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."

[kosta50]

All that matters is what Jesus said and whether I believe that.

What you believe is your business. It doesn't prove that it's true, and repeating that you believe it is not going to prove it either.

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

No, the only claim is that he was in "the form" of God, just as humans are in "the image" of God. Everywhere else, Paul makes it clear that he is not equal to God. That much is clear.

The words of Jesus carry more weight than Paul.

Sure, but Jesus never said he was equal to God. To the contrary, he said he was the Father is greater than he is and even called the Father his God.

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.

Well, to use your own argument with Paul, John is no Jesus. I have already asked you why do you believe men, like John (when it suits you) and what matters is only what Jesus (is quoted to) have said?

How does John know what was in the "beginning"? And the "with God" in Greek reads "towards God", and the "he was God" in Greek reads "he was a God." [Greek also didn't have capitals]

How can God be "with" God? And if the Father and the Son are the same person, as you claim, then not only did the Son become flesh but also the Father according to Spunketism 101.

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

But it also couldn;t be more clear that Jesus stated the Father (who in your convoluted theology is the same person as the Son) is greater than he is! It's like spunkets saying spunkets is greater than spunkets!

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?

If Jesus is the same God (and you say person) as the Father then he can't call the Father "his God".

[kosta50]

There was no fall

Okay, then without the talking snake there was no sin and without the sin no death and without death no need for the savior. You happy now? No mater how you weave your imbecilic "theology" the talking snake is central to the whole Bible belief.

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

Theology of Spunketism: men can kill God. You are really something. You hang on to your religion and "church of one" whatever purpose they may serves, but I have had enough of Spunketism.

[dr_lew]

If the egg came first, how could it hatch without a chicken having incubated it?

Didn't you watch LIFE ON EARTH with David Attenborough? This series focused on techniques of reproduction as the essential time line. The egg, as we understand it with a shell, defined the progression from amphibian to reptile, and this development occurred well before the appearance of birds. So, without question the egg came before the chicken.

[kosta50]

I’ve understood unicorns to be white.

But could they be pink like flamencos?

Otherwise, should they exist at all, I doubt unicorns can exist on Jupiter, given the gravitational and atmospheric conditions there existent

So, the only existence is in the form found in temperate conditions? Why? There are soft-tissue animals living in the deepest regions of the Pacific Ocean, a couple of miles deeper than Mt. Everest is high!

They live conditions of excessive pressure, darkness, cold, or heat (in volcanic openings on the sea floor). There are living organisms found in acid media in the Yellowstone Park where our "normal" living organisms, including us, would be terribly damaged and killed.

Our stomach lining produces acid that dissolve bone, and even tougher material, yet it is resistant to it.

So far as we know, unicorns (talking or otherwise) do not exist, whereas serpents and donkeys are anything but mythical.

So are talking snakes, talking donkeys and people living inside a fish  stomach (in absence of air, bathed in hydrochloric acid, and subjected to crushing smooth muscle contractions) for days and then being able to tell about it! (mental note: Jesus apparently believed the story of  Noah according to the Bible)

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.

Well, it is just as fantastic, if not more, than the pink unicorns on Jupiter, especially since there is no other recording of animals possessing (a) speech and (b) human intellect, except in the Bible.

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.

Well, without the talking snake in the Garden there is no sin, and without  sin there is no death, and without death there is no need for a Savior. And you tell me the belief in a talking snake is not central, better yet essential, to Christianity?

[kosta50]

Bhagavad-Gita...

Amazing. Then look at my tagline...that too could be "Christian".

[D-fendr]

Whatever reason you give me makes the uncaused dependent or caused.

Are you confusing dependent in existence with dependent in the syllogism?

[D-fendr]

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

Why?

[spunkets]

Re: "All that matters is what Jesus said and whether I believe that."

"What you believe is your business. It doesn't prove that it's true, and repeating that you believe it is not going to prove it either."

You asked me why I believed what was written. Proof only applies in math and logic.

Re: "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"

"No, the only claim is that he was in "the form" of God,"

Here it is again, so your denial appears with the statement itself. 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[or form] of a servant, being made in human likeness.

Re: "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."

"Well, to use your own argument with Paul, John is no Jesus. I have already asked you why do you believe men, like John (when it suits you) and what matters is only what Jesus (is quoted to) have said?

No, not when it suits me. You specifically said that John never equated Jesus with God. "John, likewise, does not confuse "being one" with the Father ... does not make Jesus God the Father"

"And the "with God" in Greek reads "towards God", and the "he was God" in Greek reads "he was a God." "

Here's Young's literal translation. John 1:1, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" I believe this translation is correct and it's the third time what you've said regarding translationals was wrong. You haven't been correct on any translational matter yet.

"How does John know what was in the "beginning"?

A little birdie told him.

Re: "There was no fall

"Okay, then without the talking snake there was no sin and without the sin no death and without death no need for the savior. You happy now?"

I said that Gen 3 is a parable and that Adam and Eve rerpesent each person that ever lived. How do you know they never sinned? Art thou a wizard? Even though each person is a trinity, how many can raise themselves from the dead to everlasting life?

Re: "God came to teach who He was and some folks killed Him for it"

"Theology of Spunketism: men can kill God. You are really something.

John 19:10,11 “Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?” Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.

[James C. Bennett]

Indeed. Every religion has its believers justifying theirs as compatible with reality, flawless and true.

If God had a wall-clock, what would it tick away? If time doesn’t tick, nothing can begin, nothing can end, because what has to begin has already ended, instantly, and simultaneously. There is no time to separate the two.

Thanks for the replies, Kosta and D-fendr!

[D-fendr]

If God had a wall-clock,

It'd be about as useful as a speedometer in your kitchen. :)

If time doesn’t tick, nothing can begin, nothing can end

Nothing "new" anyway. That's another way of saying changeless.

There is no time to separate the two.

If nothing changes, what is the "two" you wish to separate?

The problem of conceptualizing time is similar to the problem of conceptualizing infinity (which you alluded to earlier.)

I think it varies with the individual: some cannot conceive of it at all, others can, in part; no one in total. Still we can describe both in part, perform logical and mathematical operations with them, etc.

To combine the conundrum, think of a pure theoretical mathematician working with both infinity and numbers that, in his view, are pure abstractions following their own laws independent of, regardless of, and outside of, time.

[D-fendr]

Thank you very much for your replies also.

Every religion has its believers justifying theirs as compatible with reality, flawless and true.

True believers are not confined to religion.

[kosta50]

Are you confusing dependent in existence with dependent in the syllogism?

Aquinas tied cause with existence by saying that all that exists has a cause other than itself. In that case, if the first cause were to exist, it would also have to have a cause.

[kosta50]

You asked me why I believed what was written

I asked you why you believe John and you didn't answer me. You only told me what matters is that you believe. That's not "why".

Here's Young's literal translation. John 1:1, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" I believe this translation is correct and it's the third time what you've said regarding translationals was wrong. You haven't been correct on any translational matter yet.

I have just about had enough of you. I can read Greek. Here is the Greek text of John 1:1, word for word:

Ἐν [in] ἀρχῇ [origin, beginning] ἦν [was] ὁ [the] λόγος [saying, word] καὶ [and] ὁ [the] λόγος [saying, word] ἦν [was] πρὸς [towards] τὸν [the] θεόν [God] καὶ [and] θεὸς [a God] ἦν [was] ὁ [the] λόγος [saying, word]

NB: (1) Greek uses definite articles for proper names, where English doesn't. Thus, the God, rather than just God. When the article is omitted it is as if using the indefinite article in English, namely a, or any. (2) The word πρὸς (pros) means towards, or relative to, in the presence of, at, etc. In addition to this, the Vulgate (Latin) translation of Greek, the Bible used by the western world for over one thousand years reads "In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum."

Latin preposition apud means among, in the presence of, at. The Slavonic translation, the most accurate translation with regard to Greek (because Church Slavonic was created by Greeks specifically for a wored-for-word and concept-for-concept liturgical and biblical language) reads у Бога (by or at God).

Somehow it became "with" ONLY in English translations. And now you spout some Protestant literal translation to me? I am done with your and your "scholarship." Waste someone else's time.

[kosta50]

True believers are not confined to religion.

And what's a "true believer?"

[kosta50]

[There can be no eternal perspective that includes creation unless creation itself is eternal] Why?

Because otherwise it would represent a change.

[James C. Bennett]

I’m guessing ones that haven’t had to depend on human prophets for their knowledge of their chosen god. In other words, non-existent.

[James C. Bennett]

To combine the conundrum...

Here's an illustration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfShu3ov9vM&feature=related

4:20 onwards, specifically.

[YHAOS]

“There are soft-tissue animals living in the deepest regions of the Pacific Ocean, a couple of miles deeper than Mt. Everest is high!”

So . . . are unicorns to be found cavorting under more than five miles of ocean water (speaking of fantastic tales)?

“So are talking snakes, talking donkeys and people living inside a fish stomach (in absence of air, bathed in hydrochloric acid, and subjected to crushing smooth muscle contractions) for days and then being able to tell about it!” (presumably mythical?)

For example, the story of Jonah and the great fish (a favorite target of scripture scoffers) provides a literal lesson in obedience, willingness of spirit, gratitude, repentance, compassion, and God’s patience and mercy, even if we do not understand how Jonah could spend three days in the belly of a great fish. Scoffers would have us focus on a great fish (watch the birdie) and declare the whole story a “myth.” Central to the story is a lesson in obedience, willingness of spirit, gratitude, repentance, compassion, and God’s patience and mercy . . . not a great fish.

“Well, without the talking snake in the Garden there is no sin . . .”

Reportedly, some men blame it all on the woman. You seem to blame it on that poor serpent. Both of you, it seems to me, miss the point of the story (speaking of watch the birdie).

[D-fendr]

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

>>>Why?

>>>Because otherwise it would represent a change.

I’m sorry, I still don’t get it. Creation is subject to changes.

[D-fendr]

all that exists has a cause other than itself

I believe that would be a misstatement. He argued that secondary, dependent, causes are all around us and they could not exist if there were not a first efficient cause.