Posted on 01/16/2011 4:09:10 PM PST by balch3
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (ABP) -- A Southern Baptist seminary president and evolution opponent has turned sights on "theistic evolution," the idea that evolutionary forces are somehow guided by God. Albert Mohler
Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote an article in the Winter 2011 issue of the seminary magazine labeling attempts by Christians to accommodate Darwinism "a biblical and theological disaster."
Mohler said being able to find middle ground between a young-earth creationism that believes God created the world in six 24-hour days and naturalism that regards evolution the product of random chance "would resolve a great cultural and intellectual conflict."
The problem, however, is that it is not evolutionary theory that gives way, but rather the Bible and Christian theology.
Mohler said acceptance of evolutionary theory requires reading the first two chapters of Genesis as a literary rendering and not historical fact, but it doesn't end there. It also requires rethinking the claim that sin and death entered the human race through the Fall of Adam. That in turn, Mohler contended, raises questions about New Testament passages like First Corinthians 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."
"The New Testament clearly establishes the Gospel of Jesus Christ upon the foundation of the Bible's account of creation," Mohler wrote. "If there was no historical Adam and no historical Fall, the Gospel is no longer understood in biblical terms."
Mohler said that after trying to reconcile their reading of Genesis with science, proponents of theistic evolution are now publicly rejecting biblical inerrancy, the doctrine that the Bible is totally free from error.
"We now face the undeniable truth that the most basic and fundamental questions of biblical authority and Gospel integrity are at stake," Mohler concluded. "Are you ready for this debate?"
In a separate article in the same issue, Gregory Wills, professor of church history at Southern Seminary, said attempts to affirm both creation and evolution in the 19th and 20th century produced Christian liberalism, which attracted large numbers of Americans, including the clerical and academic leadership of most denominations.
After establishing the concept that Genesis is true from a religious but not a historical standpoint, Wills said, liberalism went on to apply naturalistic criteria to accounts of miracles and prophecy as well. The result, he says, was a Bible "with little functional authority."
"Liberalism in America began with the rejection of the Bible's creation account," Wills wrote. "It culminated with a broad rejection of the beliefs of historic Christianity. Yet many Christians today wish to repeat the experiment. We should not expect different results."
Mohler, who in the last year became involved in public debate about evolution with the BioLogos Foundation, a conservative evangelical group that promotes integrating faith and science, has long maintained the most natural reading of the Bible is that God created the world in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago.
Writing in Time magazine in 2005, Mohler rejected the idea of human "descent."
"Evangelicals must absolutely affirm the special creation of humans in God's image, with no physical evolution from any nonhuman species," he wrote. "Just as important, the Bible clearly teaches that God is involved in every aspect and moment in the life of His creation and the universe. That rules out the image of a kind of divine watchmaker."
Irrelevant.
Truth value is independent of what you or anyone else “needs,” and it is independent of “repercussions.”
No, that would be the God of your choosing. If you said 'my God..." that would be fine. But the way you put it you will have to prove that it is the God.
I prefer person. Theotes is at best cryptic
Not to Greek speakers. It means godliness (divinity). How can that be a person; it's a quality. But I guess it's all Greek to you...
As I previously pointed out God is a person that has been seen and known
That is your belief, not a fact, so stop presenting it as if it were a proven fact.
I can confidently say that I don't really care if Socrates was real. Can you say the same about Jesus or any other figure in the Bible?
Ponder that and you'll understand the difference.
You’re hurting your case with this. You’ve both just shown that you choose what you believe based on preconceived, personal preference.
As Sir Frances Bacon said, we prefer to believe that which we prefer to be true.
Logic encompasses science, not the other way around. I’m sorry to have to tell you that your logic is flawed.
We both accept the Big Bang as fact.
The truth of the conservation law is not self-evident—rather, it is validated only by empirical methods.
To say that it is not self-evident is to say that it cannot validate itself. The law tells us nothing about whether it has always existed or whether it appeared at some moment for the first time, so your assertions are meaningless.
Based on what? Facts? I don't think so. Show me statistics.
All but the fringe extremists accept that Christ died by crucifixion, that his tomb was inexplicably empty soon after his death, and that the disciples truly believed they experienced something life changing which they describe as the Resurrection.
These scholars simply use conventional methods of determining historicity.
What are conventional methods of historicity for the resurrection of the dead?
So even though it meets our scholarly standards for historical fact, we won't consider it true.
What scholarly standards for historical facts exist to prove that what's written in the Gospels is true?
And you choose to believe how?
The total energy of the unverse is zero, but it doesn't depend on the curvature of the universe. Flatness refers to it's curvature. The universe also appears flat, because it is embedded in an expanding space that's like wall/sheet of a balloon being blown up.
"Even if you were take a block of nothing between the galaxies and suck out all of the photons and radiation, ..."
The vacuum is still left and each cubic centimeter of it contains more energy(positive) than the entire universe. Also, space will still be present, which is the fabric that gives rise to gravity. The Higgs field is the lowest excited state of the vacuum. The interaction of that field with some energy particles is what gives rise to mass.
"...there are still quantum particles popping in and out of existence."
That's right. ...out of the vacuum. They do so in times that are shorter than h-bar/(twice the particle energy). Twice, because their are 2 particles, one matter and one antimatter. The phenominon is what gives rise to such things as spectroscopic fine structure and the evaporation of black holes.
"No, that would be the God of your choosing. If you said 'my God..." that would be fine. But the way you put it you will have to prove that it is the God.
Only one person ever showed up to introduce Himself as God. The rest are hiding which means they don't deserve more than an instant of consideration.
Re: "I prefer person. Theotes is at best cryptic"
" Not to Greek speakers. It means godliness (divinity). How can that be a person; it's a quality. But I guess it's all Greek to you..."
The fact that it's Greek doesn't matter. It's cryptic and God is not a quality. As I pointed out, God is a person.
Re: "As I previously pointed out God is a person that has been seen and known."
"That is your belief, not a fact, so stop presenting it as if it were a proven fact.
As I also pointed out, proof only applies in logic and mathematics, only evidence that supports "fact" applies elsewhere. Outside of mathematics and logic the word fact always carries some measure of probability that the claim, or concept, whatever... is true. I gave evidence to back up what I said and I'm certainly not going to stop asserting that Jesus is God, because you ordered it pilgram.
Bless your heart. I hope you're not too distressed over it.
"The law tells us nothing about whether it has always existed or whether it appeared at some moment for the first time
That's right if you're referring to when it was first realized. Of course nature doesn't care whether anyone realizes how it works. Nature doesn't care what anyone thinks about how it should be, it just is.
When you have evidence that energy can arise out of nothing and the law is invalid, you can present it. Until then the law stands as it always had, whether folks realized it, or not.
" Machon-mamre, for some mysterious reason, uses standard English translation. Hebrew grammar and other sources disagree: God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'" — Exodus 3:14
I'll bet the mysterious reason is, because they're smart. Going through 3 in the list presented by Google obtains: "Exod 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."
No,"I will be"'s were obtained.
Since Moses didn't respond by asking, "when?"; I'll believe God's name is I AM. Others obviously agree.
No, this is not the case. Which mainstream scholars are you referring to?
Leave the resurrection aside for a minute. Do you believe the passage in Matthew 27 where it claims that after Jesus' resurrection, the graves of Jerusalem opened up and the dead rose from the grave and walked among the citizens of the city? Is that a historical 'truth' that is also only denied by "fringe extremists"?
Wouldn't a group of zombies walking around Jerusalem be something that would show up somewhere other than the Bible?
You are mistaken.
Please show how my indifference to Socrates' existence is due to 'preconceived preference'.
Second, please show how this is parallel or comparable to the faith of a Christian who claims not only existence of Jesus, but his role as the son of a deity.
He never said he was God. Oh, wait, Son of God. Yeah, that's another one of those Hebrew words that mean something else (like a title for the angels and the kings), but semantics don't matter to you. You make up your own lingo, and rules, such as "if it seems 'cryptic' I'll make an adjective a noun."
Must be nice to be a rebel without a cause and imitate life in one's own room where one can be whoever one wants to be and make whatever rules one wants. Pathetic.
The Google hits represent the decisions of Jews who know Hebrew and disagree with you about what would be the most fitting and proper transliteration to place in their own Biblical works. It's notable that none of those competent in Hebrew agree with you in calling I AM that I AM a mistranslation.
Nevertheless I've decided that the imperfect tense, "I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE" refers to Jesus, who announced that before Abraham was, "I AM". Notice that one must be "I AM" if they are annoucing that they WILL BE, as He said He WOULD BE to Moses.
"He never said he was God. Oh, wait, Son of God. Yeah, that's another one of those Hebrew words that mean something else (like a title for the angels and the kings), but semantics don't matter to you.
John 10:22-41, 22 Then came the Festival of Dedication[Hanukkah] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24 The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[Psalm 82:6]? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
40Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing in the early days. There he stayed, 41 and many people came to him. They said, “Though John never performed a sign, all that John said about this man was true.”
"You make up your own lingo, and rules, such as "if it seems 'cryptic' I'll make an adjective a noun."
I simply reject the cryptic BS as useless. It's all your's to keep as one of your tactical tools to use in your obfuscation strategy.
God is clearly a person, as I pointed out above.
Touching. Truely a Hallmark moment!
Were that true, “Adore God” would not be called the first and great commandment, and “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” like unto it (Matthew 22: 37-40). But you go ahead and think what you believe you must think. You have, after all, little choice in the matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.