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""
Cadis,
Your manner of dismissing people because when they fail to pass your litmus tests for fundamental Christianity is of little value to the discussion. If Eric, or I, or anyone makes a substantive statement with which you disagree, respond to the underlying reasoning or evidence. Show us where our thinking went astray. Present a more compelling logic, or present better evidence.
To merely dismiss people as you do accomplishes nothing. You merely evidence a refusal to engage in the process of thinking through hard questions.
EricW,
Re comment # 97:
Okay, supposing your scenario posed here should be proven correct, how could you have any faith left at all? You say it could still be Christ formed and centered and salvific. But how in the world would we know those things and what would we base that faith on if you had to admit that the Bible was really not all that reliable in any aspect? Wouldn’t that just become a leap in the dark, “I hope this is true,” kind of thing if we had nothing at all to base it on that we believed to be reliable? Or do you think there may be other sources that would make it still trustworthy to believe?
cherylu:
Since I don’t (or don’t yet) hold the view I posited (as I said, it was an early morning pre-coffee hypothetical), I’ll have to leave the answers to your questions to those here who might hold or adopt or think of adopting such a point of view in order to keep their faith in the light of proof of common descent.
Cliff,
There is not too much to say that hasn’t been said but the argument is that losing the battle in Genesis is important because it will eventually permeate the rest of scripture. The mindset that is required to except the evolution of man will weave it’s way to the foot of the cross then to the grave and on to the resurrection. Can you believe in evolution and the inerrancy and inspiration of scripture, probably, but I don’t think it is consistent. If your trying to work those two things out your going to be juggling. This conversation is now hovering around the cross and already saying… welll maybe it is not quite what was recorded? I don’t find the question of evolution difficult, I do believe you can be saved and believe in evolution but I think your compromising to do it and I was simply highlighting where your road trip and your own thoughts had landed you. I already ran that itinerary down and saw what it would eventually compromise. If Adam was not a real person ,If his body that God created was evolved and really not as important as the spiritual message and truth we glean from the Genesis story then the difficulty of the resurrection of Christ is not so needed .., the bodily resurrection not so necessary seeing Adam was but a body evolved from apes..
Sincerely Yours
Kim
Cadis wrote:
…then the difficulty of the resurrection of Christ is not so needed .., the bodily resurrection not so necessary seeing Adam was but a body evolved from apes..
How so?
The resurrection is connected with reversing the curse/impact of death, esp. death to those who bear the image and likeness of God (however and at what time/point in the scheme of creation that became part and parcel of the creature we call “man”), and salvation includes being saved from the wrath of God that will some day face or come against those who bear his image and likeness but fall short of his glory and intended purpose for them and/or who deliberately resist his will.
How does whether or not man and other hominids/anthropoids share a common descent impact the above? As I’ve pointed out, the Scriptures do not teach that man has or gets from God something called a “soul” that distinguishes him from apes or other non-human animals who are “but a body.”
Just askin’…
Disclaimer: The opinions and comments expressed in this post do not necessarily represent the opinions of the producers of this blog or of the person who posted them. (borrowed from a DVD screen)
John:
“Why don’t we see many beneficial mutations today?”
Many might be there in fact; but many beneficial random mutations, are not noticed, or not known to be beneficial, until a stress situation reveals them.
1) Many mutations for example, are only functional in stress situations we don’t currently see.
For example: suppose someone right now, has a massively useful mutation, that makes him immune to a future virus: M2H2 or some such. There is no way of knowing right now, or immediately identifying even in an experimental situation, this useful mutation. It is a defence against a situation that does not even exist as yet, in the environment.
2) While then too, and more commonly, useful mutations are happening all the time, that we can see: now and then, individuals say with various useful traits – greater endurance, or intelligence – are appearing all the time, thanks to a unique gene mix.
To be sure, for various reasons, these genes have not yet taken over the entire population. THe reasons are environmental.
EricW,
“How does whether or not man and other hominids/anthropoids share a common descent impact the above? As I’ve pointed out, the Scriptures do not teach that man has or gets from God something called a “soul” that distinguishes him from apes or other non-human animals who are “but a body.””
On the premise of that statement I don’t know how, and I probably don’t have an answer for you. If there is nothing unique about the body and there is no soul and millions/billions of years of death was present to get to “Adam and Eve” why even bother with reviving the physical? Why resurrect the body, this body? Just give us a new one. Why my very bones and my very body? What is so good about it? am I so different than the present day ape? Once my body has decayed why would God resurrect it,me, specifically?
Cadis wrote: Why resurrect the body, this body? Just give us a new one. Why my very bones and my very body? What is so good about it? am I so different than the present day ape? Once my body has decayed why would God resurrect it,me, specifically?
That which is sown is not what is raised. What is sown is only a bare kernel, like a seed. We don’t know what the “spiritual/resurrection” body looks like or what relationship it has to our present body. We know how the NT says Jesus manifested himself to his followers after his resurrection, but that’s not to say that is what he or his body was in actuality at those occurrences. Paul said:
1 Corinthians 15: 35 But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?” 36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; 37 and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL ” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.
Ericw,
AAaa! That’s just Paul under the influence of the Gnosticism of his day, he shouldn’t be intruding into the realms of the heavenly or angels. Didn’t Job say that after his body was destroyed he would see God with his own eyes? Surely Paul considered Job to be scripture and if not inspired at least it spoke certain truths…so who are you going to believe Job or Paul?
I don’t know why there would be a connection of this body to the next. Maybe Paul speaks metaphorically here, which is obvious that he is,, i.e. grain , planting …. I’m surprised Paul didn’t go traipsing in and dragging out all that evolution stuff he should have known that too! right?..yeah right like the Apostle Paul could know anything about Evolution and he’s trying to tell us about heaven!
We’re not going to go anywhere Eric so I thought I’d throw out a little parody…This is how the conversation feels to me, it gets silly.
I tenatively support Theistic Evolution. And an Old Creation.
Regarding the assertion that geological evidence for an Old Creation, specifically rock strata, can be refuted? That these strata were laid down in less time that previously thought? Less than 6,000 years?
While it IS true that floods, “turbulent waters,” can lay down stratified deposits much more quickly than envisioned in a non-turbulent environs, there is a) no evidence even in the Bible, of continuous floods; and only that would account for all existing strata.
While b) we can also examine the material within the strata, and determine that the objects, rocks in it, would have taken time to form and appear, separately and on their own. This can be done in part by various measurements, including decay rates of radioactive materials, and so forth. Including typical time taken to elevate sea bottoms to become mountain tops and so forth.
Personally, I therefore more or less tentatively accept Theistic Evolution (as the Church allows, by the way).
But time to be sure, is relative. So we can also have an Old Earth. Allowing a) for the relativistic slowing down of Time, after the immense speeds of the Big Bang began to decay, at first; or speeds seeming to relatively decline, later on.
And b) allowing Peter’s insistence that a “day” for God might be a thousand years for us; or potentially any other number as well. Peter here insisting therefore, that not all times in the Bible be taken literally.
So that again: I tentatively support Theistic Evolution. And an Old Earth.
In part because Time is not quite what most people think it is.
By these accounts of Time, there is plenty of time for Human Evolution to have taken place.
Even in a “day.”
On the soul issue. I think it should be noted that the view that humans don’t have a soul is to the best of my understanding a minority view among Christians. Also from my understanding most of the TE people here don’t accept that view just like the majority of Christians don’t. So I’m just not sure how picking a minority view among Christians and using that view to argue that evolution would destroy the Christian faith is relevant. Clearly those who hold this view would have to change their view to one of the other two views (or stop believing), but it wouldn’t destroy the faith.
Just a thought here. I could swear that the Hebrew name used for “Adam” in Genesis (I think its Adamah like Commander Adama in the BSG series) means “every man”. Don’t know if this is accurate, but it’s an interesting thought.
The early Christians assumed that, like Lazarus (strictly speaking a raising from the dead to the same life, not a ressurection to a new life), they would be raised with the same body. Jews kept bone boxes for that reason (at least some of them), since it was bones that stuck around rather than flesh.
That’s why Irenaeus had to deal with the question, “What happens in the ressurection if we are eaten by cannibals?” Which was a more serious question back then than it is now.
regards,
#John
Michael T:
My argument/proposal that the creation-account Scriptures don’t teach that God gives man a “soul” in an act/action that thus distinguishes him from non-human animals is based on a reading of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-7. Whether or not it’s a majority or minority view among Christians is not really germane to my suggestion that the idea is extra-biblical and is not to be found in the accounts of the creation of man and animals. Also, my argument has nothing to do with whether or not one is a theistic evolutionist. In fact, if my argument is correct, it is the Biblical literalists and those who hold a high view of Scripture who would be the ones agreeing with me and would also want to know where and when and how this belief arose. That the majority of Christians hold or have held a view that to me seems to have tenuous (if any) Scriptural support should cause those who believe it to examine this belief of theirs against the Scriptures.
I am not saying that this belief is wrong or didn’t develop during Israel’s history or via revelation from the prophets, etc., or even from the New Testament authors or from Jesus himself. What I am saying is that this concept can’t be supported by the early chapters of Genesis, so I am asking: When and how and where and from whom did it arise?
Eric W,
I don’t have a ton of time at the moment. It just seems that to the best of my recollection there are many, many verses in the Bible which speak of man having a soul or spirit that is in some manner separate from the body. Whether the exact language in Genesis supports this or not I think is not all that important since the counsel of scripture taken as whole supports this. I could throw out a ton of verses, but I think Jesus commending his spirit into the Father’s hands will suffice. If you need a whole list I’m sure I could find them when I have more time.
EricW: “The resurrection is connected with reversing the curse/impact of death”
It is??? How do you know?
1Tim. 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
You’re not trusting the interpretation of some folks who got basic stuff like this wrong, surely?
“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? ”
To listen to many people, this has already occurred.
I don’t know specifically what I would do. I do know that hope would be reduced to near zero.
We’ve already been told in this thread that we can’t find a meaning in Genesis anymore (or at least nobody can tell us), that the Mosaic law was written by someone who doesn’t understand basic biology (aka, not God). That the actions ascribed to God in the OT are sub-moral. That the apostles didn’t understand the OT correctly because of the reasons above. Where God is squeezing into this scenario, I do not know.
“To listen to many people, this has already occurred.”
Indeed it has.
“I don’t know specifically what I would do. I do know that hope would be reduced to near zero.”
That is sad. I hope you would not give up so easily. Many, with just such an outlook, have already done so. Much of what my life is now about is finding a way to preserve my own Christian faith, and the faith of others, in light of what I consider the overwhelming evidence for evolution. I know you don’t think you will ever benefit from what I (and others like me) are doing, but I actually believe you — or your children — will come to accept evolution someday and appreciate those who have long pondered the necessary adjustments in theology. Far from “hope reduced to zero”, I have found the journey to be invigorating. I believe my faith is more reality based, and more robust than at any other time in my life.
One thing that has helped me is Francis Collins statement: “Remember, if evolution is true, it was God’s idea.” And of course, Dr. Collins considers evolution established quite firmly. And his quote has guided my search. So I ask, “What might the Creator have had in mind with evolution, why would he create in that way?” The search for that answer has led me deeply into the Scriptures. And it is very exciting!
You need not respond or argue. I know you totally disagree with me. That’s alright. I will continue to help young believers, college students and others, maintain Christian faith as they grapple with what they are learning is irrefutable evidence.
Hi Michael T.,
You said:
“On the soul issue. I think it should be noted that the view that humans don’t have a soul is to the best of my understanding a minority view among Christians. Also from my understanding most of the TE people here don’t accept that view just like the majority of Christians don’t. So I’m just not sure how picking a minority view among Christians and using that view to argue that evolution would destroy the Christian faith is relevant. Clearly those who hold this view would have to change their view to one of the other two views (or stop believing), but it wouldn’t destroy the faith.”
One can question the relevance of the minority view that man is a soul – i.e. that body and soul are not two distinct entities – or one can consider what I would suggest is a more important question: What causes some Christians to reject Descartes’ categories? I would think that question would be taken seriously by those who believe in TE, especially in light of what has caused many to espouse the minority view. According to the preface, the book, “Whatever Happened to the Soul”, edited by Warran S. Brown, Nancy Murphy, and H. Newton Malony, emerged as “an attempt to establish a perspective on human nature that would allow for greater resonance between science and faith.” Yes, some have come to reject dualism precisely because they wish to harmonize what the Bible says about man with what we have learned from fields such as biology, genetics, neuroscience, and cognitive science.
A Christian can reject dualism and believe in evolution, as Nancy Murphy does, but I doubt that one can do so without ultimately being faced with the problem I mentioned in a previous post.
~Kaz
I am growing a little weary of being characterized as one who sits in judgment of God’s actions in the Old Testament. That is not at all what I do.
We all make judgments. Some who comment here judge that the O.T. is to be understood literally, and teaches us therefore that God endorsed the selling of daughters into sex slavery, rewarding warriors with virgins, the killing of disobedient children, etc. etc.
On the other hand, I am searching for the way of understanding the Scriptures that does not cast such a dim light upon the character of God. It is the honor of the name and reputation of God that I endeavor to uphold. Of course, this is not the only reason I reject inerrancy. But it is a very positive (in my view) reason for maintaining a less rigid view of inscripturation.
So who really is sitting in judgment of God? the person who declares that God endorses these practices? or the person who says he absolutely would never do so?
John1453, Re Post #399,
Greg’s conclusion is incorrect because it is misplaced.
What do you mean?
On what basis do you judge what God would “never do”?
Certainly God would never crucify his Son for things he never did. That is foolishless, and nonsensical, and no doubt a stumbling block to many. But I seem to remember something about if any man among you thinks that he is wise he must become foolish. No doubt you are very wise, according to the world, but is that going to help your salvation? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
Obviously to all, God is retaining a certain degree of plausible deniability. If once man had the ability to examine genes it had become completely obvious it was an act of special creation, the jig would have been up so to speak. But how do you know you’re not doing the devil’s work, just the same as if you promoted a naturalistic explanation of the resurrection? The bible doesn’t claim God is always making things clear. “I have them a spirit of stupor, eyes to not see, and ears to not hear” (Ro 11:8). Maybe God wants there to be ambiguity in the physical evidence, so that the role of faith would be more clear. Who is to say you are not compromising the faith according to the wisdom of the world?
The ancient prayer of the church is “God is the Lord, and he has revealed himself to us”. If the latter is not true, then neither is the former. And if you’re denying many of the most prominent Christian claims about God revealing himself as false, then you don’t have Christianity, you have something else.
Cliff, Re Post #419,
In regards to inerrancy, I’m by no means yet at a point where I understand it in relation to what I know about the Old Testament.
I may have to define it in such a way that it simply doesn’t exist anymore as far as our modern sensibilities are concerned. And maybe that’s something we really need to think about.
Placing judgment on scripture is something that we all do, whether positive or negative. And we all do it with our own standards in mind. Hence why there is so much misunderstanding and disagreement here lately.
One of the problems that got us here in the first place is the difficult to avoid practice of looking at things through our own worldview. We have much higher standards of truth than the original Bible writers had. Their method of science was a mere shadow of ours.
Inerrancy is such a difficult doctrine to defend because we are so adept at applying our standards of truth to the Bible and declaring them normative. But our standards aren’t normative to that time period.
I wonder if inerrancy can be saved simply by moving the reference point of judgment back a few thousand years? God revealed his word to a bunch of ancient people with some foreign views of the world! He sought their understanding when he did it too.
Maybe it would be good if we did the same. When we come across ancient science, simply refer to it as a truth believed absolutely by the people of the time. Lets step out of our frame of reference and into theirs and ask “Is this true according to their point of view?” To them the Bible was inerrant, just as something produced today could theoretically be inerrant, but not so in a hundred years when new information is known.
The Bible is a snapshot of that time period, and I think we should treat it as such. All truth is relative to its time, meaning, it cannot be understood as true apart from the time period that produced it. For example, if I make the statement “I exist!”, it is only true during the period in which I actually exist!
Maybe we should drop the theology of inerrancy devised by modern people and rebuild one according to ancient standards? We’ll still have inerrancy; it’ll just be built by the ancients instead of us.
I know this idea will irk some people, but I’m just thinking outloud right now about this problem. This is just an idea, not my personal theology on the matter. I’ve still got a lot of thinking to do over it.
But, there is a problem with what we say inerrancy should look like and what we find in scripture. And we have to deal with it in a reasonable way if we want to be honest.
John, re Post #416,
We’ve already been told in this thread that we can’t find a meaning in Genesis anymore (or at least nobody can tell us), that the Mosaic law was written by someone who doesn’t understand basic biology (aka, not God). That the actions ascribed to God in the OT are sub-moral. That the apostles didn’t understand the OT correctly because of the reasons above. Where God is squeezing into this scenario, I do not know.
There are ways through these things. Please don’t lose hope.
The whole point of religion is to gain truth that transcends what merely seems true to me. If the bible is a collection of anecdotes of things that seemed to be true, but on further reflection, are not true, and worse are in fact sub-moral, what exactly is the point?
On Inerrancy,
I think Biblical Inerrancy is a very hard view to accept in light of many, many things which seem to clearly contradict scripture. I tend to lean towards the infallibalist view, which is that the Bible is true in all that it teaches, but that it sometimes uses ancient science and ancient understandings to communicate these Truths. Everyone always wants to treat the Bible as if it were a book written in the 20th Century (whether it be a history book, philosophy book, legal textbook, etc.). I think we would do well to remember that the books of the Bible, each and every one of them, were written to a specific people, at a specific time, and for a specific purpose.
God often used the scientific understandings of the people he was speaking to communicate the Truth he sought to communicate. Now if you call this God lying so be it. Yet I don’t consider it anymore lying then when Jesus made up the story of the prodigal son to communicate the Truth of God’s forgiveness. If we sat around debating whether or not the prodigal son actually existed we would miss the entire point or the story. In the same way God communicated Truth using the understandings of those he was speaking to. He told them a story they could understand. We are debating whether the story is 100% true and this is ridiculous as the story isn’t the point.
On the Old Testament Law
I don’t believe that we should interpret the laws given in the Old Testament as an accurate representation of God’s ultimate Laws (10 Commandments excepted – of course these are really 2 commandments). I believe this on the basis of other Scripture in which Jesus shows the inadequacy of the laws of the Old Testament in the “you have heard it said, but I say” passages. He tells us here that the law God gave in the OT was often God compromising to human depravity. The passage about divorce quoted earlier is an excellent example of this where God in the OT allowed people to divorce their wives so long as they gave her a certificate of divorce. Jesus tells us that God gave this law because of the “hardness” of the hearts of mans.
With that in mind I don’t think its a stretch to think that the actions and means used by God in the OT were not the means and actions He would ultimately like, but rather a recognition of man’s depravity and a willingness on God’s part to work His plan through the means depraved men use whether that be slavery, murder, war, pillaging, or other brutal practices.
If you’re not “Greg” or “Michael T,” please disregard.
I’m digging where you guys are coming from. Would love to stay in touch. Please email me at mike.beidler “at” gmail.com
John,
You ultimately make me discouraged because I fear that if there many out there like you we are all doomed. Theology has evolved throughout church history and it will continue to evolve. I don’t think we should be so attached to our particular understanding as to have such a crisis of faith when something undermines a belief and leave the faith.
As an example one of the things you noted in one of your rants as central to the Christian faith (not by name, but by description) was the substitutionary atonement. Do you know that this wasn’t articulated in any form until Anselm in the 11th Century and that it was fully developed into the Penal Substitution model until the writings of Calvin during the Protestant Reformation??? Up until that time almost every Christian held to the Ransom Model of the atonement. Yet despite our belief of the centrality of Penal Substitution and the wrongness of the Ransom model, Christianity seemed to have done just fine for nearly 1000 years with a wrong understanding of something as central as the atonement.
Accepting evolution will require a paradigm shift in a significant number of Christian doctrines. The doctrines themselves though will ultimately change very little, just the way we understand them and how they work.
This part of the problem that we have in this forum. The TE people have a completely different paradigm that they understand things through and we could go back and forth all day and never adequately explain things because we are focusing on individual doctrines and not seeing the bigger whole. What ultimately is happening is a TE person proposes a doctrinal shift that would accommodate evolution which is then shot down because of another doctrine which would be impacted. Then a TE person comes back and shows how a slight change in that doctrine would make it compatible which in turn brings up another doctrine. RINSE AND REPEAT!
Ultimately we would have to have a blog post amounting to a thousand page treatise on systematic theology to show that the Christian faith could still exist in a recognizable form despite an acceptance of evolution and that is something that no one here has the time to do.
Michael T, Re Post #426
With that in mind I don’t think its a stretch to think that the actions and means used by God in the OT were not the means and actions He would ultimately like, but rather a recognition of man’s depravity and a willingness on God’s part to work His plan through the means depraved men use whether that be slavery, murder, war, pillaging, or other brutal practices.
Another example that I’ve always thought interesting was 2 Samuel 12:8.
Here it is in context:
2 Samuel 12:7-9
Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.
I think it can be said with reasonable certainty that the divine ideal regarding marriage would be one man with one woman. In 2 Samuel 12 God is telling David how he gave him all of Saul’s wives when he made him king over Israel.
Back in those days, a king was expected to have a harem and multiple wives as a sign of his power and virility, which were considered signs of his ability to rule ably. Its interesting to note in 1 Kings 1 that King David’s son Adonijah, after the narrator tells us that David was unable to get to ‘know’ Abishag the Shunammite, attempts to declare himself king.
Anyway, the point of this is that God gave David many wives so he could save face before the other kings on the block. It would be like God giving me a trophy wife (which he did!), a nice red sports car, and a stylish suit so my peers would be impressed!
It seems to also be an example where God set aside his standards so King David would be properly respected as a king. God had a plan to accomplish, and he made a move or two playing by the rules of Ancient Near Eastern standards.
Not to say God always does it that way, but he certainly did it this time.
Mike Beidler,
Gotcha on Facebook!
Email address is in my profile too.
Michael: “You ultimately make me discouraged because I fear that if there many out there like you we are all doomed.”
Likewise, I’m sure.
It’s one thing if you want to say to someone who is convinced of evolution “believe in Christ anyway”. It’s another thing to go around in Christian circles advocating that the bible is wrong. That can’t help anybody’s salvation, and its never going to be a consensus of what Christians believe.
This is the penultimate “endless genealogies and speculation” of 1Tim 1:4.
“As an example one of the things you noted in one of your rants as central to the Christian faith (not by name, but by description) was the substitutionary atonement. Do you know that this wasn’t articulated in any form until Anselm in the 11th Century”
Assuming you are talking to me, I highly doubt I mentioned substitutionary atonement as central to the faith, since I am not a proponent of that doctrine.
“Yet despite our belief of the centrality of Penal Substitution and the wrongness of the Ransom model, Christianity seemed to have done just fine for nearly 1000 years with a wrong understanding of something as central as the atonement.”
So get rid of penal substitution and go to the ransom model.
“What ultimately is happening is a TE person proposes a doctrinal shift that would accommodate evolution which is then shot down because of another doctrine which would be impacted.”
Right. I for one am not willing to abandon the historic Christian faith, and I’m totally up front about that, and so are many people. And yes, the impacts cascade down, which is exactly the problem.
I just want to make one quick comment here that goes along with what John said in his last post about the impact cascading down.
It has long been said by the YEC camp that once you don’t believe that Genesis one is literal, you are starting on a “slippery slope” with the doctrines of the whole Bible. I have heard that denied repeatedly.
I’m sorry, but I have never seen a statement made by anyone to be proved so true as this whole thread has proved that one to be.
This has gone way past not believing Genesis one speaks of literal days to, as EricW spoke of yesterday, the possiblitiy that we will have to admit that the Apostle Paul didn’t know what he was talking about either.
The Bible is quickly losing it’s authority for the Christian faith if that scenario is to be played out. I wouldn’t begin to know either what to think of as the basis for our faith anymore if that were to be the case. And please, don’t somebody just tell me, “the living Word,” like was mentioned before. In many ways it is the written word that has revealed the living Word to us. Take away it’s authority and we become severely lacking very quickly.
I probably need to clarify something in my slippery slope comment.
While I can actually see how the text itself regarding days in Genesis one can refer to something other than 24 hour days, the rest of the arguments from there just seem to get further and further afield until we end up with the possibility that Eric spoke of yesterday. It would get to the point where Christianity as we know it would cease to exist and the Bible to not be anything with authority for our faith at all.
Since EC/TE is largely predicated on the physical evidence ‘discovered’ so far that questions, or as some claim, completely disproves the Christian creationist account of the origin of man, it should be observed Santa Claus and the tooth fairy leave physical ‘evidence’ behind as well.
That doesn’t mean they are real, based solely upon the physical evidence left, or make them real because we see them dressed up as such characters, as we all know. When we finally figure it out, we know there were other people who perpetrated the seeding of the ‘evidence’ of their existence, and still do.
That such evidence offered by evolutionists has already been found to be a hoax in the Piltdown man’s ‘discovery’, and went on for 40 years before finally being debunked, should give any Christian being so influenced by the present physical evidence to wonder. I believe CMP is right. It is becoming a peer pressure thing:
“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.”
So how is that different from the Piltdown man debacle in science? Or has the egg on evolutionary science’s face from that incident evolved now into a chicken because of more recent discoveries?
Also, the question is asked all the time by TE’s on this thread about whether if evolution should be proven true, as far at least scientists determine proof, what would it do to our Christian faith?
I would ask you folks the same question, however, such quid pro quo arguments do nothing, in my mind, to advance the discussion in a meaningful way.
mbaker on 31 Oct 2009 at 1:18 pm #
Since EC/TE is largely predicated on the physical evidence ‘discovered’ so far that questions, or as some claim, completely disproves the Christian creationist account of the origin of man, it should be observed Santa Claus and the tooth fairy leave physical ‘evidence’ behind as well. (snip)
mbaker:
My understanding of “evil-ution” is that even if you lost the entire fossil record, what has been discovered via DNA and physiology and bacteriology and chemistry and other types of observable and testable and verifiable and repeatable data from a lot of different and unrelated fields would be sufficient to build a case for common descent and speciation and mutation over time, just like there are many unrelated fields whose data all converge to support an old universe and earth.
I.e., all the attacks against the fossil record and citations of fraudulent “missing links,” etc., are as if the creationists are fighting the battle on ground that evolutionists would be able to concede and still make their case.
Yes? No?
Cherylu, Re post # 433
I probably need to clarify something in my slippery slope comment.
While I can actually see how the text itself regarding days in Genesis one can refer to something other than 24 hour days, the rest of the arguments from there just seem to get further and further afield until we end up with the possibility that Eric spoke of yesterday. It would get to the point where Christianity as we know it would cease to exist and the Bible to not be anything with authority for our faith at all.
I wouldn’t say its going that far, and nothing in this thread implies that much. It certainly won’t happen on my watch, in as much as I can make a difference.
The mistake in your thinking lies in the assumption that your theology was never broken to begin with. As Michael T mentioned, Christians didn’t start believing in penal substitutionary atonement until 900 yeas ago, and even this isn’t a universal belief today! So assuming that’s the “more correct” doctrine, sincere Christians believed the “more wrong” doctrine for 1100 years. The doctrine of inerrancy wasn’t truly formulated until a 100 years ago or so, and even that doctrine isn’t a universal one in Christendom.
There’s no guarantee your theology is correct. The point you begin with and the point you compare everything else to may be completely off. If that’s true, then its not about science vs religion, or evolution vs theology, or the ANE perspective vs modern perspective. The stakes become much higher than that.
It becomes about truth vs tradition. A retreat to and reliance on tradition in the face of new evidence. John, as a fan of the “historic Christian faith” in every ounce of its doctrinal glory, has demonstrated that reliance in excellent fashion for this whole discussion.
I love tradition. It enriches and explains my faith in ways not possible without it. But I don’t glorify it or declare it infallible and inspired. Its simply man-made explanations of doctrines in the Bible in one form or another, with some more clear than others.
As with all things mankind does, it is not perfect and is always subject to revision. Our pronouncements are not inspired words, and if that fact is missed, then one of the most important doctrines of the Christian faith is also missed with it.
Keep that in mind.
EricW,
Many YEC creationists are still fighting a battle that ended about fifty years ago. You know, the same kind that think Intelligent Design advocates are on their side and that there are no transitional fossils, etc. etc. etc.
mbaker,
I gave you a nice long post and a couple of questions I’d be interested in you answering about 45 posts or so back up.
Eric,
As someone else here remarked, evolution is by no means a slam dunk, despite recent advances in tissue studies, which for the most part can only be based upon evidence from present living creatures, and a conclusion drawn from that. Even Dennis Venema has admitted their’s are only lines of evidence that scientists point to a conclusion. I notice most folks here are pretty silent on the most recent discovery of Ardi, who is believed by some to be a humanoid, and should have figured prominently in these discussions. Yet folks here have been strangely silent about one of science’s most recent claims to missing links.
Given my examples of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy above, we can see how the conclusions drawn strictly from physical evidence, even if it doesn’t include fossil record, can be misleading, because there are no real transitional creatures to study or communicate with.
While DNA, and other outside means, can indeed prove we have unique individual characteristics, but are linked to those within our species, or even similar to others, there is still no conclusive evidence, ie. living transitional beings, that all species were the result of mutations, etc;, or common descent.
The question still remains on how many differing conclusions can be drawn from the same evidence, and still be valid, and in this case let’s take the Bible. You, for instance do not believe ‘ensoulment’, as you have called it occurred somewhere along the way, as you have said in your previous comments. Where, if you believe the scientific evidence is conclusive and that we are a higher form of life than apes, do you believe a spiritual awareness of God, or a higher power as some call it, came into being, and how?
mbaker:
Based on your comments/response, it would seem that NOTHING can be believed, because it cannot be conclusively proven.
Didn’t CMP just discuss this kind of thing, i.e.: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/10/the-sufficiency-of-probability-in-the-christian-belief/
Anyone here recall the conversation with The Bomb at the end of the movie DARK STAR (John Carpenter’s film school creation)?
Eric,
Sorry, blogging buddy,but that’s a copout not worthy of your usual thorough explanations, especially when we are talking about the science of evolution, which insists everything be examined and proved, and indeed insists evolution already is. But you guys get really testy when we ask you to similarly back up your claims about theology.
Hmmm…… Speaking of The Bomb, have you ever studied the science of gninethgil pu?
If Evolution is not certain, and neither is the Bible, wouldn’t this put them on more-or-less equal terms? As two intriguing, and at times mildly compelling, but slightly problematic, hypotheses?
So that we might turn to either, or both, with about the same degree of mild interest/conviction?
RE:441
You could be right if it were not for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Science can’t resurrect apes so far, but Christianity had and has passed on both the oral and written records of live, eyewitness accounts that attest to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. So we have had live transitional beings, in those who followed over the generations, to communicate those truths to us over the centuries.
Don’t think any TE here would argue that one.
Are science and religion so incompatible? That we must choose one or the other?
If science says simple physical resurrections don’t happen – dead bodies rising to walk and talk, like Lazarus, or to rule on earth forever – that might not contradict the BIble exactly. Depending on how we understand the Bible.
If you read the MANY biblical accounts of resurrections a little more closely, you may find they are less clearly, simple physical miracles (that are incompatible with science), than one might think.
For example, the two disciples on the Road to Emmaus. Here, two people are walking down the road, and encounter a “stranger.” When the stranger begins to discuss scripture though, the two followers suddenly recognize him as, or see him as, Jesus.
Is this a physical miracle, that is incompatible with science? Some might say that the text really says, that when some stranger read scripture, and thus took in the spirit or thoughts and sayings of Jesus, the spirit of Jesus was reborn, resurrected, into that person. So that the person became in effect, Jesus, for a moment.
Thus Jesus is resurrected here. Not in a simple way that some parts of the BIble might seem to imply by themselves: not exactly his dead body come to physical life in some simple way. But in a more metaphorical way: his thoughts, spirit, live on, are resurrected in, others.
Therefore, at least in the Emmaus account, we have an understanding or picture of the resurrection of Jesus, that is compatible with science.
So we don’t have to choose between science, and religion.
BY the way, other accounts of resurrections, may also inevitably have similar ambiguities in them; so that, on closer inspection, they could be read as not being simple, literal ressurections; but read as something else. SOmething that CAN be squared with science. Without changing a single word of the BIble itself.
Therefore, it might be that we don’t have to choose beween science and CHristianity; we can come up with a reading of even resurrection, that is fully compatible with both.
Renton,
I’m sorry, but your possible interpretation there of Jesus on the road to Emmaus not really being Him with the implication, as I understand it, that He maybe did not actually rise from the dead, would destroy the whole foundation of Christianity.
Renton,
I think you are touching on a legitimate concern of many of us here, in that Christianity will seek to re-define itself, in terms of allegorical, post modern hypotheses, such as the one you just advanced, if we are going to insist on believing that science is going to be completely in agreement with the word of God., or vice versa. Even most of the TE’s here admit that the two cannot be compatible.
In fact, it’s actually just going to the other extreme, from the physical evidence of atheistic evolutionists instead, such as Dawkins, trying to disprove the existence of God, to rearranging the Bible to bend our own beliefs to suit science, especially including Christ’s resurrection. As Cheryl pointed out in #444, that is not only compromising Christianity, (which was, and still is, CMP’s original question) but destroying the foundational tenets of it.
It particularly brings into question the rest of Christ’s life, His subsequent death on the cross, not to mention the significance of the cross itself, and His several other post resurrection meetings with His other disciples, including Him cooking a fish dinner for them, and His doubting disciple Thomas who had to put his fingers in the holes in Christ’s hands for proof that He had been resurrected.
We would have to call all of that allegorical to agree with your premise, and again I don’t think most of the TE’s here would do that, in order to force their own theology to match up with the science they believe in, unless they are strict deists.
Renton,
Me and cheryl agree on this one. No physical resurrection, no Christianity. From the earliest Christian writings to the writings in the Bible itself – they all assume a physical resurrection. Christianity doesn’t have to bow to the philosophy of naturalism to survive – it just has to not contradict the verifiable evidence.
mbaker,
I think you are mischaraterizing ALOT of TE people. Most of the TE people I know, myself included, do not exclude the ability of God to use and perform miracles in human history. As such we have no issue whatsoever with the physical and miraculous resurrection of Christ. We simply believe on origins the evidence for evolution is so strong that we must either believe evolution to be true or believe that God is deceiving us with the evidence.
mbaker,
Sorry, blogging buddy,but that’s a copout not worthy of your usual thorough explanations, especially when we are talking about the science of evolution, which insists everything be examined and proved, and indeed insists evolution already is. But you guys get really testy when we ask you to similarly back up your claims about theology.
Here you go again making silly claims like this. I’ve answered you more thoroughly than anyone else and you never responded to those. I’ve asked you questions and you’ve ignored them. I’ve given you evidence for transitional fossils and you hardly even mentioned them.
You’re method of discussion is incredibly one-sided. All you are good at is raising questions that even you cannot answer then declaring yourself a winner. The only reason why you are still around is because you are incredibly good at reading just what you want to read, whether its true or not.
I think your position is incredibly weak, mbaker. Your lack of response and understanding only solidify that in my mind. I think others are starting to notice it too.
Et tu, Brute (er, Greg)?
Michael,
i think you should absolutely go back and read my last two posts. I was actually defending TE’s!