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."
As young boys, my brother and I would talk before falling asleep. One of us would start a story that would take us on an adventurous journey. Our mind was the limit where we went and what we could do! We would "ad lib" as we went along, "acquiring" powers and tools needed, be it super cars, weapons, planes, or skills, etc., and were, of course, invincible and always right! And everything was possible — and believable! :)
That was fun, and part of careless childhood, but life soon teaches us otherwise (or it should). Unfortunately some never go beyond that initial stage of living a fantasy, and believing it.
This reminds me of a patient who demanded a "doctor's note" that he is a woman because he was a "woman trapped in a man's body" and was upset that his record was showing a "wrong" gender! He came to believe that he was a woman and the fact that anatomically he wasn't didn't seem to matter. His reality was his fantasy and he wanted everyone to agree, because he knew better.
We used to have a diagnostic term for that, but since then medical profession dropped insanity as a differential. Now you can be crazy only legally! :)
So, if one day you decide you are the Napoleon Bonaparte, or some Egyptian deity, by golly, the world better acquiesce, and recognize your revelation as worthy of consideration and on the par with scince. I know.../s Horus :)
“ I replied:”
You replied what?
”No, you didn't answer my question there.”
Your reply was a question? I thought it was rather declarative.
It’s quite true that I didn’t answer your “question” to your satisfaction or expectation. I don’t read from the scripts of others.
“Not until the Age of Reason, post-1700s, was there such social movements that ultimately lead to freedom in its truest sense.”
Really? Despite a paucity of knowledge and instruction, without the benefit of the ideas and research of Hugo Grotius, Johannes Gratian, Thomas Aquinas, Joannes de Legnano, Baron Pufendorf, Emmerich de Vattel, Honoré Bonet, Franciscus de Victoria, and St. Isidore (and many another), the inhabitants of the Age of Enlightenment instinctively possessed the insights to cause such a “movement” to spring, poof!, full blown from a standing start?
So how is it that the Law of Nations was established in 1625 when Hugo Grotius published De jure belli ac pacis? Grotius’ work was a monumental accomplishment of compilation, organization, and integration of the disparate elements of the ethics of how nations should treat with one another. So much so, in fact, that it immediately gained general acceptance as the definitive authority on the subject.
In producing his work Grotius drew on an extensive body of writings whose beginnings dated back approximately to the demise of the Roman Empire. The range of the philosophical and legal inquiries conducted by theologians, canonists, and other scholars, was quite broad as I indicated some time ago (“when war might be lawful, the origins of war, on the avarice and cruelty of war, treatment of prisoners, when the right of conquest and the claiming of the spoils of war are just and when they are not, the rights of discovery and the treatment of native peoples, the securing of peace as the prime objective of war, issues of maritime law, redress for injuries, restitution of property and recompense for wrongs done, and the laws of embassy and envoys”).
Numbered among the writers of these works were many of the most illustrious names from those times:
Johannes Gratian, generally regarded as the true founder of the science of canon law, whose major work appeared between 1139 and 1150.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Born 1225-27 - died 7 March, 1274, whose great work Summa totius theologiae occupied the last nine years of the author's life. Therein he devoted the fortieth question of the Secunda secundae to four great issues of the law of war.
Joannes de Legnano, a jurist of note and a professor at Bologna, where he died in 1383. The author of the treatise De bello this writer had on several occasions been charged with diplomatic missions.
Honoré Bonet. His work l'Arbre des batailles is thought to have been composed about 1384. Therein he devotes 132 chapters to various issues on the Law of Nations. This work was reproduced in exquisite manuscripts and graced the library of many a great prince.
Franciscus de Victoria, died 1546, held the chair of theology at Salamanca for twenty years, restoring a high quality of theological teaching in Spain. A teacher and lecturer, Victoria was not a writer, but, following his death, many of his lecture notes were published by his students, including De Indis Et De Ivre Belli Relectiones, which, as the title suggests, deals with the issue of native peoples and the law of war. Prior to Victoria, there had been a long legacy of Spanish inquiries on the Law of Nations dating as far back as St. Isidore, Bishop of Seville from 596 to 636, who included in his work Etymologiae, a description of the Roman ideas “jus gentium” and “jus militare” which correspond closely to our modern concepts, respectively, of the Law of Nations and of the Law of War.
While the ecclesiastics, jurists and academics of Western Civilization were working through the ethical and legal issues involving the relations between nations and the moral conduct of war, neither were their temporal rulers idle. Besides attending with some considerable interest the labors of the learned community within their respective societies, these rulers were themselves developing ideas and theories about a society of nations based on the developing philosophies of Natural Law and Natural Rights. Europe was forming itself into an association of republics, principalities, city-states, and kingdoms, taking the first steps in the creation of what was to be a society of nations, and they were beginning to look upon their community of nations as functioning very similarly to how a society of individuals operates.
Influences from Byzantine institutions, from the sultanates along the coast of North Africa and the Moorish kingdoms of Spain, and borrowings from Greek and Roman antiquity, all played their part, according to most historians, but the major impetus seemed to come from within Europe itself. An important event in this process occurred in 962 when Pope John XII crowned Otto I of Germany as the first Emperor of a newly formed Holy Roman Empire. This new empire never attained the level of power or influence that had been exerted by the old Roman Empire, and its vigor steadily diminished over the centuries until it finally expired at the beginning of the Nineteenth. It nonetheless served to help solidify the idea of a Western society of nations.
When some European states turned to commercial interests over other interests (the rise of “Merchant States”), the flourishing of commercial enterprises, benefiting most from a harmonious intercourse between states, influenced European nations towards closer relationships. Moreover, the nations shared a common religion, and Latin, being the language of their church, their legal and academic institutions, their literature, and of their statecraft, provided them with a common language with which to communicate. Their growing close association came to be known as Respublica Christiana, and, at its height, allowing for some considerable variance in degree of independence, its membership came to an estimated number close to two thousand. This circumstance made supremacy difficult to attain. Any nation which attempted to achieve dominance, found an almost instant league of other states arrayed against it, which tended to dampen its enthusiasm for conquest, and which, in turn, tended to cause the states to admit to a certain level of equality amongst their members.
Amazingly enough, through this period of time, right up to the present, it is the Christian nations of Western Civilization that have most scrupulously sought to adhere to the laws of nations and the laws of war.
Though a milestone of considerable proportions, the work of Grotius was but a step in a continuing process. There were important writers to follow:
Samuel Pufendorf. The Law of Nature and of Nations, published in 1674. Further development of Natural Law as it applied to ideas of justice and the Law of Nations.
Cornelius van Bynkershoek, Questions of Public Law, published in 1737. Expanded on the work of Grotius and Pufendorf on questions of the Law of Nations and Constitutional Law.
Emmerich de Vattel. The Law of Nations, published 1758. A favorite of Jefferson’s. Basing constitutional and civil law on the Law of Nations, Vattel’s effort became perhaps the most often quoted work on state matters with regard to the Law of Nations.
By the time the United States declared their independence from the United Kingdom, the epoch treatise of Grotius had been known and referenced for 150 years, and his work, along with the subsequent works of several other authorities, had provided the states of Western Civilization with what amounted to a series of organized protocols to which they could refer in the conduct of their foreign affairs.
Whenever we undertake to study historical events or the acts of historical figures, we are "privileged" (as the historian Bernard Bailyn describes it) to know of subsequent events and outcomes, of which those earlier figures had no more than a glimmer, if even so little as that. If we study and judge events and human actions out of the context of their particular historical time and not on their terms, then it must lead either to error, or the examination, from the beginning, was intended to lead to a self-serving preordained conclusion. That is what you are doing when you attempt to divorce the Age of Reason from the civilization out of which it arose.
From its inception, Western Civilization seems to have been blessed with an instrument of self-correction, residing in the idea of the Perfectability of Man, its roots being deeply sunk in our culture’s Judeo-Christian tradition going back some five thousand years. The idea does not necessarily imply that Man can achieve perfection, rather that he is capable of bettering himself and his condition; that, indeed, his very nature impels him to seek an elevation of himself and his condition. It is this idea that allows Western Civilization to correct its faults and liberate its virtues.
And, all of this strangely enough coming from a time before the “post-1700s”.
“The scriptures are yours, as well. You cannot simply shy away from the responsibility of explaining them, both to yourselves and others who've pointed out the moral voids”
I feel no obligation to explain anything. “Burden of proof (be it scientific, philosophic, or otherwise) does not come into play until common assumptions are established.” You’ve not come for an explanation, in any event. You’ve come to pick a fight.
Let’s review:
I proposed that it is something other than “fantastic tales” of talking donkeys and snakes (serpents) that is central to Biblical Instruction. This in response to another poster’s obsession with the topic. After some discussion, there seemed to be a general disagreement over the proposition. Then came you with the formulaic theme of a some three hundred years plus old list of scripture scoffer grievances, a multi-page indictment to which there can be only one verdict: GUILTY. All this making it clear that the dispute centers about something other than the issue of whether or not talking donkeys, talking serpents, and other “fantastic tales” are central to Biblical Instruction.
“Plain words to that effect, in the scriptures would have been more effective, and more truthful.”
So you assert. The assertion does not prove the fact. What you assert is your interpretation, contrary to five thousand years’ cultural tradition and understanding. Discussion of the issue between us is not possible. No common assumptions have been established, nor are they likely ever to be. I try to read scripture with understanding. You seem to read scripture with malice.
“When a pattern is seen in your scriptures, of the slow, once-in-a-millennia-updated progression of the deity's change in stance from one that is trigger-happy in ordering genocide, to later complying with the Golden Rule, it shows not the divinity of the deity, but rather, the hallmark qualities of the hand of man, in inventing those words, and those religions - each and every one of them.”
Really?! A once-in-a-millennia update, huh. Using your example of the Golden Rule, from which millennial “update” comes Leviticus 19:18 (“Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself:”)?
Using your millennium standard, can you identify the scriptural revelations that have been sprung on us unannounced sometime approx around One Thousand CE?
There are patterns that are “seen.” Then, there are patterns that actually exist.
The argument here contains a fatal error: its accusation that Biblical doctrine contains moral injustice is dependent on first assuming the Bible is factually wrong.
The phrase “snuffed out of existence” illustrates the assumption of factual wrongness. That is, you must discard the Biblical definition of death, and assume death to be an absolute end.
But within the context of Christian doctrine, the death of David’s child would be followed by ascendance to Heaven, the glory of which would negate any earthly suffering.
So you see, the truth of Biblical doctrine provides its moral justification, even according to human moral standards.
This claim is quite meaningless without concrete examples.
Are you proposing it’s impossible to be a sincere Christian?
'we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights'
The modern smug anti-God mob begins by denying we have a Creator and that is why they end up worshipping government as the ultimate authority.
That's a popular theory, and likely true I think, in many an instance.
Alternatively, we can speculate that man turns to himself as the deity to be worshiped, and that government then becomes his temple.
Yes, old evolution books reveal a lot! You can get tons of them at www.archive.org. Read Osborn's crazy abiogenesis theories, Boelsche's german evolution book that influenced the Nazis, tons of stuff on eugenics, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", Piltdown man, monistic philosophy, "orthogenesis", nutball theories of heredity, Haldane's defense of Lysenko, life from crystals... Haeckel's Riddle... So much good stuff! Here and here and here.
Read the Bible, Listen to any sermon or religious debate and you have it. Belivers claim to "know" the mind of God when it suits them and claim divine enigma when it suits them too, conveniently. The Bible is full of such man-made examples. You did it yourself right on this thread when you asked how much of God's mind can we know without actually committing yourself to saying how much of it you allegedly know. Of course, in all such claims, evidence is lacking, so it's your word, nothing more. Which brings up the question: why should I believe you?
How is that different from claiming the Bible contains moral justice by first assuming it is factually right (whenw we know it is not)?
But within the context of Christian doctrine, the death of David’s child would be followed by ascendance to Heaven, the glory of which would negate any earthly suffering
Judaism of David's time knew of no such thing as human ascendance to heaven. Besides, there is nothing in the Christian or Jewish scriptures that assures the ascendance to heave of a newborn infant, your finagling notwithstanding. In fact, Protestant Christians belief that faith is required to be saved almost assures that no such ascendance takes place.
I haven’t typed out the answer because I just haven’t gotten around to it. I thought you should have figured it out.
Obviously, I don’t know all of God’s mind, nor do I know none of it. This should have been self evident when I asked the question.
You have no examples still. Why are you satisfied with making things up?
The atheist claim is one of will, not intellect.
I can believe that an atheist would claim a baby can’t go to heaven, just as I would expect a Christian to disagree with him. This, too, is not an intellectual matter but one of the heart.
Haeckel's Riddle of the Universe is a really good one. Much of the things evolutionists deny they ever said, especially about the anti-religious aspects of evolution, are condensed into one volume. It was very popular. Translated into many languages and sold hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of copies. Even Lenin read it. Also, I recommend the very important 1928 book Creation by Evolution. It is an authoritative collection of essays written by the creme-de-la-creme of evolutionary geniuses, with an introduction written by a eugenist Nobel laureate. It's simply a must-read, I think. No such number of such distinguished evolutionists have ever been assembled before for putting together "A Consensus of Present-Day Knowledge as Set Forth by Leading Authorities in Non-Technical Language that All May Understand."
And I am supposed to take your word for it? Just because you say so? LOL, how reasonable of you/s.
Doubt is never making things up. Making unsubstantiated claims usually is.
And your intellect is void of any will? Is your thinking driven by sheer necessity?
I can believe that an atheist would claim a baby can’t go to heaven, just as I would expect a Christian to disagree with him
The Jews of David's time were not atheists.
This, too, is not an intellectual matter but one of the heart
So the reality is defined by how you feel about it?
From its inception, Western Civilization seems to have been blessed with an instrument of self-correction, residing in the idea of the Perfectability of Man, its roots being deeply sunk in our culture’s Judeo-Christian tradition going back some five thousand years. The idea does not necessarily imply that Man can achieve perfection, rather that he is capable of bettering himself and his condition; that, indeed, his very nature impels him to seek an elevation of himself and his condition. It is this idea that allows Western Civilization to correct its faults and liberate its virtues.
Oh dear YHAOS, what a GEM of an essay/post! Lapidary!
Thank you ever so much for posting this very fine article!
No.
"But empirical knowledge of the Big Bang tells us that laws of physics were nonexistent surrounding the moment of the Big Bang. "
Where's the evidence? Note that a lack of knowledge and understanding is simply evidence of the same and most certainly nothing more than that.
"This fact obliterates all criticism of religion by secular intellectuals who say religion is invalid because it is “superstition,” where superstition is defined as anything not explainable by the laws of physics."
Ridiculous. Your "fact" is simply a total lack of knowledge and a claim, presented with no evidence whatsoever, that contradicts reality.
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.