal type is long gone in most places. In modern times, “leading” refers to the spacing between lines of type in phototypeset or computer-generated typeset material. “Leading out” refers to the insertion of extra spacing between lines.
In journalistic use, the “lead” is the first sentence or the first paragraph of a magazine or newspaper article. It can summarize the article, set the scene, or establish the mood of the story. The term is also used in broadcasting. For example, a “segue lead” is a transition to a related story, and a “quote lead” is a quotation.
The “lead” can also be the main or “lead(ing) article,” usually appearing on the first page of a magazine.
The spelling “lede” was not invented by journalists. This spelling (and several other variants) was used for all meanings of the noun and verb up through the 1500s; the spelling “leade” or “lead” starts appearing at this time.
Thanks, #John. You seemed to know what I meant. We leperchaun journalists also call that kind of query a ledeing/ leading question, even though it can occur at the end of a piece, because most of the time it gets a thoughtful discussion going.
Thanks for being up front, Cliff, that you don’t know. Our other EC/TE friends must be napping. Not one argument out of them in hours.
Not napping, there just hasn’t been a lot of new material to debate. For the most part were chasing our tails at this point rehashing things that have already been discussed.
Then how about taking stab at my question in #365? Any thoughts?
John1453: “Under this scenario, at what point would humanoids become morally responsible?”
More to the point, how is there moral responsibility in the Darwinist world? Slaughtering your brother is good for you propogating your genes over and above his. And in the Darwinist world, that’s why we have male aggression, so we can defend our genetic turf. Human behaviour is simply what the dead hand of evolution dictates was best for our survival. Neither so meek as to cause the loss of our own genetic line, nor so aggressive as it does the same. There is no meek inheriting the earth here, nor is there any perfection of the garden of Eden from which we fall. It’s all very well to say Genesis is allegorical, but what then is the underlying meaning? And why does God give a few ancient Hebrews a believable creation story, but he doesn’t give 6 billion modern men the same dignity? And if goodness and truth need to be reinterpreted in light of science, then the goodness that God decreed is to get as many women pregnant as possible to take part in God’s great evolutionary plan where he who spreads his genes wins.
John,
Several good thought provoking questions there as well. Wonder if our TE friends are willing to debate them on anything else but physical evidence?
mbaker, et al,
One thing that I’d like to stress is that I do not know of any TE or EC people who chose that position because they preferred it, or they thought it fit theology better, or it was more comfortable, etc. We can provide you with the answers we have worked out to your many questions and objections. But I doubt you will ever find them satisfying unless and until your entire paradigm shifts, as ours have.
I am an evolutionist out of necessity, not choice. It is evidence, not preference, that defines my understanding of origins. I (and most TE and EC people I know) was for years (over 30, to be exact) avidly YEC. I know the YEC arguments. I used them for years. I subscribed to ICR, delighted to read The Genesis Flood and other Young Earth Books, went to the seminars, etc. etc. But when I learned of the evidence for evolution (The Language of God, Relics of Eden, Paradigms on Pilgrimage, Only a Theory, The Design Matrix, Beyond the Firmament, Random Designer, to name a few books … have you read them?) I became convinced. It has meant much redefining of my understanding of the Bible, of my theology, etc. But I have discovered, beyond just finding evolution compatible with Christianity, that the findings of science greatly enhance theology, helping the big picture to make more sense to me than it ever has in my Christian experience.
Yours is a position defined by choice, not evidence. Here I am speaking my opinion, obvioiusly, but consider this: How many secularists, or non-fundamentalist Christians have you met who are persuaded of special creation or young earth, by the evidence? I’ve met none. Zero. All YEC people I know believe YEC because they are first of all committed to a given set of beliefs. Theirs is thus a position of choice, not evidence.
Rather than debating every little question you raise here, it would be far more useful (if you are sincerely interested) for you to journey to my website (click on my name) and read the posts that pique your interest.
While I appreciate your attempts to explain your position to me, based upon scientific evidence, from which most ET’s obviously start, (rather than a theological or philosophical level if that’s how you choose to delineate the two), I have read most of the arguments on both sides.
The problem is I think some of you automatically assume we who question ET are coming from a naive, uninformed perspective on the evidence, when in truth we are not.
I believe I have said on several occasions, as have others here, but perhaps it bears repeating, that some of us of here lean more toward the OEC perspective. I fail to see how continuing to engage in a debate based strictly on the physical evidence answers our questions from a theological perspective, since the entire theology of ET seems to be primarily based upon the known existing physical evidence.
Like Cliff, I didn’t adopt my current paradigm as a result of peer pressure. I adopted it as a result of (1) coming to understand Genesis from a completely different perspective (ANE) than I was brought up to believe (thanks to Prof. John Walton), (2) recognizing the limitations of both theology and science (thanks to Prof. Howard J. Van Till), and (3) after considerable self-exposure to the “apologetics” of evolutionary biology, accepting it as superior the explanations from ICR and AIG, into which I was heavily “indoctrinated” (for lack of a better word, and no negative connotation meant) for most of my nearly 40 years. Evolution was actually the last thing to fall into place, not the first. (Feel free to visit my blog, which chronicles my journey from Point A to Point GATTACA.)
I will freely admit that my theology has changed somewhat as a result of accepting a theistic evolutionary/evolutionary creationist paradigm. But, again like Cliff, I find my theology enriched, not depleted.
So give us a reason here other than influence from other writers, as to why you believe as you do, theologically, and quit dodging the questions. I went back and reread all the posts on this thread, and it seems most of them have to do with the physical evidence, and very few in return answered our direct theological questions.
mbaker,
My last comment was intended to demonstrate the meaninglessness of pursuing the discussion you seek. But you apparently missed the point. Let’s try another tack …
Do you know of anyone who changed their minds about geocentricity because of theological considerations? I don’t. It was physical evidence, and physical evidence alone. It was physical evidence that flew in the face of accepted theological and bibliological understandings. It necessitated a huge paradigm shift both in terms of how people understood their world, and how they read their Bibles. And it took hundreds of years for the church to adjust.
You have asked some theological questions which would be very difficult to give satisfactory (to you) answers unless you were able to step out of your paradigm and look at the world, and theology, through a lens that understands and accepts evolution. Rather than answer your questions one by one (and here I repeat myself … but apparently you didn’t catch it the first time) it would be far more useful for you to get the big picture by reading Mike’s step by step account of the shift in his thinking, or by reading my many posts on the convergence of evolution and Christian theology.
I understand your position. If you want to understand mine, it will require more than satisfying a few of your theological curiosities. Do you want to understand? Or do you just want to argue?
I clicked on Cliff’s name and looked at his blog…
“What if the correct view of Scripture is that it is not the inerrant, verbally inspired “Word of God”. What if the orthodox, correct view, is that it is an accurate journal of an historic people of faith, written by human beings, subject to their errors and misconceptions, but recording for our benefit their quest to know the Living God? If that is the case, then we should expect to find within its pages a rich heritage of growing, developing understandings about God; but we should also expect to find mistakes, discrepancies, contradictions, and a variety of other inaccuracies. And this is exactly what we do find!”
There you go.
mbaker,
I don’t appreciate the accusative nature of your last post. Keep throwing things out like “you’re dodging the question,” and I’ll refuse to interact with you. I welcome discussing my theology with someone who’s willing to listen and is open to my point of view, not someone who’s waiting to throw stones.
Thank you Cadis.
Did you read the entire blog? Or did you stop as soon as your senses were offended? Do you have answers to the issues I raise? Or will you just bury your head in the comfortable illusion that the Bible is a flawless, inerrant book?
Do you know that I read the Bible, teach the Bible, love the Bible? Did you include in your summary my words that we “find within its pages a rich heritage of growing, developing understandings about God”? Or are you satisfied at taking a pot-shot?
Mike, and others
I think if you go back to my previous recent posts, you will see that I am not deliberately throwing things out to bait EC’s but trying to get some valid questions answered honestly regarding the theology of the EC position. If you can’t honestly respond to that, then I agree, you probably shouldn’t bother.
No Cliff, I’m not content with what I said and I’m not content with your quote, but you are the one who not only said it, but drew attention to it. I don’t agree with it and yes I stopped right there.
Cliff, your blog seems to be saying that we’re all too smart and well educated to any more accept biblical inerrancy.
And then you trot out the old canard about rabbits chewing the cud, which has been explained many times, as if you are completely unaware of what the other side is saying.
If all the TE side has to say theologically is that we need to abandon belief in the bible when it contradicts modern man knowing better, then I think that really summarises the entire discussion.
John,
Did you actually read the entire post? Did you read down to where I specifically say that my view does not mean we should abandon the Bible? Did you read that such a founding fundamentalist of the stature of James Orr objected to the notion of inerrancy? Are you aware that inerrancy, as such, has been around for less than 200 years? Do you really think that what Rabbits do can seriously be called “chewing the cud”? And of the five examples I cited, why did you choose this one (which is the least damaging to inerrancy) and ignore the others? Do you have a response to John Pipers admission that the Bible contains “hundreds and hundreds of disparities”? Can a book which contains multiple errors and contradictions be called “inerrant”? If so, does “inerrancy” mean anything at all?
Again, let me emphasize: I do not abandon the Bible. I love the Bible … I read it and study it. I do not plan to stop! But the Bible itself declares that nature is another source of revelation of God. And I also look there to learn what I might about the very attributes of the Creator. Christians should be more interested in science (the careful and close-up study of Creation) than anyone!
“Did you read down to where I specifically say that my view does not mean we should abandon the Bible? ”
I didn’t say you said we should abandon the bible. I said you said we should abandon the bible when it contradicts what modern man thinks.
“Did you read that such a founding fundamentalist of the stature of James Orr objected to the notion of inerrancy?”
I don’t consider myself in the line of tradition of protestant fundamentalism, so this doesn’t mean a great deal to me.
“Are you aware that inerrancy, as such, has been around for less than 200 years?
Puhlease. “the authors were completely free from error.” – Augustine to Jerome 82.3. “it cannot be remotely possible that the authority of the Scriptures should be fallacious at any point. Augustine Letters, 147. “We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazard by those who have recorded them” – Gregory Nazianzen. “Therefore they [the followers of Artemon’s heresy] have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them…But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and in that case what else are they than demoniacs?” Hippolytus of Rome “I am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any of the Lord’s words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired.”
Jerome,To Marcellus,27:1
“Do you really think that what Rabbits do can seriously be called “chewing the cud”?
And have you REALLY read the verse in the Hebrew, that it speaks of “chewing again”?
“And of the five examples I cited, why did you choose this one (which is the least damaging to inerrancy) and ignore the others? ”
Because it is the only objective one. The others are your attempt to criticise the morals of the bible. Of course once morality is up for grabs, then impregnating the maximum number of women based on Darwinianism becomes viable Christian doctrine. Why not, since the bible is ignorant of biology and morals.
“Do you have a response to John Pipers admission that the Bible contains “hundreds and hundreds of disparities”? ”
Apparent disparities is what Piper said.
mbaker,
Reply 365
You asked me to take a stab at this question and I think Cliff answered it well. There has been three historical views on the composition of mankind. Since I don’t accept the view that mans bodies and spirit are indivisible your question doesn’t post a problem for me (believe me that this is an interesting debate, but it is wayyyyy offtopic). I believe that God gave human ancestors a spirit when he breathed into them and that it was at this point they became human and the image bearers of God. So there was really no dividing line other than that which God made. As far as eternity is concerned I have no issue believing that human ancestors before the ensoulment would be treated the same as any other animal.
Guys no offense, but I think the whole inerrantist, infalibalist, etc. thing gets off of topic quite a bit. While this certainly can influence the direction one takes and makes it easier for one to accept things such as evolution, it is not conclusive. One can accept evolution, or that the world is round, etc. simply by understanding the meaning of scripture differently (i.e. understanding “The sun stood still” as figurative”) while still holding to inerrantism. For this reason it gets off topic.
However, let me ask a practical question here. Some of you have defended the position that Christianity and evolution (however you define this) are incompatible. If with further evidence it became certain (or at least nearly certain) that common descent was in fact true how would this affect you??? Would it destroy your faith???
You see this is one of the problems I have with arguments about this kind of stuff. I think the issue is ultimately peripheral. Whether evolution is right or wrong or partially right would not have any drastic effect on my theology or my faith as that is all centered on the work and person of Jesus Christ. You guys are right that evolution will require a lot of rethinking how we understand various Christian concepts and many verses will have to be interpreted differently, but is this really so bad as to destroy Christianity???
I am of the opinion that building house of cards theologies is a bad idea. Too often people have this whole system set up of how God and the universe work and if just one card is pulled out the whole thing comes crashing down and they are ruined. I think we must be careful to build theologies that are robust enough for us to be wrong on some issue, even a major issue, and not have our faith destroyed. If there was no literal Adam and Eve (I tend to believe there was btw) I would have to come to a different understanding of original sin and the manner in which humanity is fallen (there are a number of people who have done work on this btw), but it would not destroy my faith.
I would go so far as to say that we should have theologians asking alot of “what if” questions. What if evolution is true? What if we discover intelligent life on other planets? What if there is a near apocalypse tomorrow and the world ends up in a post-apocalyptic state, but Jesus hasn’t returned??? How would these things affect the faith??? Would they destroy it??? I hope not. Would they require us to rethink somethings? Absolutely
Cont.
Honestly I think our theologies should be strong enough that the only thing that would completely destroy the faith is proof beyond the shadow of a doubt that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. You can take away a lot of things, but if you still have Jesus rising from the dead on Easter Sunday you still have the Christian faith. There is a reason Paul passed this on as something of “first importance”.
“if you still have Jesus rising from the dead on Easter Sunday you still have the Christian faith”
In theory, yes. But if God didn’t do what Genesis says in creation, and if He didn’t promulgate the Levitical laws, because the author was ignorant of rabbits, and he didn’t communicate with the Israelites as the bible says, because those dealings are sub-moral, and so on and so forth, is it really rational to pick out this one thing to believe, as if was the only true, yet isolated instance of God intervening in history? That’s like being the founder of the national sceptics association, but believing in the tooth fairy. Or perhaps more concretely, like believing Isis resurrected Osiris from the dead. It becomes a claim without sufficient historical context to make it worthy of belief.
John,
What would you do? What would you do if evolution became undeniable? If irrefutable proof became known, the likes that actually silence AIG, ICR, and any other anti-evolutionists, what would you do? What would you do to your theology? How would you incorporate that into your belief system?
That’s what Michael T was asking, and that’s the only answer I’m interested in.
Much apologies for the long post!
mbaker, Re Posts 379 & 384
So give us a reason here other than influence from other writers, as to why you believe as you do, theologically, and quit dodging the questions. I went back and reread all the posts on this thread, and it seems most of them have to do with the physical evidence, and very few in return answered our direct theological questions.
I think if you go back to my previous recent posts, you will see that I am not deliberately throwing things out to bait EC’s but trying to get some valid questions answered honestly regarding the theology of the EC position. If you can’t honestly respond to that, then I agree, you probably shouldn’t bother.
I went into a lot of detail concerning my theological beliefs and how I came to them, but most of those posts garnered barely a reply from you.
Posts 114-15 may be of interest to you. I challenge your basic assumptions for even questioning evolutionary biology. Or, in posts 140-41 I explain my terms and theorize on how God and evolution can exist without any conflict.
In post 142 I give what I think is a wonderful example of ANE cosmology in the Bible. With that said, I’d be interested in hearing how you integrate that into your theology, assuming you hold to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. (This is a topic that hasn’t really been touched on yet, but is really important, I think)
In post 153, I gave you some links that you later dismissed in post 181 because the hosting site wasn’t good enough (Ad hominem?). Even with that, you never commented on the TalkOrigin links. These links are relevant to the discussion because they claim to provide the very evidence for evolution that you said didn’t exist in post 148. If evolution is demonstrably true, then any objection about our theology you may make is rendered moot. You could object to our theology all you want, but that wouldn’t change the fact of evolution.
Speaking of which, in post 156 I specifically remind you that your theological objections aren’t sufficient enough to disprove actual physical evidence for evolution. I also had to respond to a lot of straw-man arguments you posed about evolution. That means you either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented the theory of evolution. Both aren’t good for your overall stance. Basing your objections off of a misunderstanding isn’t a good way to go about this discussion.
[To Be Continued]
[Continued]
In post 171 you asked me questions that I answered in post 173, namely, where, when, and how I believe the indwelling of the soul took place along our evolutionary timeline. I explained that Genesis itself was somewhat lacking in those details for certain reasons, and since science only deals with the material, its fruitless to try and get an answer from there. You briefly responded in post 181 without any details explaining how my theology was “weak” in your opinion.
The rest of your reply implied that your theology was much stronger in this area. In my reply to that, post 197, I challenged you to answer your own question, which I repeated in post 237, and which you still have not given me an answer to. In the same post I went further into my theology and declared that even you cannot answer the very question you posed to me and later chided me for being “weak” in.
Until you provide an answer that is stronger than mine, I call major foul on your declarations. Our common source, the Bible, doesn’t even provide the details you asked for. Further, EricW in posts #184-185 and DaveZ in #190 made a few good posts about the soul in Hebrew that cast a large shadow of doubt on even the usefulness of your question. Even though that post was directed towards you, you still haven’t responded to it, as far as I know.
In post 198 I repeat my stance that Genesis contains ancient science and shouldn’t be used to make pronouncements on modern science. This goes back to posts 114-15 where I make the case that you only dislike evolution because of some perceived theological offense. If my thesis that Genesis has no bearing on modern science is true, then any objection based off of Genesis is rendered incredibly suspect at the very least.
Finally, in posts 237-39, I give a detailed response to your post 223 that attacks my hermeneutic, demonstrating that how you described it is nothing of what it actually is. I go on to explain my underlying philosophy, the reasoning that guides my theological and scientific choices. I make the argument that any model where either science or theology has a firm influence on the other is an issue of compromise where one of the two loses various degrees of freedom over what it can say and do.
My conclusion, that we have to do each independent of each other, is a necessary one if we want to avoid compromise. This makes sense because they are two absolutely different ways of discovering knowledge: one through faith, the other through material discovery. One is about the operation of the physical world, while the other is about God’s declarations to us in this physical world.
[To Be Concluded]
[Conclusion]
Since the main purpose of both methods do not tread on each other, we do violence to and compromise either if we try to squish them together. If you constrain science by theology you get a view of the world that’s significantly outdated. If you constrain theology by science, your faith becomes bound to whatever science of the day is popular. I for one like my modern view of the world and do not care to have my faith proven and then disproven by the Scientific Theory of the Week.
It’s relevant to note also that you never responded to that post.
If you want to reread all of these I’ll be happy to wait a little longer for a response. In the meantime I wouldn’t press others to answer you when you haven’t answered me yet.
I’ll be happy to give an answer to your more recent theological questions to the best of my ability, only if you agree to give your own answer from your own frame of thinking.
In fact, what are you anyway? What species of OEC are you, if you don’t mind me asking? I can give more meaningful answers if I know where you are coming from.
I’ll also echo Michael T’s question in post 390: If the evidence for evolution became undeniable, how would that affect your theology and beliefs?
Now, when that happens, remember those brave pioneers who went before you and forged a new theological path for you to walk on! 😉 😉
However, let me ask a practical question here. Some of you have defended the position that Christianity and evolution (however you define this) are incompatible. If with further evidence it became certain (or at least nearly certain) that common descent was in fact true how would this affect you??? Would it destroy your faith???
It depends on what one’s faith is in. If one’s faith is that Paul’s Christology and soteriology are absolutely correct and inerrant, and therefore his apparent basing of these things on a literal singular Adam and Eve and a literal fall according to Genesis 3 (not just Paul; John the Revelator refers to satan as the serpent) is the absolutely correct and only right Christology and soteriology, then the disproving of these things as one understands Paul to have understood them is a hard blow to one’s Christian faith, perhaps a fatal one.
But if one allows that even Paul saw things through a glass darkly, and he, too, only knew in part and prophesied in part, and that his and everyone’s understanding of the resurrection might be colored by their cultural and religious understanding, then it may be possible for the actuality of the resurrection to overshadow and overcome what turn out to be errors in Paul’s understanding, including those things that he felt he had the Spirit of the Lord in saying and writing.
How much of what Jesus is recorded as saying and doing is dependent on common descent being untrue? After all, He was misunderstood even by those closest to him, to those to whom he revealed the secrets of the Kingdom of God.
If common descent is proven, what that might leave of one’s faith, or the way one might have to reframe one’s faith, might not fit the Evangelical Protestant mindset and framework, but does that therefore mean that it’s not Christian? Does that therefore mean it is not Christ-formed and Christ-centered and salvific?
Just posing some thoughts (before I’ve had my coffee, so they may be foggy thoughts).
Gotta…go.
“But if one allows that even Paul saw things through a glass darkly, and he, too, only knew in part and prophesied in part, and that his and everyone’s understanding of the resurrection might be colored by their cultural and religious understanding, then it may be possible for the actuality of the resurrection to overshadow and overcome what turn out to be errors in Paul’s understanding, including those things that he felt he had the Spirit of the Lord in saying and writing.
How much of what Jesus is recorded as saying and doing is dependent on common descent being untrue?”
There you go.
MacArthur doesn’t seem so over-the-top.
re Greg’s #392 & resurrection
Greg’s conclusion is incorrect because it is misplaced.
The lack of historicity in the Old Testament would only affect one’s belief that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, and the level of suspicion we would have regarding the historicity of other events recorded there. Even then, because the Bible was written by different people over hundreds of years, different writers might be more or less trustworthy.
Thus, for the New Testament documents, the lack of historical trustworthiness of some OT documents does not affect our judgment of the historical trustworthiness of these documents. Furthermore, even assuming that the documents are merely and only human documents (like other historical works of the time), they would provide and adequate foundation for an argument that Jesus really did rise from the dead. One must remain cognizant of the fact that inerrancy and infallibility are concepts that are only relevant to people who are already Christians. When talking to nonChristians, we can only refer to the Scriptures as historical documents to them, as they don’t believe that they are anything else. That does not, of course, stop us from telling them that we believe that the Bible is God’s word, or that there are good reasons for believing that it is God’s word.
regards,
#John
There you go.
MacArthur doesn’t seem so over-the-top.
That depends on where the “top” is. 😀