Mohler takes on 'theistic evolution'

Associated Baptist Press ^ | January 13, 2011 | Bob Allen

[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."

[D-fendr]

I do appreciate you stating the reasoning of the first cause argument more accurately here. However, your conclusion:

we can just as easily assume ___   for no reason whatsoever and ___  for no reason whatsoever…

is lacking in reason.

:)

[D-fendr]

The logical question then is: At which "point" in eternity

And the logical answer is that if there is no time, there is no such thing as a point in time.

[D-fendr]

what caused it to create

If it has a cause, it is dependent. And you have the turtles problem again, you've left the argument, or rather validated the reasoning for an uncaused first cause.

I'm sticking within the first cause argument restriction here, irrespective of what you call it. If you take it to more religious area, then you can discuss God's motivation.

[James C. Bennett]

I prefer comparing religious texts to the First Cause argument, because it is the simplest way to nullify the arguments of those religions. This is the only way that honest admission can be brought about, so that logical leaps are not assumed - the admission being that one does not know - therefore leading to somewhat of a deistic opinion with regard to the concept of divinity, if you accept the First Cause "argument". If this is not the case, the only alternative left is to compare your religion's texts for compatibility with your own proposed First Cause argument.

"The rebuttal is that the attributes of eternal, uncaused, unmoved, unchanging, etc. are an integral part of Christian theology and therefore compatible."

"Never the spirit was born; the spirit shall cease to be never;	65
Never was time it was not; End and Beginning are dreams!
Birthless and deathless and changeless remaineth the spirit for ever;
Death hath not touched it at all, dead though the house of it seems!" - Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: II, Lines 65-68.

 

"Of what metes days and years,

Time’s self I am; "

- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: X, Lines 82-83.

"Thou seest Me as Time who kills, Time who brings all to doom,

The Slayer Time, Ancient of Days, come hither to consume;"

- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: XI, Lines 201-202.

"That Truth which giveth man Amrit to drink,

The Truth of HIM, the Para-Brahm, the All,

The Uncreated; not Asat, not Sat,

Not Form, nor the Unformed; yet both, and more;—

Whose hands are everywhere, and everywhere

Planted His feet, and everywhere, His eyes

Beholding, and His ears in every place

Hearing, and all His faces everywhere

Enlightening and encompassing His worlds.

Glorified by the senses He hath given,

Yet beyond sense He is; sustaining all,

He dwelleth unattached: of forms and modes

Master, yet neither form nor mode hath He;

He is within all beings—and without—

Motionless, yet still moving; not discerned

For subtlety of instant presence; close

To all, to each, yet measurelessly far!

Not manifold, and yet subsisting still

In all which lives; for ever to be known

As the Sustainer, yet, at the End of Times,

He maketh all to end—and re-creates.

The Light of Lights He is, in the heart of the Dark

Shining eternally. Wisdom He is

And Wisdom’s way, and Guide of all the wise,

Planted in every heart.

        So have I told

Of Life’s stuff, and the moulding, and the lore

To comprehend. Whoso, adoring Me,

Perceiveth this, shall surely come to Me!"

 

- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: XIII, Lines 39-67.

 

"There be those, too, whose knowledge, turned aside

By this desire or that, gives them to serve

Some lower gods, with various rites, constrained

By that which mouldeth them. Unto all such—

Worship what shrine they will, what shapes, in faith—

’Tis I who give them faith! I am content!

The heart thus asking favor from its God,

Darkened but ardent, hath the end it craves,

The lesser blessing—but ’tis I who give!

Yet soon is withered what small fruit they reap

Those men of little minds, who worship so,

Go where they worship, passing with their gods.

But Mine come unto me! Blind are the eyes

Which deem th’ Unmanifested manifest,

Not comprehending Me in my true Self!

Imperishable, viewless, undeclared,

Hidden behind my magic veil of shows,

I am not seen by all; I am not known—

Unborn and changeless—to the idle world.

But I, Arjuna! know all things which were,

And all which are, and all which are to be,

Albeit not one among them knoweth Me!"

 

- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: VII, Lines 69-90.

Works elsewhere too, eh? That's why I insist on comparing religions with the apologetics they claim as their own.

[D-fendr]

I prefer comparing religious texts to the First Cause argument, because it is the simplest way to nullify the arguments of those religions… If this is not the case, the only alternative left is to compare your religion's texts for compatibility with your own proposed First Cause argument.

I'm not clear here: are you saying that religions are false because the first cause argument is true?

Or are you saying that one cannot accept the first cause argument and one's religious beliefs simultaneously?

[D-fendr]

Left out an alternative: “Or both, or..?”

[D-fendr]

Works elsewhere too, eh?

For me personally, that's a mark in its favor.

I'm thinking I still must be missing your point here.

[James C. Bennett]

"Or are you saying that one cannot accept the first cause argument and one's religious beliefs simultaneously?"

Exactly. More specifically, I see incompatibility of the First Cause argument with all known religions today: 'Changeless' clashes with 'timeless' - doctrinal specifics that clash with one-another, or exist in parallel in other faiths, again contradicting uniqueness.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply:

I see incompatibility of the First Cause argument with all known religions today…

Got it. I don't agree, but that's a different discussion. I enjoy comparative religion, so maybe we'll have a go sometime.

exist in parallel in other faiths, again contradicting uniqueness.

This will bother some, but I don't see it as a deal killer. That religions agree mostly on the attributes of the divine is corroboration to me. There is still plenty enough uniqueness to argue about. :)

[YHAOS]

“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?”

I’ve understood unicorns to be white. Not true? Otherwise, should they exist at all, I doubt unicorns can exist on Jupiter, given the gravitational and atmospheric conditions there existent, while their presence on Earth is entirely plausible. So far as we know, unicorns (talking or otherwise) do not exist, whereas serpents and donkeys are anything but mythical. But, you seem to feel you have to double down on your proposition to make it “fantastic” enough for it to be suitable to your purposes.

“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.”

That may be because you have yet to find anyone, at least of Judeo-Christian belief, who hold that their religion is “based” on snakes and donkeys who talk. They seem more drawn to the two Great Commandments and other fundamental beliefs, some of which I mentioned some time ago, and none of which seem to provide an adequate opportunity to start a fight.

[kosta50]

[we can just as easily assume ___   for no reason whatsoever and ___  for no reason whatsoever…] is lacking in reason.

I believe what I said (in #1179  to which you were responding) is "The paradox is then "solved" by assuming that the first cause is uncaused, and "exists" just because, for no cause or reason whatsoever, as a logical necessity."

If there is any reason lacking then it is in asserting that the uncaused "exists" if cause is the reason for existence. Therefore the uncaused (first cause) can not logically exist (there is no cause for its existence) even though it "must" [sic] logically exist to stop infinite regress.

Aquinas was thinking inside the box, and so if everyone else who does not allow for existence to be eternal, repetitive, self-causing, etc.  This is a lot more rational than implying some "thing" that exists in eternity, without change, or cause, and then decided (!), without a cause of course, to "step outside" the eternity and start creating without itself undergoing change!

[kosta50]

And the logical answer is that if there is no time, there is no such thing as a point in time

The moment of creation would have destroyed timlessness, and the "changless" creator would cease being changeless (and timeless).

Since we know we exist there never was an eternal, unchanging creator because timlessness and creation are untenable.

Since we have evidnece we exist...guess what doesn't! :)

[kosta50]

If it has a cause, it is dependent. And you have the turtles problem again, you've left the argument, or rather validated the reasoning for an uncaused first cause

It doesn't matter.

Assuming your first cause argument to be true, our existence is proof that creation did take place, that the first cause was caused to act, to change, and that in doing so lost its timlessness and underwent self-destruction.

[kosta50]

That may be because you have yet to find anyone, at least of Judeo-Christian belief, who hold that their religion is “based” on snakes and donkeys who talk.

Without the talking snake there is no Fall and no need for the Savior. It doesn't get much more central than that. The talking snake is the sinlge most central theme that "explains" why God had to kill God to save humanity.

[D-fendr]

"The paradox is then "solved" by assuming that the first cause is uncaused, and "exists" just because, for no cause or reason whatsoever, as a logical necessity."

A logical necessity is otherwise known as a reason.

The first cause argument is a logical argument - the very opposite of "for no reason."

If you have a similar syllogism that works, you know I'm going to ask to see your work.

:)

[D-fendr]

The moment of creation would have destroyed timlessness

There was no moment from the eternal perspective; but for creation it did destroy timelessness [probably more accurate to say it began time]. The best estimate is 13.75 billion years ago.

I don't follow the logic that the infinite/eternal causing the finite to exist necessarily destroys itself or it's attributes.

Haven't really thought it through but, we could perhaps take "laws of physics" from your #1129 as an analog. They continue unchanged - and must continue as they are in order for the universe to work - new creation to become part of our finite existence.

[spunkets]

Re: "It doesn't say John answered them. It says in John 2:19, "Jesus answered them,..."

" But, "John" is writing it... :) o, why do you believe John?"

All that matters is what Jesus said and whether I believe that. That's all I'm concerned with. If what He said doesn't make sense and doesn't provide a logically perfect reference that's a key to knowing and understanding all the rest of what was said in the Book, then I have no faith in what any of them said.

"I am not lost reading Homer's Iliad, but I don't believe it it historically factual either."

Irrelevant.

"Paul was "all thing to all men" so he told them what they wanted to hear. But one thing he does make sure is not to confuse Jesus with God. For example, (Phil 2:6) "who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" A form of God? That's like image of God; it ain't God."

Phil 2:6,7, " 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

OR Young's literal trans: "6who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God, 7but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, "

You must have missed the equality with God part. All men are in the Image of God, but not all are equal to God. Jesus = God is a claim being made in that passage.

"Paul makes sure we understand...

Paul's not God, Jesus is. The words of Jesus carry more weight than Paul.

"John, likewise, does not confuse "being one" with the Father (like the disciples being "one" with Jesus) does not make Jesus God the Father.

John 1:1, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:14, "14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."

The fact that John thought Jesus was God Himself, in Person could not be more clear.

"John quotes Jesus as saying not only that the Father is greater than Jesus (John 14:28)but that Jesus actually refers to the Father his God (John 20:17). God calling God his God? Get real."

John 20:17, "Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

What part of it don't you like? Is it where God acknowledges the Father as His own and calls Him God as one of His fraternal brothers? Maybe you think He should have distanced Himself from such a bunch and have been a much more arrogant son.

[spunkets]

"Without the talking snake there is no Fall and no need for the Savior.

There was no fall. With all your accusations about "the Church" rewriting and making stuff up as they went. Ezekiel 18 and John 9 refute the concept of the fall and God in John 9 points out where the concept comes from.

"The talking snake is the sinlge most central theme that "explains" why" folks lie and steal.

"God had to kill God to save humanity."

BS! God came to teach who He was and some folks killed Him for it.

[kosta50]

A logical necessity is otherwise known as a reason

What's the reason the uncaused "exists"? Whatever reason you give me makes the uncaused dependent or caused. Self-refuting.

[kosta50]

There was no moment from the eternal perspective

There can be no eternal perspective that includes creation unless creation itself is eternal.