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."
Nor can we put too fine of a distinction on the meaning of “winter” or the manner in which it might come.
Alexis de Tocqueville, an amazing Frenchman who seems more American than French, has a contribution for those possessing the will and the wit to understand it:
“By the side of these religious men I discern others whose thoughts are turned to earth rather than to heaven. These are the partisans of liberty, not only as the source of the noblest virtues, but more especially as the root of all solid advantages; and they sincerely desire to secure its authority, and to impart its blessings to mankind. It is natural that they should hasten to invoke the assistance of religion, for they must know that liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith. But they have seen religion in the ranks of their adversaries, and they inquire no further; some of them attack it openly, and the rest are afraid to defend it.”
. . . . . Democracy In America, Volume I, Author's Introduction, pg 12
Alexis de Tocqueville offers one cause why some do see donkeys and snakes, and others don’t:
There are virtuous and peaceful individuals whose pure morality, quiet habits, opulence, [wealth] and talents fit them to be the leaders of their fellow men. Their love of country is sincere, and they are ready to make the greatest sacrifices for its welfare. But civilization often finds them among its opponents; they confound its abuses with its benefits, and the idea of evil is inseparable in their minds from that of novelty.
Near these I find others whose object is to materialize mankind, to hit upon what is expedient without heeding what is just, to acquire knowledge without faith, and prosperity apart from virtue; claiming to be the champions of modern civilization, they place themselves arrogantly at its head, usurping a place which is abandoned to them, and of which they are wholly unworthy.
. . . . . Democracy In America, Volume I, Author's Introduction, pg 12
Tocqueville’s Introduction is perhaps the most neglected part of his Democracy In America. It can be profitably read in its entirety.
When threats are invoked, that means they have nothing left. Their bluff didn't work and fear mongering becomes the last tool of choice, along with the "fail-proof" Pascal's Wager someone pulled out of the moth balls earlier on.
But I understand that "men of cloth" are bound by their own conviction as "spiritual physicians" to warn you, so I don't take it personally.
Talking donkeys and snakes are simply one of many fantastic things one finds in the Bible. Another one is that God created the rainbow so as to "remember" not to drown humanity and all animals again. In other words, before Noah, light did not refract!
Or, perhaps, you may wish to talk biblical "medicine", and tell me if you regularly visit some medicine doctor who "heals" you by chasing "demons" out of you?
Nice try. But bless your lost heart it is not our spirit that is in jeopardy.
By the way, Kosta, you can avoid the pink unicorns by wearing blue blocker glasses. It won’t change you eternal reality, but it will help you feel more comfortable before your final verdict.
" ... One needs to have faith in the humans who recorded the events in order to accept the records as true. Don't forget the Old Testament, either. To believe in the message of a deity conveyed by any prophet, prior faith in the prophet is a precondition."
What I said is true. Faith in someone requires evidence and cause. The examination of what someone tells you never requires prior faith. the decision to believe, or to apply some probability measure to the "knowledge" presented, requires only a rational exam of what was said.
As far as the 4 Gospels are concerned, they contain what God said directly. At least, they contain what the person who said he was God said. What He said can be examined for value. As far as any other testimony goes: Moses gave the people laws and falsely attributed them to Him. That note from God regarding what Moses said applies universally, since no one is greater than Moses and Moses is greater than no one else.
This is interesting. I know I owe replies for the replies I got earlier, but I'm a little busy at the moment. I'll get to them as soon as I'm free. Meanwhile, I hope the others can continue this discussion...
Who was tlakling about spirit?
I suppose you speak from experience?
stormer: CS Lewis is just flat wrong.
Spirited: Because you succeeded in imagining a 4th color stormer? If so then describe it to us. Or because New Agers-—spiritists, theosohists, and Buddhists-—claim to have done so with the “direct intervention” of spirit guides, transcended masters and other “voices”?
Just the fact that dissent existed, my friend, in a world where dissent was disallowed/frowned upon.
We weren't the dissenters, Padre. It was Rome which changed the Creed and tried to impose an innovative ecclesiology on The Church, etc. We simply preserved what had always been. The Reformers came by their dissent through inheritance! :)
Thank you ever so much dear YHAOS for the wonderful excerpts from Tocqueville!
Indeed, his thinking seems more American than French....
Probably the central Anglo-American political understanding is that Liberty is a gift of God:
All men are born free; Liberty is a Gift which they receive from God; nor can they alienate the same by Consent, though possibly they may forfeit it by crimes....This is the basic rationale for any system of limited government operating with the consent of the governed.
Liberty is the power which every man has over his own Actions, and the Right to enjoy the Fruit of his Labor, Art, and Industry, as far as by it he hurts not the Society, or any Member of it, by taking from any Member, or by hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys.
The fruits of a Man's honest Industry are the just rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and eternal Equity, as is his Title to use them in the Manner which he thinks fit: And thus, with the above Limitations, every Man is sole Lord and Arbiter of his own private Actions and Property....
— Trenchard and Gordon, Cato's Letters
It seems the practical problem for our time is: How can one defend Liberty while at the same time tearing down its very Source?
Personally, I don't think his can be done. Certainly it never has been done.
Thanks so much for writing, dear brother in Christ!
Color is the result of the reflection of electromagnetic spectrum and its perception by an eye evolved to operate as efficiently as needed in response to its environment - you cannot “imagine” a new one. But I find it amusing that you support Lewis’ contention by claiming that those who hear voices or subject to “intervention” are wrong-headed, while Lewis, by claiming that all insight is proof of (a) god’s existence, does exactly that. You’re going to have to get your story straight. And to call Buddhists “New Agers” only displays your ignorance - Buddhism had been practiced for 500 years by the time your “messiah” came along.
betty boop: LOLOL dear kosta!!! But do not sneer at this. Indeed, exorcism may be your own best hope at this point!
Thank you. And for you—maybe some serious mental health counseling given that you seem to believe disease is caused by "demons"?
None of which goes to my point that none of these “fantastic things,” or anything like them, embodies the essence of Biblical instruction. They simply give scripture scoffers an opportunity to sneer. That can just as easily be done by tapping into Paine’s 1794 Age of Reason.
“Or, perhaps, you may wish to talk biblical "medicine", and tell me if you regularly visit some medicine doctor who "heals" you by chasing "demons" out of you?”
Pardon. Your contempt is showing.
stormer: you cannot “imagine” a new one (color).
Spirited: Though you have needlessly explained the “wherefores” but not the “whyfores” you have nevertheless agreed with Lewis. Man’s mind is finite, not infinite.
stormer: But I find it amusing that you support Lewis’ contention by claiming that those who hear voices or subject to “intervention” are wrong-headed, while Lewis, by claiming that all insight is proof of (a) god’s existence, does exactly that.
Spirited: You have not understood what I said because you lack discernment. Do not confuse the uncreated supernatural God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth with His created beings, in this case, disembodied entities...the “voices” to which I referred. Or as they also call themselves: the Space Brothers, Council of 9, Transcended Masters, the ancient Egyptian ennead, the Spirit Hierarchy, jesus, god, Maitreya, and so on ad nauseum.
stormer: And to call Buddhists “New Agers” only displays your ignorance - Buddhism had been practiced for 500 years by the time your “messiah” came along.
Spirited: It is your ignorance that is on display here stormer. Obviously you are ignorant of the fact that not only is Buddhism theosophy, but its’ root stretches all the way back to the plains of Shinar and the Tower of Babel.
The foundation of Buddhisms’ “ageless wisdom” teachings is spiritism. In other words, by way of transcendental meditation, channeling, automatic writing and other occult rituals, revelations from the spiritual dimension were received and then drawn out into the so-called science of spiritual development: reincarnation/evolution, karma, etc.
Hence, New Age is a blending of spiritism, Blavatsky’s theosophy, Buddhism, western occult traditions (ie., the ancient Mysteries, Hermeticism, Kabbala, alchemy) and the “truths” extracted from Judaism, Islam, and Christianity by the Temple of Understandings’ gnostic- quacks: apostate Christian theologians, Imams, Rabbis, monk,spiritists, etc.
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.