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."
"It's only words. But words are all I have..."
Words are never the thing itself, but very useful for communicating. Fortunately they are not the only means possible.
Unless you know what the essence is (which requires cognitive function) you can't recognize the form.
Do you need to know the word for chocolate to taste it? The word for sun to be warmed by it?
So, we use the same "Platonic species" that mean many different things to each individual, and dress them with the same words…
"It's only words. But words are all I have..."
Based on these individually created "qualifiers" we pretend to "know" God and what is from God.
Or we describe our experience, learn from others, discuss with each other, acknowledge and appreciate the wonder of existence, mindful of our human limitations.
It need not be a bad thing.
And let's not forget that Judaism claims Genesis, as one of the five books of Moses, is part of the Torah, which God created himself before the foundation of the world, and dictated to Moses word for word.
So the narratives of the seven-day creation are supposedly God's own words describing himself creating in time! Obviously, the concept of a timeless God is something that developed later on in Christian thinking (and that wasn't even really "timeless"), which had to account for the trinitarian dogma, i.e. that the Son is begotten of the Father "before all ages" and the spirit "proceeds" from the Father eternally, in order to discredit "heresies" that taught Jesus was adopted or created at some point in time, in order for him to be equally divine as the Father.
I conceive of it this way (knowing my concept is woefully inadequate and finite and changing):
Not as an "initiation" of creation but creation as a result of its existence. ("When" this occurs is nonsensical outside time.) And not as presenting additional input but as unchanging existence that causes time and the finite corruptible universe - in which things evolve, rise, fall, exist, change form, etc. over time.
Think, if you will, one level above the laws of physics.
I don't know what you mean by "relative". If I go 100 miles an hour I will cover more distance in that hour than you will going 50 miles an hour. The time is the same.
Oh really? Where do you get the idea that physical laws existed before the physical world? Matter is energy, so according to you, physical laws preexisted both time and energy! Talk about "Platonic species"!
Correct. Chemical reaction is simply change over time.
I was referring to special relativistic time dilation. Time is not the same to all observers observing all time frames. Newton took time as an objective constant, Einstein no.
If we say a creator creates then we also must admit that a creator does not create. That is incompatible with unchanging. The only way we can say a creator is changeless is if a creator does nothing or eternally creates.
Again, I’m using the laws of physics as an analogy for something unchanging causing change.
When we get to what came first or what caused the laws of physics or any level up, the analogy doesn’t hold.
I'm not following this, please expand?
Okay, I have to go. Briefly, what is the "unchanging" creator doing when it is not creating?
It is always existing, outside time, unchanging. There is no "when."
To me, this is a concise accurate answer, but I suspect it might be insufficient for you. Perhaps when can elaborate on our discontinuities when time permits.
thanks again for your posts.
>>>The chain never gets started
>>>But neither was the first cause.
The argument is the first cause exists (actually must exist and must be uncaused) - outside time. “Started” is a temporal term.
If it doesn’t exist, the argument goes, the dependent causes in the temporal world never get started - in time.
"Sure it is. You said "All that matters is...whether I believe that. That's all I'm concerned with" and I said "You only told me what matters is that you believe." Same thing.
No, it's not the same thing. You cut out the most important part of my statement, which was "what Jesus said and", then and replaced the missing content with elipses. The full statement was: "All that matters is what Jesus said and whether I believe that." That isn't even close to what you claimed I said.
""было у Бога" means was at God" and that sounds awkward in English, so it is translated as "with".
It means was with God in Russian and in English. "Was at God" makes no sense in any language. In Russian, the nonsense phrase, "was at God" is: "был на Бога".
"At any rate, John 1:1 most clearly shows that the Word was at, near, with, towards...God, and that he is not one and the same as God. Calling the word a god is only a logical extension of his previous statement."
BS, just like the rest...
[Re: Briefly, what is the "unchanging" creator doing when it is not creating?]
It is always existing, outside time, unchanging. There is no "when."
Okay, then if it's not creating?
But his premise says the all existence is caused; the uncaused, therefore, cannot exist.
Whoa! Where does "outside time" come from? Aquinas doesn't mention time.
The problem is not in the logical conclusion, but in the fact that the logical conclusion refutes itself.
This would of course mean that nothing exists, which is refuted because we exist.
In other words, something is wrong in his formulation. Either the premise, or the conclusion.
Under over five miles of ocean? Your theory, not mine.
“That can be conveyed with less than a fairytale-like story.”
Yeah, but you see, as unwise as it might seem, you aren’t the editor.
“Regardless of the blame game, the central story on which Christianity rests is a fantastic tale of a talking snake. Or do you sitll deny it in desperation?”
It’s clear that you are desperate to insist that the central theme of the Bible consists of “fantastic tales.” You cling to your Derrida deconstruction. You dare not go further.
But it still comes down to whether you believe it or not. If you don't believe it, it doesn't matter what Jesus said. If you said "all that matters is what Jesus said" that would be one thing, but you tied it all to you as being the final arbiter of what matters.
"Was at God" makes no sense in any language. In Russian, the nonsense phrase, "was at God" is: "был на Бога".
Google translations are approximations, and at times very bad approximations. Hint: that's why they ask if you can come up with a better translation! The preposition "на" means "on", as is "on earth".
The preposition "y" means at. When you say " 'Was at God' makes no sense in any language" you obviously don't know what you are talking about. Russian, like all other languages, is idiomatic and therefore things that sound perfectly "normal" in Russian can sound awkward in other languages, if translated literally.
You may look up the expression "у нас". It literally means "at us" but translates as "we". So much for "it makes no sense in any language".
BS, just like the rest...
Your, not knowing any Greek, call "BS" the article I referenced in which the author at length explains why, and displays exceptional knowledge of Greek grammar? Pathetic.
Just as "possible" as living in the stomach of a fish! The difference is that I am not obligated to believe fantastic tales and you may be, by virtue of the religion you profess, even if you reason may tell you otherwise. I am free.
Yeah, but you see, as unwise as it might seem, you aren’t the editor
And who's the editor?
It’s clear that you are desperate to insist that the central theme of the Bible consists of “fantastic tales.”
I don't have to insist on it. Any reasonable person would know they are because animals don't posses the necessary anatomical features to produce articulated sounds, and as far as I know don't have human intellect, except of course in fairy tales and myths.
You cling to your Derrida deconstruction. You dare not go further.
Mind-reading and hoping the Religion Moderator doesn't catch it? :) Reaching for desperate measures? :)
Does that mean that time changes or the perception of time does?
Newton took time as an objective constant, Einstein no.
How did Einstein define the speed of light?
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.