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."
Your behavior betrays your rhetoric.
“Why is asking a believer to follow biblical medicine as "punch?"”
Your words (“punching back”). Again, your behavior betrays your rhetoric.
When you opine that morality comes only from human heads usually according to their narrowly defined interests; that any idea to the contrary is the product of childish adults; when you suggest that talking donkeys (and presumably other OT “fantastic stories”) are proof of the principal that a lie, told often enough, acquires a semblance of truth by virtue of sheer repetition; it can hardly be thought that your intent is anything but to sneer and scoff. What you mention has been material for scripture scoffing since time memorial.
“So, which is it? Do you believe in scientific medicine or biblical medicine?”
A spurious dilemma. Nevertheless, I refer you to a reply I gave some time ago. You will not find it satisfying for your purposes, of course.
Oh what insight! It represent the mental disposition of most people regarding an ambiguous phrase. However, the standard deviation favors average and mediocre. But who would expect the mediocre ones to understand their pathetic mediocrity! They believe in quantity, not quality. Follow the crowd.
The expression "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" can can be understood in many, many ways. It is, in fact, an indeterminate phrase cleverly made for effect, which seems to mesmerize the mediocre ones the most, especially in its simplest (and grammaticaly incorrect) form.
The phrase is a qal imperfect, sufficiently open-ended for anyone to decide what it "really" means when in fact it means nothing at all. It's perfect for superstitious minds to make anything out of it they wish.
Nevertheless I've decided that the imperfect tense, "I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE" refers to Jesus
Well, I'll be...you've decided.... So, I take it you've also discovered it is in imperfect tense...yet you seem to not have discovered that "I am" is not imperfect tense (oops). But why should that stop you when you can rationalize "Notice that one must be "I AM" if they are announcing that they WILL BE."
Ooooh....You don't say. One must exist in order to say anything. Ah! What a brilliant conclusion! Of course, nothing here indicates that any of it ever was, never mind is.
I am only repeating what Bible-onlyTM crowd tells me, which is that everything in the Bible is equally important. Take it up with them.
It's the imperfect tense. Heyeh is the perfect tense, which refers to an action that is completed. If it was Heyeh that was written, then God's name would have been, "I was". Note that your link also thinks "I AM" is acceptable, because I AM is not yet completed.
"The phrase is a qal imperfect, sufficiently open-ended for anyone to decide what it "really" means when in fact it means nothing at all. It's perfect for superstitious minds to make anything out of it they wish."
It's God's name, as per Moses and John.
He gives them eternal life because the Father supposedly gave it to him...in other words, it's not something intrinsic in him. That which is divine is perfect (complete) and lacks nothing. Therefore if Jesus had to be "given" and had to be "taught" that makes him less than perfect. Maybe the authors of John believed he was a lesser god, but they made sure no one thought Jesus was equal to the Father in his divinity.
In fact, since you insist on using the Bible (as if it proves anything), perhaps you should know that even Jesus calls the Father his God (Jn. 20:17)! God calling God God? Get real.
The source also says that I will be what tomorrow demands is also possible. Clever: anything your fancy can come up with!
"I am" is present. Hardly something one would assign to a god.
It's God's name, as per Moses and John.
Which possible version of it?
What would be your reaction to someone trying to convince you of a religions based on a claim that there are talking pink unicorns on Jupiter?
If I believe something, I am prepared to explain it rationally. I have yet to find someone who will explain to me why a religion must be based on fantastic tales of talking snakes and donkeys and people living inside a fish for three days. Now, don;t tell me that talking snakes and donkeys and people living inside a fish for three days is not a fantastic tale but rather some commonly encountered fact of life!
I have yet to figure out why these same people get offended when I ask these questions instead of just simply telling me why.
What you mention has been material for scripture scoffing since time memorial
Hundu scriptures are much older than the Bible. Is that a reason to believe in them?
“Based on what? Facts?”
This is a very good opportunity to refer to the work of Gary Habermas, who did a comprehensive study demonstrating that most scholars accept the things I mentioned.
“What are conventional methods of historicity for the resurrection of the dead?”
I didn’t say most scholars accept the truth of the Resurrection. I said they recognize as historical fact that the disciples sincerely believed in it based on their experience. This in itself is highly significant.
“What scholarly standards for historical facts exist to prove that what’s written in the Gospels is true?”
There are many ways to establish the credibility of particular writers. This is what all historians do. For example Luke’s writings stands up to the strictest standards of accuracy as regards geographical detail, as well as details about particular people. These things have been tested, for all the New Testament authors, by comparing them to the recordings of non Christian writers of the time. There are many books documenting these claims, as well as other tests of accuracy and credibility. I will provide titles to you, sometime in the next few days as time permits.
Once the credibility and accuracy of a particular writer has been established, it’s very difficult to apply that credibility to only the parts of his work that you want to accept as true. It’s a bit suspect to say well, he was consistently accurate in details of geography, people and other particulars, but when it comes to things I don’t believe in, he’s got no credibility. The error here is to establish certain claims as true in themselves—that they are true in an a priori sense. Like the claim that no particular miracle could have really happened because miracles in general cannot happen.
Rather than saying, “I refuse to believe this because such a thing is impossible,” it’s much more rational to investigate particular events in question based on what actually happened during that time. Facts can be established according to standards we all accept, and as more pieces are added to the puzzle the truth becomes more visible.
“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’?”
Here’s a challenge for you—reflect on this, and deal with it: if the Resurrection is true, it really doesn’t matter if other, less significant parts of the Bible are true.
“And you choose to believe how?”
I believe on faith, as well as on reason and observation.
You’re the one taking the atheist/agnostic view which does not allow this, yet as you’ve shown in the posts above you do it anyway.
You said that an event should be believed to be true only if the outcome of believing it is acceptable according to preexisting standards.
I’m trying to explain to you that whether something is true does not depend on whether it “should” be true.
What should be is separate and independent from what is.
But according to logic you can’t accurately and truthfully state that you have knowledge the law existed prior to the Big Bang.
.
In addition to Jesus claiming He would raise Himself up, John 10:22-41 contains His statement that He and the Father are One. They're one person.
BTW, I don't like the version of what's perfect and complete presented. It's contrived, cryptic and can mean anything, as long as it contradicts the evidence.
"you insist on using the Bible (as if it proves anything)
It's a compiliation of evidence.
"God calling God God? Get real."
You complained above that He had not done so. Now you complain, because He did. It's also been noted elsewhere in
Psalm 110:1, The LORD says to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”
Your argument depends on changing the law to “Matter and energy cannot, and never could at any time in the past, be created or destroyed.”
But you are not authorized to change the wording of the law.
Good points all around, Kosta!
Especially funny to see how one’s own accepted mythology can be embarrassing to oneself, to the point of denial, when it is brought out for discussion. Talking animals and living inside fish are core, undeniable aspects of the belief, as is with other beliefs, that a subscriber to these simply cannot wish away as mere “symbolism” or “analogy”. To the eyes of the believer, they are as factual as the Earth is spherical. If they are in denial of such uncomfortable aspects, all they are are cafeteria believers, picking and choosing the rational / philosophical parts while ignoring the nonsensical (in blissful ignorance of the fact that the said religions require belief in those “facts”).
I wasn’t aware that the thread was still on-going.
Keep me pinged!
First, the authors of John, Matthew, Luke (Acts) and Mark claimed (not all identically) that Jesus said he would rebuild the Temple in three days. Apparently this was a popular legend (all written after the fact of course). Why is that a legend should become obvious from the facts listed below.
The alleged Jesus' statement absolutely contradicts by Paul (who apparently was not aware of such an unbelievable claim), who rather insists that Jesus was raised by God (Paul's own words, also see Acts 10:40, and many other like instances)—not that he rose himself. Big difference.
Paul is also contradicted by the Nicene Creed. The verse was deliberately altered [for doctrinal reasons] by the church to read that Jesus rose on the third day according to the scriptures [sic], whereas Paul writes (1 Corinthians 15:4) "that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."
Trouble is, I can't imagine which "scriptures" would Paul be referring to, given that this claim appears only in the Gospels and the Acts, and that the only scriptures at the time Paul wrote his epistles (c. 50-60 AD) was the Tanakh! You see, the Gospels were not written yet, let alone accepted as scriptures, so Paul couldn't have been referring to them, and the Old Testament (Tanakh) makes no such prophesy!
Third, the Father and the Son cannot be "one person" because then the Father, the Son (and the Holy Spirit) are simply modes or masks of God (classic heresy of Modalism which has been debunked by the early Church), which seems to be your private "flavor" of Christianity.
Traditional Christianity recognizes three divine "persons" in one divine nature (aka "Godhead").
Oh, I expected that much. It's from Latin perfectus, the past participle of perficere to finish, bring to completion. You have a lot to learn it seems if even most ordinary words seem to be a stumbling block for you.
You complained above that He had not done so. Now you complain, because He did. It's also been noted elsewhere in Psalm 110:1, The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”
Ah, yes, the classic Christian doctrinal mistranslation of Hebrew. As Rabbi Tovia Singer puts it:
"Although the above conversation [Ps 110:1] could never have occurred, I am certain this narrative has been replayed over and over again in the imagination of countless Christians for nearly 1,900 years."
And you are, it seems, one more Christian perpetuating that proud "tradition" You are more than free to read the entire article debunking this myth, I will only bring out the most pertinent points of his.
"Although the two English words in the NASB translation are carefully made to appear identical, in the original Hebrew text they are entirely different. Whereas the first word "Lord" in the Hebrew is a correct translation of ... the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), the ineffable name of God, the second word "Lord" is a complete and deliberate mistranslation of the text."
Wow, who would have thought that Christians would do such a thing. But this is just the beginning...
"The second word "Lord" in the verse is an appalling translation of the Hebrew word (pronounced ladonee). The correct translation of ladonee is "to my master" or "to my lord." The Hebrew word adonee never refers to God anywhere in the Bible. It is only used for the profane, never the sacred."
Clearly, what you have been led to believe is just not what Psalm 110:1 says, but it seems the altered version served the Christian doctrinologists very well. Happy reading.
Matter is energy and your proposed changes render the law overly verbose and complicated.
" But you are not authorized to change the wording of the law."
LOL!
"Oh, I expected that much. It's from Latin perfectus, the past participle of perficere to finish, bring to completion. You have a lot to learn it seems if even most ordinary words seem to be a stumbling block for you.
It's not the meaning of the word, that was a problem. It was your anthropromorphic use of it to define what a god must be.
"The verse was deliberately altered [for doctrinal reasons] by the church to read that Jesus rose on the third day according to the scriptures [sic], whereas Paul writes (1 Corinthians 15:4) "that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.""
...six of these; half dozen of those.
"Third, the Father and the Son cannot be "one person" because then the Father, the Son (and the Holy Spirit) are simply modes or masks of God (classic heresy of Modalism which has been debunked by the early Church), which seems to be your private "flavor" of Christianity."
The Father and Son are one Person and their commonality is the singular and unique Person of the Holy Spirit. THat is the Trinity and it provides for image of the trinitarian nature of man. You are the modalist per your insistance on describing God as "Theotes" the greek you claim means persona and mask. ... Oh, divine mask of course.
"He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." Trouble is, I can't imagine which "scriptures" would Paul be referring to, given that this claim appears only in the Gospels and the Acts, and that the only scriptures at the time Paul wrote his epistles (c. 50-60 AD) was the Tanakh! You see, the Gospels were not written yet, let alone accepted as scriptures, so Paul couldn't have been referring to them, and the Old Testament (Tanakh) makes no such prophesy!
Isaiah 37:4-6 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to these bones and say to them, ‘Dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life. I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the LORD.’”
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.