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."
Of course they do. It's a cultural thing.
Very nice.
Now I would like, if I may, to clarify that you understand the analogy of the father setting rules for his son. The age of the boy doesn’t matter—the fact is there is a significant period of time when children have to trust their parent’s judgment. During this time, the children don’t have all the facts or reasoning that their parents have, but they know their parents are both factually and morally justified.
So the point, described in the abstract, is that a lesser mind does not require full access to the contents of a greater mind in order to know the truth of the greater mind’s judgment.
Don't be silly. How does a child know that his father is "factually and morally justified"? The father could be a drug dealer or a saint, and the child would not know the difference.
Nope, he doesn't know the "truth" of the greater mind's judgment. He has no way of knowing whether that judgment is "true" or "false".
Again—my point is in the abstract, because contrived objections to particular, concrete variations do not apply there.
A lesser mind does not require full access to the contents of a greater mind in order to know the truth of the greater mind’s judgment.
I want you to forget about particulars and variations of particulars.
Think in the abstract.
I guess the problem is that I didn’t include the word “necessarily.” If you understand logical debate, you’ll know I’ve proven my case:
A lesser mind does not necessarily require full access to the contents of a greater mind in order to know the truth of the greater mind’s judgment
Self-flattery will get you nowhere. You started of with a concrete oxymoron that a five-year old knows right from wrong, then you moved to children knowing the truth of their parents' judgment, and now you are in complete abstract sweeping generalization, that lesser minds (whose, flatworm's?!?) "know" the truth of the greater mind's judgment without having full access to the greater mind's juidgment.
How do they "know" that? A hunch? Do you think that Goebbels's children knew their father was a master of lies? Or did they see in him a loving father they could trust?
Whether we like it or not, our discussion is ultimately a slave to logic:
The word “necessarily” demonstrates that the circumstance described is true if shown to be possible even in a single case. If it’s possible in one case, then the statement is true and there is no logical refutation of the claim that God’s will, and the secrets therein that only God knows, can reconcile what you and others perceive as moral or factual contradiction.
Your accusation of contradiction is insufficient to invalidate Christian doctrine. It might give you something to hold onto, something to hope for in a perverse sort of way. But you are not obligated to follow this inverted hope—there is a better way my friend.
The abstract theme of the father/child analogy demonstrates conclusively that argument #1 that God is a hypocrite, ultimately has no logical basis. Likewise, it demonstrates conclusively that argument #2 that God can’t exist because an omnibenevolent Creator cannot create evil, has no logical basis.
This is demonstrated because of the fact that the only condition (C) under which arguments 1 and 2 can be true is if there is no possible way to reconcile the apparent contradiction. The father/child analogy, corresponding with the mathematical breakdown of the content of God’s will into that part which we can know and that part which we can’t know, show that condition C cannot be met. So your argument has no logical basis.
You say that my argument has no logical basis, yet you speak of some God as if it were a fact. So much for a logical basis of an argument. Pathetic.
I didn’t mean to upset you. Read post # 1688 again.
As C.S. Lewis wrote, “If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be; if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all.”
Incredibly naïve, imo. It's about as compelling a reason to believe as Pascal's wager.
Your last posts seem obsessed with the spectre of fraud. For you, fraud must be a matter of deep concern. There is no more a blatant fraud than Dawkins’ assertion that the existence of God is a matter for Science and that his answer is “no.” Being an evolutionary biologist, Dawkins must be aware that Science does not concern itself with matters philosophical or religious, yet he presumes to cite Science as an authority supporting his religious beliefs (or, rather, disbeliefs, it might be more accurate to say). To pretend otherwise flies in the face of what every Science Hawk on this forum has ever declared.
McGrath, who holds a PhD both in Biochemistry and in Theology, on the other hand has the integrity to acknowledge and write about the difficulty of translation and does not pretend perfection. He makes it a point to report that the KJV is not Holy Scripture but is, instead, an English translation of Holy Scripture, and that all translations are, to some degree, “forced.” Or, that every difference in translation can be called an “error” by one faction or another. McGrath makes no bones about the various conflicts motivated by sectarian and political calculations which have made understanding Holy Scripture the more difficult (an understanding shared by many Christians, but ignored by their critics because it reduces the number of their – the critics’ – opportunity to cry ‘ERROR!’).
Despite the skepticism of our friend James C. Bennett and his certainty that I am afflicted with faux humility, I am truly a simple man, not sophisticated in matters of biblical scholarship (among other things). So I rely on the efforts of scholars like Alister McGrath in such matters. Simply put, I think he, and others like him, far more accurate (and honest) than Dawkins or you. McGrath writes in benevolence with the view to promote understanding. Dawkins writes in malice with a view to promote denigration.
A woman of Canaan comes to Jesus, worshiping him and asking Him for help (Matthew 15:22-28), and all you get from the passage is Christ calling the woman a dog.
Oh yeah! we may be sure that Jesus and Christianity will get a fair and true hearing from you.
Your profound analysis is little more than a diversion directing our attention away from Christ’s words, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” directly contradicting your assertion that Matthew records Jesus explicitly stating He was sent for the "lost sheep of Israel only."
I don't believe this post was meant for me.
Read Jewish critique of Christian scriptures and see why.
There is no more a blatant fraud than Dawkins’ assertion that the existence of God is a matter for Science and that his answer is “no.”
Where does he say that? I don't remember him ever saying anything like that.
Being an evolutionary biologist, Dawkins must be aware that Science does not concern itself with matters philosophical or religious, yet he presumes to cite Science as an authority supporting his religious beliefs (or, rather, disbeliefs, it might be more accurate to say).
I disagree. I would like you to show me where he uses science to disprove God.
He makes it a point to report that the KJV is not Holy Scripture but is, instead, an English translation of Holy Scripture, and that all translations are, to some degree, “forced.”
While that is true, Bible scholars disagree on a variety of issues based on the readings in the original languages.
Simply put, I think he, and others like him, far more accurate (and honest) than Dawkins or you
For someone who admits being "a simple man, not sophisticated in matters of biblical scholarship" it is a mystery based on what (other than a whim) do you come to that conclusion. It certainly couldn't be a sophisticated or scholarly reason, right because you are "a simple man, not sophisticated in matters of biblical scholarship."
A woman of Canaan comes to Jesus, worshiping him and asking Him for help (Matthew 15:22-28), and all you get from the passage is Christ calling the woman a dog.
She could not possibly be worshipping him since the descendent (aka son) of David would not have been considered divine. She doesn't call him the Sin of God. The term kyrios (master) is a secular as well as a divine title, but since she is addressing a descendent of a human, the tile would have been secular. This is in line with the Jewish belief that the meshiyah (aka "messiah"), which means anointed (in Greek christos), would be a man, not a god.
But, let's look at the sequence of verses: she comes to him saying her daughter is sick, and the next verse says "But he answered her not a word." (15:23).
After his disciples try to intervene (send her away) Jesus reiterates "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (15:24)
Then comes verse (15:25) "Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me."
The word proskyneo means to kiss the hand of a superior, to prostrate yourself in submission to a master (secular or divine, angelic or even demon). But since we already know that she called him the Son of David and not a god, the term "worshipped" is not divine worship, as the Christians insist.
At which point he calls her a dog. (15:26)
And she replies (15:27) "Truly (or verily), master, dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table.
To which (15:28) Jesus responds "O woman, great [is] thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour."
What faith? That he is someone who can heal her daughter? But he should have known that all along. Right? So, why all the drama and name calling?
Obviously, the story is skewed in such a way that leads one to believe she though he was divine, when there is nothing in the verses to indicate he is. You don't have to be a god to be able to heal someone.
Your profound analysis is little more than a diversion directing our attention away from Christ’s words, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” directly contradicting your assertion that Matthew records Jesus explicitly stating He was sent for the "lost sheep of Israel only."
What? It's the same thing. “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” (NIV 2011, 15:24). In the historical sense the Jewish messiah was to be sent to bring back the dispersed members of the failed kingdom (house) of Israel, the so-called Northern Kingdom, rather than the Southern Kingdom, aka the house of Judah. That's why Jeremiah 33 speaks of the new covenant for the house of Israel.
I think you better stop now, because I don't want to be accused later of "ruining" someone's faith.
You’re saying truth doesn’t compel belief.
No, C. S. Lews said something really naïve if not outright stupid: that (some) men (somehow) know what is truth as a matter of fact and that no honest man will disbelieve.
Debate/Interview excerpt between Professor Dawkins and Dr Collins, conducted at the Time & Life Building in New York City on Sept. 30, 2006:
TIME: “Professor Dawkins, if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion, as your book title suggests?”
DAWKINS: “The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.”
See, this forum; A Mission to Convert (Dawkin's "God Delusion").
David Quinn & Richard Dawkins in an interview with Ryan Tubridy on the Ryan Tubridy Show: The main subject of contention was Dawkins’ book The God Delusion.
From the transcript:
Tubridy: “. . . Let’s just talk about the word if you don’t mind, the word delusion, so put it into context. Why did you pick that word?”
Dawkins: “Well the word delusion means a falsehood which is widely believed, and I think that is true of religion. It is remarkably widely believed, it’s as though almost all of the population or a substantial proportion of the population believed that they had been abducted by aliens in flying saucers. You’d call that a delusion. I think God is a similar delusion.”
The very title of Dawkins’ latest book is as clear a demonstration as one would want that Dawkins deems religious people (most particularly Christians) to be delusional, or worse (misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, and capriciously malevolent), and the book’s title likewise makes it manifest that the existence of a god is what he considers them to be delusional about.
And Professor Dawkins grounds his reasoning in Science.
Now, what is the expiration date on your memory? When will you again not remember that Dawkins has said, “The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.”?
Next week?
Tomorrow?
“Bible scholars disagree on a variety of issues based on the readings in the original languages.”
So what? All literature scholars disagree on a variety of issues based on the readings in the original languages. It’s superiority is the reason why the KJV came in time to be accepted over its many competitors. McGrath does also predict the demise of the KJV translation, saying that when a translation requires a translation (which the KJV is coming to), then it’s time for a new translation of the original.
“What? It's the same thing. “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” (NIV 2011, 15:24).”
If you (or the NIV) wish to substitute “only” for “but,” then you have to explain the deletion of “not.” It’s a translation thing.
“That’s why Jeremiah 33 speaks of the new covenant for the house of Israel”
So when you deny that the OT refers forward to the NT, you mean it doesn’t refer forward only when it fits your argument?
“I think you better stop now, because I don't want to be accused later of "ruining" someone's faith.
Again begging for the last word. Oh, the humanity of it all! Surely you can survive the stress and trauma of such a wicked accusation (not the accomplishment – simply the accusation). Very well. For the sake of all suffering humanity, you may have the last word.
I think you have comprehension issues. The question asked was "if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion", and his answer was "no." Dr. Collins, who is a believer, said pretty much the same thing.
Dawkins argues philosophically against the probability of God's existence, and never states with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist, just that the l;likelihood, logically, seems small that he does.
In the other example Dawkins states "I think God is a similar delusion.” (my emphasis). That is an opinion not science. Show me where Dawkins uses scientific proof that God doesn't exist.
Clearly, Dawkins never did. Nor does he assert that God is a delusion based on any scienctific proof.
If you (or the NIV) wish to substitute “only” for “but,” then you have to explain the deletion of “not.” It’s a translation thing.
Your comprehension is obviously an issue. But let's see what the original language says (I hope you have Greek fonts):
ουκ [not was] απεσταλην [I sent] ει μη [except] εις [to] τα [the] προβατα [sheep] τα [the] απολωλοτα [lost] οικου [house of] ισραηλ [Israel]
IOW, he was sent to no one else except the sheep to the lost hosue of Israel. He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Not to the Gentiles, not to you or me. To the Jewish people who were dispersed from the northern Kingdom of Israel. Another YHAOS misconception bites the dust.
So when you deny that the OT refers forward to the NT, you mean it doesn’t refer forward only when it fits your argument?
Give me an example and I will show you that the only way the OT points towards the NT is backwards, after the fact, through the NT.
Again begging for the last word.
Me begging for the last word? LOL! Never. Please continue, by all means!
No scientist ever states anything with “absolute certainty” (purportedly). Yet, in this instance Dawkins seems quite unequivocal:
“The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.”
Yet, the above is the only Dawkins quote I cited to which you do not address, choosing instead to apply his response “no” (to the question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God) to an entirely different proposition in a different setting and from a different time.
You may twist and turn at your pleasure. Dawkins states that the “question” of whether there exists a supernatural creator is “scientific” and that his answer is “no.” He does not qualify his response as his “opinion.” He makes his statement as an unqualified assertion, knowing full well it enjoys the notoriety of his reputation as an evolutionary biologist and author (for whatever that is worth).
[Christ] “was sent to no one else except the sheep to the lost house of Israel. He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
So, according to the gospel of kosta, the “but” in the KJV passage is to be read as “except,” rather than any of the other terms you’ve been slinging around. Very well, then.
Drawn out of context, this passage at a glance would indeed seem to say that Christ was sent only to the “lost sheep” of Israel. yet this reading arouses more questions than answers. Why, then, did Christ depart to Sidon and Tyre, well outside of Israel? Why was He seen so often teaching and speaking in the company of publicans and other persons of lowly status? Why did Christ not send away the woman of Canaan (said by Mark to be a Greek and a Syrophenician), choosing instead to engage her in a conversation philosophic? A conversation to which the woman apparently gave sufficient reply to move Christ to accede to her plea.
An answer may be found in Mark 7:27 where Christ’s response to the Woman of Canaan is given somewhat more fulsomely: “Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the Children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.”
Should you find this passage unpalatable, perhaps you can dismiss it as the work of corrupt, conniving bishops. Therefore, tell us learned master, what is your translation of the same passage in the Greek Orthodox Church NT; ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῇ· Ἄφες πρῶτον χορτασθῆναι τὰ τέκνα· οὐ γάρ ἐστι καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ τοῖς κυναρίοις βαλεῖν?
What of the other Greek testaments? The Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Diacritics? Or, the Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550, with accents)? The Greek NT: Westcott/Hort with Diacritics? The Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)? (How many Greek NT texts are there, anyway?) Are they all the product of conniving priests? Or, at least, incompetent boobs?
The question directed at Dawkins was ""if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion." To which Dawkins answered with a negative.
He said the question whether God exists (or doesn't exist) is one of the most important questions that we have to answer. Then —referring to the question asked—he said it was a scientific question and his answer was no (i.e. that by mere understanding of science one cannot say than God is a delusion).
Dawkins has a peculiar, somewhat convoluted, style of speaking and writing, particularly the former. Taken out of context, it is easy to say that he used science to deny God, but anyone familiar with his work would tell you that he says exactly the opposite in his books.
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.