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]

We walk through this world with one eye shut and the otrher one barely open, feleing our way aorund. We hope, and that's about all we can do.

I'm pro-humility. :) However, the definition of humility I like is: knowing one's proper place - neither too high nor too low.

I don't think it's quite as helpless as you seem to. But, there ya go...

[kosta50]

They have a problem with Jesus being the messiah, obviously. The problem the two religions differ on this point - irreconcilably. A deal killer.

Because Christians claim Jesus is YHWH and the Jews are paranoid that they will succumb to idolatry (once again) if they fall for it! The OT specifically has God saying "I am not a man..."

I don't see much difference between what some reformed Christians teach; I don't subscribe to their view of God either

Agreed.

"Uncreate, without beginning, immortal, infinite, eternal, immaterial, good, creative, just, enlightening, immutable, passionless…" 

The very same Eastern Church that sees God in this light also says that this God is also the same God who ordered OT genocides. You don't see the contradiction? You don't see the hypocrisy for the Church to commemorate the "Slaughter of the Innocents" (a  biblical event that has no historical corroboration), but the routine slaughter of the innocents in the OT is simply the "righteous anger" such as:

"Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." [Isaiah 13:16]

This is the same "good, creative, just, enlightening, immutable, passionless…" deity that demands infanticide and rape? And you don;t see anything wrong in that picture?

I can't reconcile the notion of "there is no purpose" with the constant exhibiting of purpose and desire to go somewhere

I really can't think of any specific purpose why man exists.  But it's a "feels-good" to believe we do.

I can't understand a life lived fully with gloom and cynicism and a value system based on feels good. I don't think it comports at all with Taoism either.

There is no other way to describe the futility of chasing after the truth that's unprovable.  

That's not the point. The point is if they were, does life has value, inherently. Assume all conditions equal, what say you?

I can't imagine it ever being all conditions equal. It's too abstract and hypothetical to answer with any degree of certainty. We don't know how we will react in a given situation. It's part of the "mystery" of life, as we walk through it with one eye shut and the other one barely open, hoping.

[James C. Bennett]

My God doesn't cause me to slaughter. More of a love your enemies kind of God, y'know?

In that case, whose god ordered Saul to slaughter the infants and animals? Whose god killed David's child because it was born a bastard? Is your god not claiming that it is the same as the Old Testament god?

[James C. Bennett]

The Golden Rule needs no religion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HJTG6RRN4E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AkANQls234&feature=related

[kosta50]

We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?"

Being born is winning a lottery of millions to one odds. But before you can call yourself 'privileged' you have to win another lottery lest you are a bastard or orphan, or a child of an abusive alcoholic father, or drug-addicited mother, the countless face on charitable posters, living in the gutters Kolkata (Culcutta) or São Paulo, etc. and probably would have been better off if you were never born.

What exact purpose is served by starving children in God's plan, D?

[James C. Bennett]

Indeed.

This raises another question, asked earlier:

What is the value of suffering? Does it count only when gods suffer?

What did David’s child suffer for? How does it fit into the the concept of “perfect justice”?

[D-fendr]

This is the same "good, creative, just, enlightening, immutable, passionless…" deity that demands infanticide and rape? And you don;t see anything wrong in that picture?

Certainly I do, K, the latter ain't the Christian God.

I remember being on the same side against Reformed folks, arguing against this OT God error. You were very skillful and accurate in your arguments. If you still remember them, put them here: __________ .

I really can't think of any specific purpose why man exists.

I'm not trying to be personal here, but it's necessary for the discussion. Do you have a purpose? This is what I'm trying to get at. It's not us in here and the universe out there. We are part of the processes of the universe. One of the results of these processes is you - and your purpose.

None?

There is no other way to describe the futility of chasing after the truth that's unprovable.

What's provable in Taoism? Pursuing truth is what humans do; it's what makes us different than the other animals.

thanks for your reply...

[D-fendr]

The Golden Rule needs no religion:

I'm using religion in a very broad sense, not limited to an established religion, confession, etc.

Religious beliefs are those which transcend sense and reason/logic. These are necessarily personal beliefs - two people can arrive at the same conclusion in different ways.

I'm trying to see if yours fits into a logical foundation, or some other, here:

That what I was trying to find out in asking whether the golden rule was a dependent value and more specifics of how you personally derive it's truth. Would I be correct in saying its value is in serving the value of " the survival of the human species, and beyond." IOW it is valuable because survival is valuable?

Thanks for your reply.

[James C. Bennett]

Yes, survival is ‘valuable’.

Between the infinite portions of time that an individual’s life sandwiches itself within, this very fact makes it invaluable and worthy of preservation. The span of time that’s available for the existence of your physical composition is a fraction of what was available for your non-existence. Its value, because of its scarcity, is compounded exponentially, as a result.

[James C. Bennett]

I think I see the problem, D-fendr.

We’re arguing based on the assumption that the Christian god is the Old Testament god that ordered 1 Samuel 15:3, and is the same as Jesus.

If this assumption is wrong, then let me know, explicitly.

[kosta50]

So if we imagine a forced choice: destroy a rock, an eggplant, a cow or a human, these values become apparent. [ Assuming all other conditions equal again. ]

Depends on circumstances.

[D-fendr]

What is the value of suffering?

Basketball.

[kosta50]

At the end of the day, for the a believer in these faiths such as yourself, choosing to ignore the implications of the contradictions, is no real peace. You will have your own mind to answer to, to explain how a "loving" god could have done all that it did, with respect to those infants, don't you?

The problem is conflating Jesus with the OT God. Years back I asked an Orth. Church of America (OCA) priest where is Jesus in Isaiah 13:16 and he told me "You need to read more"!

A simple "here and here" would have been an acceptable answer, but in a way he told me he didn't know either. That's when the yard began to unravel.

[James C. Bennett]

Basketball.

:^)

[D-fendr]

Several posts back I typed a lot of words on the way I view the OT. I'm too lazy to find and repeat them. I'll just ramble on anyway.

It's not that it's not the same God. Scripture is inspired by, but not written by God (in Christianity). The writers of Scripture are finite humans writing within their context and knowledge. This is why you see such things as "light of the eye" instead of the correct idea of reflected light.

As I said earlier, I see the OT as it is: developed by ancient people over centuries and finally written down.

It is the way they saw, experienced and explained themselves, God and the events of the world. Sometimes, for some writers, in some circumstances, they see God this way, another time that way. Always, God as part of their lives. You pick Samuel, but ignore much of the Psalms. You denigrate and simplify unfairly, IMHO.

Our concept of "historian" or "Journalist" does not apply. To hold them to our standards is quite unfair. If we had lived back then and faced the brutality of their world, we might not be so puffed up. We sometimes claim to have passed a test we never took.

Rather than pick a chapter and tear it apart, the OT requires and deserves a great deal more study first. I spent what is, for me, a lot of hours of classwork on it, and felt I was just beginning to have enough knowledge to get the context and flow and see the differing authorship, viewpoints, conflicts, etc.

I don't think you are receptive to this, and I'd refer you to other books if you were.

Anyway.. it's the same God, but IMHO, an increasing understanding of that God. Culminating in Jesus.

Bottom line as it applies to your question: For Christians, Jesus is the model for understanding God in human terms (just/unjust, forgiving/vengeful, etc.). So if your view of God in these terms does not hold when applied to Jesus, then it is not the Christian view of God.

[D-fendr]

Depends on circumstances.

Okie doke.

You've been kidnapped by evil men from an unknown empire. Your hands and feet are firmly bound. They have demolished New York with atomic weapons. They take you into a huge warehouse where, on separate platforms, there are: a rock, an eggplant, a cow and a human being.

High over each platform is a 2 ton iron block held by a steel cable.

The cables go over pulleys and thread down to series of release servos. Each servo is wired to a button in a line in front of a table.

The evil guys take you to the table and tell you:

"Pick two of these buttons releasing two iron blocks. You have thirty seconds to pick two, and only two, of them. If you do not, we will destroy Chicago."

What do you do and why?

[kosta50]

the latter ain't the Christian God.

But the Christians say otherwise.

Do you have a purpose?

I have no idea.

It's not us in here and the universe out there. We are part of the processes of the universe. One of the results of these processes is you - and your purpose

That's what I call a leap of faith! :) It doesn't follow that just because I am the result of the "universe" I also must have a purpose. What's the purpose of the universe?

Why don't you tell us what the purpose of David son's week-long dying was all about. Or where is love in the bastard children of Calcutta's slums?

What's provable in Taoism?

My favorite line "the world is the way it is even if you don't understand it" density need any proof. No one understands the world they way it truly is, yet the world is the way it is and there is very little we count in its being the way it is! The earth is round regardless if we know/don't know why.

[kosta50]

Religious beliefs are those which transcend sense and reason/logic...I'm trying to see if yours fits into a logical foundation

Huh?

[D-fendr]

It doesn't follow that just because I am the result of the "universe" I also must have a purpose.

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. You are part of, and a result of, the processes of the universe. If you have a purpose, then one of the results of the universe is purpose.

We are not some separate part disconnected from the universe.

[kosta50]

They take you into a huge warehouse where, on separate platforms, there are: a rock, an eggplant, a cow and a human being...High over each platform is a 2 ton iron block held by a steel cable...The evil guys take you to the table and tell you: "Pick two of these buttons releasing two iron blocks. You have thirty seconds to pick two, and only two, of them. If you do not, we will destroy Chicago. What do you do and why?"

I smash the rock and the plant. Cows and humans have feelings, as I do, and I don't like pain. "Feels-good" wins every time, and is Good and is part of the Golden Rule.