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."
There is nothing “wrong” with the creation account in Genesis, if it represents the limits of your understanding. Just as there is nothing “wrong” with the belief of Zeus, leprechauns, or vampires. I believe unicorn farts smell like gardenias - prove that they don’t.
That’s the same link as the one posted by metmom - I’ve already discussed it. Please try to keep up...
Explain. Bear in mind, you’re not one to seek “refuge in silliness”.
Simple. Whoever is studying the evolution of the candidate.
You were unable to avoid the intelligent designer, even in your own attempts at describing evolution.
How can I avoid something that I've not even referred to? You've jumped too early. I was referring to the observer, not any "intelligent designer".
Ah, c’mon now Stormer, are you really smart enough to recognize an imbecile if you met one? Wondering, Bob
I really think you are bringing up a “problem” that does not exist.
He created the heavens and the earth. In the process, the earth starts out as a void. The word for void can partially mean “vain” or “waste.” So?
That doesn’t mean the void was not a good thing. It was a starting point, what God started with. We apparently don’t even really know what “wa bohu” means.
God created man out of the dust of the ground. Was the dust bad or a net negative until God breathed the breath of life into man? It was dirt. Dirt is not generally used as a good word in the Bible. So what?
A painter starts with an empty canvas. A potter starts with a relatively shapeless chunk of clay. A sculptor starts with a featureless piece of marble. These are not “bad.” They are formless or void; they are the space the artist creates in.
I see no problem here and don’t understand why you are apparently seeing some sort of contradiction.
Of course there is always the musical group Devo - one of my very favorites.
>>I see no problem here and don’t understand why you are apparently seeing some sort of contradiction.<<
The problem is that you try to enclose God into a box of roughly 6072 years. I, on the other hand, contend that there was a world prior to Genesis 1:2 that was destroyed then rebuild in Genesis 1:2 and subsequent. In fact, there could have been multiple times that the world has been reframed or rebuilt of billions of years. God is eternal, why would you suggest that He only has done one world that has existed for only 6-7 thousand years?
>>I see no problem here and don’t understand why you are apparently seeing some sort of contradiction.<<
The problem is that you try to enclose God into a box of roughly 6072 years. I, on the other hand, contend that there was a world prior to Genesis 1:2 that was destroyed then rebuild in Genesis 1:2 and subsequent. In fact, there could have been multiple times that the world has been reframed or rebuilt of billions of years. God is eternal, why would you suggest that He only has done one world that has existed for only 6-7 thousand years?
It sure got a rise out of you. Must have hit directly on the mark.
Look at the extinction and emergence of new species of living beings. Surely they don't believe God is still 'creating'...LOL.
Especially those of pink unicorns on Jupiter! LOL. :)
Once again, Mr. Bill uses out-of-context quoting so that he has something to say.
"move from order to disorder not the other way around".--- PastorJimCM
PastorJim's actual statement was, "They also realize that things move from order to disorder not the other way around. EXCEPT in their theory of evolution - which they have not been able to repeat in the lab."
Poor Mr. Bill. Resorting to misquoting so he can imply that evolution can move from disorder to order.
It's not necessary to stipulate an acceptance of evolution to observe that Ice on top of Mount Everest exists in a more complex organizational state, and higher stored energy level, than water in the Indian Ocean; as the Sun's decay liberates energy to drive the process of transforming water in oceans into ice on mountain tops.... all obedient to the laws of Thermodynamics."
Dear Mr. Bill. Ice has a lower entropy and a lower energy level than water. The sun moves ice from lower entropy to higher entropy, just as the heat of a boiling pot of water will change a fertile egg into breakfast.
“God is eternal, why would you suggest that He only has done one world that has existed for only 6-7 thousand years?”
I am reading the Bible and believing the chronology of time that is plainly given.
That is hardly putting God in a box. He revealed what He did. I am simply believing what He said. Would He lie?
[Dear Mr. Bill. Ice has a lower entropy and a lower energy level than water.]
Not when it’s ice on top of Mt Everest, that was formerly water in the Indian Ocean, Mr. Religionist.
I think you’re ignoring the increased potential energy part of the system, when water is moved approx. 8900 metres high from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest.
Oh yes, Mr. Bill. Ice always has a lower entropy and lower energy level than water.
Always, Mr. Bill. Always...
So do you think that ice at the top of Mt. Everest has higher entropy and higher energy than water at sea level?
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.