"Science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced. God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible." It became the central thesis of his book — with this addendum: "Abandon the battlements."
i want to read the whole article in more detail... but i have been very frustrated with the battle between science and god. i love this comment. "Abandon the battlements"... why does everything have to be a fight. nice article pableezy.
J-lou: the issue is definitely worth arguing in the public forum. Creation, and the first eleven chapter of Genesis, are foundational to the Christian faith. Without creation, you have no fall and no need for a redeemer; without creation, you have no being made in the image of God. Without creation, everything else in the faith falls apart without a basis.
Furthermore, the purely scientific evidence against evolutionism is massive. While Darwin was coming up with his theories during his voyage on the Beagle, Gregor Mendel was hard at work demonstrating the unchanging predictability of the genetic code. The gas pressure laws that you and I learned in junior high school prove that the stars and planets could not have condensed from gas clouds, and those presumed gas clouds would have been made of matter that evolution absolutely cannot explain. The Second Law of Thermodynamics immutably proves you cannot go from a low level of order to a higher one in a closed system. And there is much, much more.
Check out today's new post at stand.townhall.com for a fuller treatment of this issue. I'll see you there...
if you are gonna try to convince me that something happend via science, you can't have holes in your methodology like that. my engineer/computer scientist brain shuts down their argument on sheer sloppiness. so i am not a proponent of evolution at all.
that being said, i am also not against it.
what if god created humanity through evolution? what if the bg bang happened? what if, what if, what if? to be honest with you, i don't care. i know that god created life, and in his sovereignty, gave us souls that feel and connect with him. how it happened is irrelevant to me because the source of it all is still god.
i am a creationist because it makes sense given the genesis account. but i don't like to argue about that with people who want to believe evolution.
i ask them, "what do you think?". they say evolution blah blah blah. i say "cool, then me too. now, let's talk about jesus" because i'd rather talk about that. it's WAAAAY more important.
i am with pablo. the fall of man is not based on a literal account of the book of geneisis. it has to do with our choice after creation. i am not willing to argue with someone over creation vs evolution, because it is not central to faith in the kingdom of god. the reality of man falling and jesus coming to reconcile us to the father is the central aspect. faith in christ does not mean faith or even an understanding of the creation. you can believe in evolution and still be a part of the kingdom of god.
i am with pablo. the fall of man is not based on a literal account of the book of geneisis. it has to do with our choice after creation. i am not willing to argue with someone over creation vs evolution, because it is not central to faith in the kingdom of god. the reality of man falling and jesus coming to reconcile us to the father is the central aspect. faith in christ does not mean faith or even an understanding of the creation. you can believe in evolution and still be a part of the kingdom of god.
Speaking of God and science, here is an inspiring read (I've excerpted some of it for you light-weight readers).
A few days ago, I decided to read Charles Darwin’s The Descent of Man. I’m not quite certain what demon possessed me when I made this decision. I’m not, after all, a fan of Mr. Darwin’s ideas, and The Descent of Man isn’t exactly the most exciting book to grace my shelves.
I suppose that the primary reason I decided to read The Descent of Man is precisely because I disagree with Darwin...
Here’s the claim that Charles Darwin makes in the closing chapters of The Descent of Man:
Sexual selection depends on the success of certain individuals over others of the same sex, in relation to the propagation of the species. … The sexual struggle is of two kinds; in the one it is between individuals of the same sex, generally the males, in order to drive away or kill their rivals, the females remaining passive; whilst in the other, the struggle is likewise between the individuals of the same sex, in order to excite or charm those of the opposite sex, generally the females, which no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners. … Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin...
Which causes me to wonder something: “Did Charles Darwin really believe this?” I mean, did Darwin ever say, in some moment when he and his wife found themselves flushed with pleasure in the afterglow of intimate union, “You know, honey, the only reason that I did this with you is because you seemed like the best choice for passing on my genetic code”?
If Darwin did say anything of this sort, I can almost guarantee you that many cold nights passed before he saw another opportunity to send his DNA into the next generation. As it turns out, he and his wife had ten children together; so, either Charles never made that comment or his wife was an extraordinarily forgiving woman...
Here’s what I suspect, though: Deep inside, even Charles Darwin knew that something more was happening in those moments of passion than a desire to keep his DNA from following the dinosaurs down the pathway to extinction. There is magic and wonder and mystery in this mysterious intertwining of a man and a woman. There is something in the sexual relationship that defies scientific explanation. There is something--dare I say it?--holy that happens between the bed-sheets.
Every human being already knows this. It isn’t shame or religious repression that causes first-graders to share their sexual misinformation with each other in such hushed tones; it’s the instinctive awareness that this mysterious country on whose borders they so gingerly tread is a sacred place.
And, yet, the temptation remains to reduce our sexuality to a mechanical process or a series of sure-fire steps...The full pleasure of the relationship is greater and more mysterious than the mere physical process...We have bought the Enlightenment lie that everything that really matters can be clocked and counted and reenacted in control groups. The result, for many people, is frustration.
The Christian faith as I knew it for many years frustrated me for precisely the same reason...
If nothing else, these songs kept alive the dream of something greater than the life I was presently experiencing.
And, still, I didn't get it.
I still didn't know that what I really wanted was God--not the false deity of evangelistic tracts and human rules but the real God, the God who had created me with this longing for eternity in the first place...
It was late spring when everything changed.
Standing in the center of the softball field, I felt as if the entire state of Kansas rested within the reach of my eyes...
Here I stood, a precarious package of flesh and blood and electrical impulses plastered by gravity to the western face of an ever-whirling sphere. In this moment, I thought, I am small, my life is brief, and this world is vast. And God ... and God ... God.
Something happened at this moment that can't be confined to any tract or stages of faith or series of steps to a happier life. The only words that found their way to my lips were these: "I don't want to be this way anymore."
No preprinted prayer.
No sweating evangelist.
No consideration of which rules I could promise never to break again.
Simply a recognition that God was far greater than anything I had ever imagined and that I was created for far more than the life I was presently living...
This brings me back to the question that I wanted to ask Charles Darwin: "Do you really believe it? Do you think that something so infinitely mysterious and beautiful can be so easily reduced to a scientific process?..."
I don't want a God who's accessible only to people who repeat a certain prayer.
I have no desire to worship a deity who's making a list and checking it twice.
...I want a God who's bigger than any list or series of steps.
I want someone who passionately longs to be with me, who finds pleasure in my pleasure, who surprises me with his touch.
What I want is a lover for my soul.
This is, in fact, the second-most frequent image for God in the Hebrew Scriptures. And it is, I think, one that's worth dusting off and restoring to prominence in our spiritual lives. Here's how the prophets described God's relationship with his people:
This is what the Lord says: I watched you with love as you grew. You were naked, and I saw that your time for love had arrived. I enfolded you in my cloak, and I entered into a covenant with you by oath. You became mine. I bathed you with water and poured fragrant oils over your body. Now, I will take you away to a deserted place and speak to you tenderly. There you will respond to like you did in the days when you were young (from Ezekiel 16:7-14; Hosea 2:14-15, 19).
What the prophets describe here isn't exactly something that can be fitted into anyone's series of sure-fire steps. But I think it's what each of us, deep inside, desires ... a lover for our souls. It's what I yearn for, anyway. I long to wake up some morning with my soul so entwined in God that I do not have to wonder if he is near and so deeply aware of the rhythms of his heart that I know what he desires before he even asks...
On the heels of my previous post, might I suggest that the reason so many struggle to maintain sexual purity before marriage and marital faithfulness after marriage (including for both unmarried and married individuals the struggle with internet porn) is that they do not know God as the lover of their souls. Is this not also the reason so many professing Christians live such ho-hum lives, devoid of genuine and consistent zeal and passion for Christ and the calling of the Great Commission? Have they (we) not responded to THE Lover of our soul as Gomer responded to Hosea? Have we not pursued the deceptive and unsatisfying pleasures of this world more than the One who loves us wholly and lavishly? I think not many of us can truly say with Asaph, "Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you." (Psalm 73:25)
At ,
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
a Christian believing this would create an "unperfect" God
not necessarily alex. condider the Law as an example... god created the Law, and then fulfilled the law with the NT methodology of grace and tgher resurrection of jesus. grace is, in a sense, the evolution of the Law.
that doesn't make him imperfect. in his understanding, he thought that this was the best sequence to go.
why didn't we start out with grace? why did we have to be freed from the law at all?
the best we can do is accept that god is all knowing and his wisdom is beyond ours. WE are imperfect and don't always understand god's methods.
i'm sorta arguing the devils advocate here, but i don't think you can just conclude that god is imperfect if he created humanity through evolution.
like is said, i believe in the literal creation of adam and eve as the beginning of humanity. but if it turned out i was wrong, it would not affect my faith at all.
John, Steve, Alex, Aaron and Pablo: thank you all for your comments (I started this before Aaron and Alex had posted any comments); once again, it appears that I've stepped into a thinking man's discussion. My first comment was truncated out of respect for Pablo as the owner of this blog; my more fully-developed thought is over at the Stand (stand.townhall.com), to which all of you are invited at any time. By the way, Aaron, your blog is on my daily list, and I've missed your writing.
Pablo, I acknowledge right up front your confession that you are a creationist, and same for the others that have stepped up to the plate on the issue. Can a person believe in evolution and be a Christian? Yes - "but let me show you a more excellent way." I have no doubts of Dr. Collins' salvation, nor of his sincerity. However, the Christian life that does not hold the revealed account of Creation is necessarily stunted, and while it's not a make-or-break issue as regards personal salvation, it's a lot more central and should be acknowledged as such. Come, let us reason together - the God who created us with hearts with which to love and feel, and souls with which to worship and praise, also gave us minds with which to reason and learn.
Does Creation matter? Oh, absolutely. If you want to believe that true history starts with Genesis 12, and everything prior to that is just figurative, that's your business; but understand that denying Creation has two impacts to be weighed. First, it undercuts the authority of God's Word, the Bible, because if we choose to excise the first eleven chapters of the Bible as not being true truth, then why can't we or others do the same with other parts of the Bible with which we're not comfortable - and on what basis? Was the whole Bible God-inspired, or not? Is God smart enough to be able to communicate to us what happened when only He and the angels were there to see it, or is He not? Second, many other Biblical doctrines are dependent on Creation, and if we're going to exercise that part of the Bible, a lot of the rest disappears with it.
Besides the examples in my first comment and over at the Stand (which I invite you to evaluate), consider these:
Job 38:4-11 - God confronts Job and bases His authority over Job on creation. He asks, Where we you when I created the universe? If He didn't create the world, then He lied in this passage to get the better of Job and bully him into submission. Or are we going to throw away the book of Job as nothing more than a fairy tale or a literary device? Either He created the universe, or He didn't, and He didn't leave us any room for a third option.
Romans 1:20 and 8:19-22 - here we have the claim that God has a right to demand certain behavior from us because He purposed life to be a certain way when He created it, and that this present age is the way it is because of a literal Fall after a literal Creation. Take away a literal Creation, and you take away God's right to demand obedience from us. This is not dry doctrine or dead orthodoxy; this is a point that impacts how we live, today, right here and right now. Romans 5:12-21, concerning Adam and Christ, really boxes us into a corner - if there was no Adam, then Christ is counteracting what - a myth? A hoax? Or do we tear Romans out of our Bibles along with Job? Our Bibles are going to be awfully thin by the time we get finished.
How about Revelation 4:11? God is presented to us as being worthy of worship because He created the universe. Well, then, if He didn't create it all, then we're left with Him not being worthy of worship. Of how about Colossians 1:16, in which Christ's pre-eminence is based on His role as the active agent of Creation? Where do we go next - Psalms? Isaiah? Both are loaded with creation references.
Does Creation matter? You decide. My Bible says it does.
Again, I don't doubt doubt Dr. Collins' faith, salvation or sincerity. But I do count the Bible as being more authoritative than him on the subject. I don't know a single Christian who gets it ALL right.
Mind if I bore you with a personal story? One rainy night in 1976, I walked over to the apartment of the guy who'd taken my under his wing in the faith. Bill was sick with the flu, but he was happy to invite me in to talk. I was excited, because I'd been reading Genesis, and I'd discovered how neatly the six days of creation accurately reflected the order in which the universe had evolved - because as an atheist, I'd grown up with evolution, and it just never occurred to me as a young Christian that Creation in the Bible could be taken literally. I just didn't know any better; I thought Genesis was supporting evolution through figurative "religious" language. Bill smiled, never gave me a hard time, and said we'd look at that another time. And he was good for his word. I owe Dr. Collins the same indulgence that Bill Dobbs gave me.
Pablo, you're right when you say you'd rather talk about Jesus; but the Jesus of the Bible affirmed Creation, so I'm not unwilling to talk about it. Jesus didn't exist in a vacuum; what He says about marriage, or justice, or creation, or any other subject, truly matters. We want to help Christian brothers and sisters move from milk to meat, do we not? The opportunity to be in the audience at an on-campus debate between a creationist and an evolutionist is one of the events that really added to my Christian growth.
John, you're right that Creation is not a make-or-break issue to get saved. You can still believe in evolution and still be part of the Kingdom. But when you carry those thoughts past the surface and consider the logic outcome of that belief, you have to either make unpleasant compromises or sacrifice the authority of the Bible. What you believe matters, and influences who you are inside and how you behave outside when you act on those beliefs. Also, the assertion that the fall of man is not based on a literal account of the book of Genesis is a dangerous path to start down; as an experienced Christian and a leader of young people who will learn from you, that should give you pause.
Consider my examples, and let's talk about this further. I'm looking forward to seeing where this leads. Thanks -
- Keith
At ,
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pablo, I cannot see how you can make that argumant of "evolution of the scriptures."
it's not a direct analogy, i agree. but think about it. the whole point was jesus, right? so why not start there? no one knows the answer to that, but we trust that god's wisdom is higher than ours and that his plan, which took a LONG time to come about, was the way it was supposed to be.
"to interpret the Bible is to interpret it as literature."
the bible IS literature. i believe it was inspirted by god and holds truth for us, but it is literature. the bible is full of stories, analogies, and verse. a whole book of the bible is devoted to songs.
As far as taking the Bible, Genesis or all the other books literally, I say of course we need to!
Does Creation matter? You decide. My Bible says it does.
you are right Q, it does matter. it all matters. but to what extent does a belief in creation vs. evolution affect our ability to have faith in the resurrection of jesus, which ultimately, is the only thing can save us?
does it matter as much or more than predest. vs free will? we are comfortable with people on both sides of that fence. to me, that one is WAY more important. but that's just me...
wow. pablo hits another homerun in the blogging world. Q- i do not have a lot of time but i will hit this later and maybe on my own blog, but if i were to take the first part of genesis as allegorical and not literal. that does not take the divine aspect out of it at all. it is a form of writing. the psalms are not to be taken literal and to do everything the lamenting person is talking about (ie crush babies against rocks). but the psalms are still the inspired word of god. we need to understand hermenuitcs and that the bible was written by people who used different forms of writing styles and not just one. and we need to understand as we read scritpture what writing style was being used. revelation's is god's inspired word but i think most of you would agree that what is written is not the literal story that will take place but is allegorical. well that is all for now. we need tif in on this one. i am not a scientist or understand much in that arena, but i can talk sports with anyone... lol. but i do know that parts of evolution are real. or we would all look a like and me and michael jordan do look a little different. that all for now. peace!
John: I'm not sure you realize the degree to which you made my case for me. For those of you reading on, John makes reference to a passage in the Bible endorsing crushing babies against rocks. The reference is to Psalm 137. This passage in NOT a command to go slaughter babies. In this psalm, the author, a Jew transported to Babylon as a captive and his companions mourn the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and endure the tauntings of their captors. In the last three verses, the agonized author calls upon God to remember the sufferings of Jerusalem and bring about retribution upon those who caused the suffering. He refers to Babylon as "the devastated one," as if that retribution was already a done deal. He closes with a blessing upon the agent of God's retribution, who might do to the Babylonians as they had done to Jerusalem and the Jews.
Why did the author believe that God would bring about retribution? Because he believed his Bible. He had the pre-existing prophecies of Jeremiah 51 (oh, look! A creation reference at verse 15!) and Isaiah 13 (check out the reference to not sparing children at verse 18). Both these passages, by the way, literally and specifically mention the Medes. Most importantly, he had the pre-existing prophecy of Habakkuk. Habakkuk had been in anguish about the sin of the Jews, and asked God why He wasn't doing anything about it. God answered that He is fact would - He would bring the Babylonians to chastise the Jews for their sin. Habakkuk, astonished, protested that the Babylonians were even more wicked than the Jews, and God promised that the Jews would be restored and Babylon punished for raising a hand against His people. It seems only God can sweep a dirty floor with an even dirtier broom and make it clean again. Go read the passages in Jeremiah, Isaiah and Habakkuk. I'll wait right here for you.
Welcome back. I'm sure you noted while you were there that these three passages, emotionally charged and hyperbolically written, were nonetheless quite stunningly fulfilled. Isn't God amazing? Isn't His Bible awesome? And while you were reading up on this, did you note that nowhere in that Psalm are the Jews (or, by extension, we grafted-in Christians) commanded to throw infants onto rocks? The Psalmist recounts that it was done by the Babylonians to the Jews, and ardently calls down blessings on the liberator who would come and do it right back to the Babylonians. He wanted in-your-face justice, Yahweh-style. And the reason he could write that was because he had objective faith and was relying on God to keep his promises as prophesied - not spiritually, not figuratively, not allegorically, but LITERALLY. He trusted in God to make the prophecies in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Habakkuk come true.
Now, I've done you the courtesy of engaging the point you've raised and answering it. May I have the same respect in return? Will you now reply to what I've asked about the passages in Colossians, Job, Romans, and some of the issues I've raised over at the Stand? When Jesus talks about marriage and divorce and tells His hearers that yes, Moses made allowance for divorce, but that's not the way it was from the time of Adam and Eve, can He really say that if Adam and Eve is not an accurate accounting of Creation? If Adam and Eve are just figurative or allegorical, then raising the story as a point of argument is no more effective than, say, Hansel and Gretel.
I respect that you aren't a scientist, and I'm not raising scientific arguments, besides the passing references I made in my first comment to the original post. I can, if you'd like. We can talk about the geologic column and the fossil record, or carbon dating and the rubidium-strontium isochron, or the Poynting-Robertson Effect and the gas pressure law, or the rate of the leaching of salts from the continents into the oceans. I'm not trying to show off here, but to demonstrate just a little that, as Aaron also points out, true science is very supportive of faith in God. While I disagree with the Day-Age theory, I think he and I agree that true science is in harmony with intelligent design a lot more than with supposed natural forces, time, chance and matter as the origin of all there is.
Pablo, a big THANK YOU to you - not just for acknowledging my premise, but for affirmation that salvation, through faith in Christ and His death and resurrection, is the most important topic of all. Now let's add to it, as the anonymous writer of Hebrews directs us: "Therefore, leaving the elementary teaching about Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. And with we will do, if God permits" (Heb. 6:1-3, NASB). Do you get it? Salvation, atonement, grace vs. works, baptism, the laying on of hands, and our resurrection and the coming judgment, are Christianity 101, entry-level stuff. Those committed into our care by God, we are called upon to bring to maturity. You've asked "to what extent does a belief in creation vs. evolution affect our ability to have faith in the resurrection of jesus, which ultimately, is the only thing can save us?" I think I've already answered that, at least twice. We can get saved, genuinely and completely saved, and still believe in evolution. I think I mentioned that it was that way for me, initially. Now, let's not leave them there. Let's help the younger brothers and sisters entrusted to us into maturity, from milk to meat, and raise them on the whole Bible, and the whole Christian life. If we love Jesus, let's feed some lambs and tend some sheep. It's what we've committed ourselves to doing when we accept the role of pastors, teachers or elders. Who knows, maybe we'll even get to talk about Melchizedek.
2 Peter 3:16-17 16He writes about this in all his letters. Some things in Paul’s letters are hard to understand, and people who are ignorant and weak in faith explain these things falsely. They also falsely explain the other Scriptures, but they are destroying themselves by doing this. 17Dear friends, since you already know about this, be careful. Do not be carried away with the error of evil people and lose your own stability.
i read your full townhall article. well written, thanks for the shout out.
First, it undercuts the authority of God's Word, the Bible, because if we choose to excise the first eleven chapters of the Bible as not being true truth
the slope is definitely slippery when talking about genesis in allegory vs literal means. where do you draw the line between story and reality? from a literary perspective, you kinda do have to switch gears in an unnatural way. it's kinda hard to believe in orginal sin and that the world is born into it through the sin of ONE man (and that sin is removed by ONE man for that matter) if you think that adam was an allegorical figure. i feel you on that.
"...can He really say that if Adam and Eve is not an accurate accounting of Creation? If Adam and Eve are just figurative or allegorical, then raising the story as a point of argument is no more effective than, say, Hansel and Gretel."
Well said, Q!! Sadly, there are many in our day preaching the "gospel" of Hansel and Gretel, and they should listen to Peter's warning.
before i get stoned as a heretic and on everybodies wack theology list (i may have already landed on some of yours anyway). my biggest goal on this blog was not discuss wether the creation story is allegorical or literal but to discuss the issue of drawing lines in the sand that make it difficult for people to listen to the message of the kingdom and respond. i maintain that an evolutionist can enter the kingdom of god and the church has set a perspective that they can't. i agree with aaron in regards to the day - era thought process but do not have enough information or probably willing to spend the time to research it. becuz soccer is starting. lol.
On the heels of J-Lou, I too believe an evolutionist can be a genuine follower of Christ (Q stated he does as well). I too think we draw too many lines of division within the body of Christ (we try to exclude those Jesus has included). It seems we want to do Satan's bidding of bringing disunity and division, rather than doing Christ's work of practicing grace and love and forbearance (Col 3:13) and working diligently to maintain unity (Eph 4:3). Drawing dividing lines is the lazy way; maintaining unity takes work...hard work, and too many Christians don't want to do the work. I'm not accusing anyone who has posted anything in this discussion of doing Satan's bidding. And I don't think John is accusing any of us of alienating "outsiders." I think his statement regards the body of Christ in general, as does mine. To myself, and any of us, I say, if the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't fit, let's not get offended at a brother because we tried to force our foot into a shoe that was never intended for us.
I think we are all going to be surprised at who Jesus knows and who he doesn't (Mt 7:21-23). We can't tell the sheep from the goats, the weeds from the wheat, the good fish from the bad.
Having said all that, I think Q is correct to say Jesus' and the apostles' usage of the creation account says they took it as fact, not fiction. Am I going to divide from a bro or sis if they agree with me regarding the cross of Christ, but disagree about evolution/creation? Heavens no!
I know some of you don't like to do too much substantial reading (LOL), but if you can force yourself to read it, there's a great article on Inerrancy (here). What makes it great, in part, is it is an example of humble, gracious, genuine scholarship, as exemplified by this final paragraph:
In conclusion, people obviously have the right to disagree with me. I’m glad that they do! But it strikes me as a gross caricature to insinuate that I am a heretic, a wolf in evangelical clothing, because the way I construct my theological convictions is different from theirs. At bottom, our resultant views are much closer to each other than they would admit. But our views still differ. I am convinced that my explanations in this lengthy paper will not persuade all that I’m squeaky clean in my theology. A major part of the reason, I think, is that I am trying to take my cues about bibliology from the text itself rather than from modern assumptions that are superimposed on scripture. And precisely because my starting point for inerrancy is Christ himself—indeed, my starting point for almost all of my theology is Christ—we will simply not see eye to eye on doctrinal priorities, the importance of historical inquiry, or the nature of the text. I pray that we can nevertheless be charitable and recognize that each other is a true believer in the same risen Lord.
Inerrancy is for too many Christians a branding label, and they have never truly probed the real meaning of the term. In his massive (1300+ pages) Christian Theology, Millard Erickson lists seven different conceptions of inerrancy. How many times do we talk past one another regarding many matters of faith, all the while prejudging, labeling, boxing in, dividing with one another with no real understanding of what the other person is saying?
"Faithful to God, Science" LA Times, Aug 17, 2006
24 Comments:
-
At ,
J-Lou said...
-
-
At ,
Keith (Qoheleth) said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
J-Lou said...
-
-
At ,
J-Lou said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
Keith (Qoheleth) said...
-
-
At ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
J-Lou said...
-
-
At ,
Keith (Qoheleth) said...
-
-
At ,
urBenLA said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
J-Lou said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
Post a Comment"Science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced. God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible." It became the central thesis of his book — with this addendum: "Abandon the battlements."
i want to read the whole article in more detail... but i have been very frustrated with the battle between science and god. i love this comment. "Abandon the battlements"... why does everything have to be a fight. nice article pableezy.
J-lou: the issue is definitely worth arguing in the public forum. Creation, and the first eleven chapter of Genesis, are foundational to the Christian faith. Without creation, you have no fall and no need for a redeemer; without creation, you have no being made in the image of God. Without creation, everything else in the faith falls apart without a basis.
Furthermore, the purely scientific evidence against evolutionism is massive. While Darwin was coming up with his theories during his voyage on the Beagle, Gregor Mendel was hard at work demonstrating the unchanging predictability of the genetic code. The gas pressure laws that you and I learned in junior high school prove that the stars and planets could not have condensed from gas clouds, and those presumed gas clouds would have been made of matter that evolution absolutely cannot explain. The Second Law of Thermodynamics immutably proves you cannot go from a low level of order to a higher one in a closed system. And there is much, much more.
Check out today's new post at stand.townhall.com for a fuller treatment of this issue. I'll see you there...
if you are gonna try to convince me that something happend via science, you can't have holes in your methodology like that. my engineer/computer scientist brain shuts down their argument on sheer sloppiness. so i am not a proponent of evolution at all.
that being said, i am also not against it.
what if god created humanity through evolution? what if the bg bang happened? what if, what if, what if? to be honest with you, i don't care. i know that god created life, and in his sovereignty, gave us souls that feel and connect with him. how it happened is irrelevant to me because the source of it all is still god.
i am a creationist because it makes sense given the genesis account. but i don't like to argue about that with people who want to believe evolution.
i ask them, "what do you think?". they say evolution blah blah blah. i say "cool, then me too. now, let's talk about jesus" because i'd rather talk about that. it's WAAAAY more important.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
i am with pablo. the fall of man is not based on a literal account of the book of geneisis. it has to do with our choice after creation. i am not willing to argue with someone over creation vs evolution, because it is not central to faith in the kingdom of god. the reality of man falling and jesus coming to reconcile us to the father is the central aspect. faith in christ does not mean faith or even an understanding of the creation. you can believe in evolution and still be a part of the kingdom of god.
i am with pablo. the fall of man is not based on a literal account of the book of geneisis. it has to do with our choice after creation. i am not willing to argue with someone over creation vs evolution, because it is not central to faith in the kingdom of god. the reality of man falling and jesus coming to reconcile us to the father is the central aspect. faith in christ does not mean faith or even an understanding of the creation. you can believe in evolution and still be a part of the kingdom of god.
Speaking of God and science, here is an inspiring read (I've excerpted some of it for you light-weight readers).
A few days ago, I decided to read Charles Darwin’s The Descent of Man. I’m not quite certain what demon possessed me when I made this decision. I’m not, after all, a fan of Mr. Darwin’s ideas, and The Descent of Man isn’t exactly the most exciting book to grace my shelves.
I suppose that the primary reason I decided to read The Descent of Man is precisely because I disagree with Darwin...
Here’s the claim that Charles Darwin makes in the closing chapters of The Descent of Man:
Sexual selection depends on the success of certain individuals over others of the same sex, in relation to the propagation of the species. … The sexual struggle is of two kinds; in the one it is between individuals of the same sex, generally the males, in order to drive away or kill their rivals, the females remaining passive; whilst in the other, the struggle is likewise between the individuals of the same sex, in order to excite or charm those of the opposite sex, generally the females, which no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners. … Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin...
Which causes me to wonder something: “Did Charles Darwin really believe this?” I mean, did Darwin ever say, in some moment when he and his wife found themselves flushed with pleasure in the afterglow of intimate union, “You know, honey, the only reason that I did this with you is because you seemed like the best choice for passing on my genetic code”?
If Darwin did say anything of this sort, I can almost guarantee you that many cold nights passed before he saw another opportunity to send his DNA into the next generation. As it turns out, he and his wife had ten children together; so, either Charles never made that comment or his wife was an extraordinarily forgiving woman...
Here’s what I suspect, though: Deep inside, even Charles Darwin knew that something more was happening in those moments of passion than a desire to keep his DNA from following the dinosaurs down the pathway to extinction. There is magic and wonder and mystery in this mysterious intertwining of a man and a woman. There is something in the sexual relationship that defies scientific explanation. There is something--dare I say it?--holy that happens between the bed-sheets.
Every human being already knows this. It isn’t shame or religious repression that causes first-graders to share their sexual misinformation with each other in such hushed tones; it’s the instinctive awareness that this mysterious country on whose borders they so gingerly tread is a sacred place.
And, yet, the temptation remains to reduce our sexuality to a mechanical process or a series of sure-fire steps...The full pleasure of the relationship is greater and more mysterious than the mere physical process...We have bought the Enlightenment lie that everything that really matters can be clocked and counted and reenacted in control groups. The result, for many people, is frustration.
The Christian faith as I knew it for many years frustrated me for precisely the same reason...
If nothing else, these songs kept alive the dream of something greater than the life I was presently experiencing.
And, still, I didn't get it.
I still didn't know that what I really wanted was God--not the false deity of evangelistic tracts and human rules but the real God, the God who had created me with this longing for eternity in the first place...
It was late spring when everything changed.
Standing in the center of the softball field, I felt as if the entire state of Kansas rested within the reach of my eyes...
Here I stood, a precarious package of flesh and blood and electrical impulses plastered by gravity to the western face of an ever-whirling sphere. In this moment, I thought, I am small, my life is brief, and this world is vast. And God ... and God ... God.
Something happened at this moment that can't be confined to any tract or stages of faith or series of steps to a happier life. The only words that found their way to my lips were these: "I don't want to be this way anymore."
No preprinted prayer.
No sweating evangelist.
No consideration of which rules I could promise never to break again.
Simply a recognition that God was far greater than anything I had ever imagined and that I was created for far more than the life I was presently living...
This brings me back to the question that I wanted to ask Charles Darwin: "Do you really believe it? Do you think that something so infinitely mysterious and beautiful can be so easily reduced to a scientific process?..."
I don't want a God who's accessible only to people who repeat a certain prayer.
I have no desire to worship a deity who's making a list and checking it twice.
...I want a God who's bigger than any list or series of steps.
I want someone who passionately longs to be with me, who finds pleasure in my pleasure, who surprises me with his touch.
What I want is a lover for my soul.
This is, in fact, the second-most frequent image for God in the Hebrew Scriptures. And it is, I think, one that's worth dusting off and restoring to prominence in our spiritual lives. Here's how the prophets described God's relationship with his people:
This is what the Lord says: I watched you with love as you grew. You were naked, and I saw that your time for love had arrived. I enfolded you in my cloak, and I entered into a covenant with you by oath. You became mine. I bathed you with water and poured fragrant oils over your body. Now, I will take you away to a deserted place and speak to you tenderly. There you will respond to like you did in the days when you were young (from Ezekiel 16:7-14; Hosea 2:14-15, 19).
What the prophets describe here isn't exactly something that can be fitted into anyone's series of sure-fire steps. But I think it's what each of us, deep inside, desires ... a lover for our souls. It's what I yearn for, anyway. I long to wake up some morning with my soul so entwined in God that I do not have to wonder if he is near and so deeply aware of the rhythms of his heart that I know what he desires before he even asks...
(read it all here)
On the heels of my previous post, might I suggest that the reason so many struggle to maintain sexual purity before marriage and marital faithfulness after marriage (including for both unmarried and married individuals the struggle with internet porn) is that they do not know God as the lover of their souls. Is this not also the reason so many professing Christians live such ho-hum lives, devoid of genuine and consistent zeal and passion for Christ and the calling of the Great Commission? Have they (we) not responded to THE Lover of our soul as Gomer responded to Hosea? Have we not pursued the deceptive and unsatisfying pleasures of this world more than the One who loves us wholly and lavishly? I think not many of us can truly say with Asaph, "Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you." (Psalm 73:25)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
a Christian believing this would create an "unperfect" God
not necessarily alex. condider the Law as an example...
god created the Law, and then fulfilled the law with the NT methodology of grace and tgher resurrection of jesus. grace is, in a sense, the evolution of the
Law.
that doesn't make him imperfect. in his understanding, he thought that this was the best sequence to go.
why didn't we start out with grace? why did we have to be freed from the law at all?
the best we can do is accept that god is all knowing and his wisdom is beyond ours. WE are imperfect and don't always understand god's methods.
i'm sorta arguing the devils advocate here, but i don't think you can just conclude that god is imperfect if he created humanity through evolution.
like is said, i believe in the literal creation of adam and eve as the beginning of humanity. but if it turned out i was wrong, it would not affect my faith at all.
Personally I think that science proves ever more that there is a God.
i remember taking physics in college and thinking about how smart god was. trip...
John, Steve, Alex, Aaron and Pablo: thank you all for your comments (I started this before Aaron and Alex had posted any comments); once again, it appears that I've stepped into a thinking man's discussion. My first comment was truncated out of respect for Pablo as the owner of this blog; my more fully-developed thought is over at the Stand (stand.townhall.com), to which all of you are invited at any time. By the way, Aaron, your blog is on my daily list, and I've missed your writing.
Pablo, I acknowledge right up front your confession that you are a creationist, and same for the others that have stepped up to the plate on the issue. Can a person believe in evolution and be a Christian? Yes - "but let me show you a more excellent way." I have no doubts of Dr. Collins' salvation, nor of his sincerity. However, the Christian life that does not hold the revealed account of Creation is necessarily stunted, and while it's not a make-or-break issue as regards personal salvation, it's a lot more central and should be acknowledged as such. Come, let us reason together - the God who created us with hearts with which to love and feel, and souls with which to worship and praise, also gave us minds with which to reason and learn.
Does Creation matter? Oh, absolutely. If you want to believe that true history starts with Genesis 12, and everything prior to that is just figurative, that's your business; but understand that denying Creation has two impacts to be weighed. First, it undercuts the authority of God's Word, the Bible, because if we choose to excise the first eleven chapters of the Bible as not being true truth, then why can't we or others do the same with other parts of the Bible with which we're not comfortable - and on what basis? Was the whole Bible God-inspired, or not? Is God smart enough to be able to communicate to us what happened when only He and the angels were there to see it, or is He not? Second, many other Biblical doctrines are dependent on Creation, and if we're going to exercise that part of the Bible, a lot of the rest disappears with it.
Besides the examples in my first comment and over at the Stand (which I invite you to evaluate), consider these:
Job 38:4-11 - God confronts Job and bases His authority over Job on creation. He asks, Where we you when I created the universe? If He didn't create the world, then He lied in this passage to get the better of Job and bully him into submission. Or are we going to throw away the book of Job as nothing more than a fairy tale or a literary device? Either He created the universe, or He didn't, and He didn't leave us any room for a third option.
Romans 1:20 and 8:19-22 - here we have the claim that God has a right to demand certain behavior from us because He purposed life to be a certain way when He created it, and that this present age is the way it is because of a literal Fall after a literal Creation. Take away a literal Creation, and you take away God's right to demand obedience from us. This is not dry doctrine or dead orthodoxy; this is a point that impacts how we live, today, right here and right now. Romans 5:12-21, concerning Adam and Christ, really boxes us into a corner - if there was no Adam, then Christ is counteracting what - a myth? A hoax? Or do we tear Romans out of our Bibles along with Job? Our Bibles are going to be awfully thin by the time we get finished.
How about Revelation 4:11? God is presented to us as being worthy of worship because He created the universe. Well, then, if He didn't create it all, then we're left with Him not being worthy of worship. Of how about Colossians 1:16, in which Christ's pre-eminence is based on His role as the active agent of Creation? Where do we go next - Psalms? Isaiah? Both are loaded with creation references.
Does Creation matter? You decide. My Bible says it does.
Again, I don't doubt doubt Dr. Collins' faith, salvation or sincerity. But I do count the Bible as being more authoritative than him on the subject. I don't know a single Christian who gets it ALL right.
Mind if I bore you with a personal story? One rainy night in 1976, I walked over to the apartment of the guy who'd taken my under his wing in the faith. Bill was sick with the flu, but he was happy to invite me in to talk. I was excited, because I'd been reading Genesis, and I'd discovered how neatly the six days of creation accurately reflected the order in which the universe had evolved - because as an atheist, I'd grown up with evolution, and it just never occurred to me as a young Christian that Creation in the Bible could be taken literally. I just didn't know any better; I thought Genesis was supporting evolution through figurative "religious" language. Bill smiled, never gave me a hard time, and said we'd look at that another time. And he was good for his word. I owe Dr. Collins the same indulgence that Bill Dobbs gave me.
Pablo, you're right when you say you'd rather talk about Jesus; but the Jesus of the Bible affirmed Creation, so I'm not unwilling to talk about it. Jesus didn't exist in a vacuum; what He says about marriage, or justice, or creation, or any other subject, truly matters. We want to help Christian brothers and sisters move from milk to meat, do we not? The opportunity to be in the audience at an on-campus debate between a creationist and an evolutionist is one of the events that really added to my Christian growth.
John, you're right that Creation is not a make-or-break issue to get saved. You can still believe in evolution and still be part of the Kingdom. But when you carry those thoughts past the surface and consider the logic outcome of that belief, you have to either make unpleasant compromises or sacrifice the authority of the Bible. What you believe matters, and influences who you are inside and how you behave outside when you act on those beliefs. Also, the assertion that the fall of man is not based on a literal account of the book of Genesis is a dangerous path to start down; as an experienced Christian and a leader of young people who will learn from you, that should give you pause.
Consider my examples, and let's talk about this further. I'm looking forward to seeing where this leads. Thanks -
- Keith
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pablo, I cannot see how you can make that argumant of "evolution of the scriptures."
it's not a direct analogy, i agree. but think about it. the whole point was jesus, right? so why not start there? no one knows the answer to that, but we trust that god's wisdom is higher than ours and that his plan, which took a LONG time to come about, was the way it was supposed to be.
"to interpret the Bible is to interpret it as literature."
the bible IS literature. i believe it was inspirted by god and holds truth for us, but it is literature. the bible is full of stories, analogies, and verse. a whole book of the bible is devoted to songs.
As far as taking the Bible, Genesis or all the other books literally, I say of course we need to!
everything is literal? dude, call me know when this goes down so i can grab my video camera!
Does Creation matter? You decide. My Bible says it does.
you are right Q, it does matter. it all matters. but to what extent does a belief in creation vs. evolution affect our ability to have faith in the resurrection of jesus, which ultimately, is the only thing can save us?
does it matter as much or more than predest. vs free will? we are comfortable with people on both sides of that fence. to me, that one is WAY more important. but that's just me...
wow. pablo hits another homerun in the blogging world. Q- i do not have a lot of time but i will hit this later and maybe on my own blog, but if i were to take the first part of genesis as allegorical and not literal. that does not take the divine aspect out of it at all. it is a form of writing. the psalms are not to be taken literal and to do everything the lamenting person is talking about (ie crush babies against rocks). but the psalms are still the inspired word of god. we need to understand hermenuitcs and that the bible was written by people who used different forms of writing styles and not just one. and we need to understand as we read scritpture what writing style was being used. revelation's is god's inspired word but i think most of you would agree that what is written is not the literal story that will take place but is allegorical. well that is all for now. we need tif in on this one. i am not a scientist or understand much in that arena, but i can talk sports with anyone... lol. but i do know that parts of evolution are real. or we would all look a like and me and michael jordan do look a little different. that all for now. peace!
John: I'm not sure you realize the degree to which you made my case for me. For those of you reading on, John makes reference to a passage in the Bible endorsing crushing babies against rocks. The reference is to Psalm 137. This passage in NOT a command to go slaughter babies. In this psalm, the author, a Jew transported to Babylon as a captive and his companions mourn the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and endure the tauntings of their captors. In the last three verses, the agonized author calls upon God to remember the sufferings of Jerusalem and bring about retribution upon those who caused the suffering. He refers to Babylon as "the devastated one," as if that retribution was already a done deal. He closes with a blessing upon the agent of God's retribution, who might do to the Babylonians as they had done to Jerusalem and the Jews.
Why did the author believe that God would bring about retribution? Because he believed his Bible. He had the pre-existing prophecies of Jeremiah 51 (oh, look! A creation reference at verse 15!) and Isaiah 13 (check out the reference to not sparing children at verse 18). Both these passages, by the way, literally and specifically mention the Medes. Most importantly, he had the pre-existing prophecy of Habakkuk. Habakkuk had been in anguish about the sin of the Jews, and asked God why He wasn't doing anything about it. God answered that He is fact would - He would bring the Babylonians to chastise the Jews for their sin. Habakkuk, astonished, protested that the Babylonians were even more wicked than the Jews, and God promised that the Jews would be restored and Babylon punished for raising a hand against His people. It seems only God can sweep a dirty floor with an even dirtier broom and make it clean again. Go read the passages in Jeremiah, Isaiah and Habakkuk. I'll wait right here for you.
Welcome back. I'm sure you noted while you were there that these three passages, emotionally charged and hyperbolically written, were nonetheless quite stunningly fulfilled. Isn't God amazing? Isn't His Bible awesome? And while you were reading up on this, did you note that nowhere in that Psalm are the Jews (or, by extension, we grafted-in Christians) commanded to throw infants onto rocks? The Psalmist recounts that it was done by the Babylonians to the Jews, and ardently calls down blessings on the liberator who would come and do it right back to the Babylonians. He wanted in-your-face justice, Yahweh-style. And the reason he could write that was because he had objective faith and was relying on God to keep his promises as prophesied - not spiritually, not figuratively, not allegorically, but LITERALLY. He trusted in God to make the prophecies in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Habakkuk come true.
Now, I've done you the courtesy of engaging the point you've raised and answering it. May I have the same respect in return? Will you now reply to what I've asked about the passages in Colossians, Job, Romans, and some of the issues I've raised over at the Stand? When Jesus talks about marriage and divorce and tells His hearers that yes, Moses made allowance for divorce, but that's not the way it was from the time of Adam and Eve, can He really say that if Adam and Eve is not an accurate accounting of Creation? If Adam and Eve are just figurative or allegorical, then raising the story as a point of argument is no more effective than, say, Hansel and Gretel.
I respect that you aren't a scientist, and I'm not raising scientific arguments, besides the passing references I made in my first comment to the original post. I can, if you'd like. We can talk about the geologic column and the fossil record, or carbon dating and the rubidium-strontium isochron, or the Poynting-Robertson Effect and the gas pressure law, or the rate of the leaching of salts from the continents into the oceans. I'm not trying to show off here, but to demonstrate just a little that, as Aaron also points out, true science is very supportive of faith in God. While I disagree with the Day-Age theory, I think he and I agree that true science is in harmony with intelligent design a lot more than with supposed natural forces, time, chance and matter as the origin of all there is.
Pablo, a big THANK YOU to you - not just for acknowledging my premise, but for affirmation that salvation, through faith in Christ and His death and resurrection, is the most important topic of all. Now let's add to it, as the anonymous writer of Hebrews directs us: "Therefore, leaving the elementary teaching about Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. And with we will do, if God permits" (Heb. 6:1-3, NASB). Do you get it? Salvation, atonement, grace vs. works, baptism, the laying on of hands, and our resurrection and the coming judgment, are Christianity 101, entry-level stuff. Those committed into our care by God, we are called upon to bring to maturity. You've asked "to what extent does a belief in creation vs. evolution affect our ability to have faith in the resurrection of jesus, which ultimately, is the only thing can save us?" I think I've already answered that, at least twice. We can get saved, genuinely and completely saved, and still believe in evolution. I think I mentioned that it was that way for me, initially. Now, let's not leave them there. Let's help the younger brothers and sisters entrusted to us into maturity, from milk to meat, and raise them on the whole Bible, and the whole Christian life. If we love Jesus, let's feed some lambs and tend some sheep. It's what we've committed ourselves to doing when we accept the role of pastors, teachers or elders. Who knows, maybe we'll even get to talk about Melchizedek.
here's another interesting opinion... link
2 Peter 3:16-17
16He writes about this in all his letters. Some things in Paul’s letters are hard to understand, and people who are ignorant and weak in faith explain these things falsely. They also falsely explain the other Scriptures, but they are destroying themselves by doing this. 17Dear friends, since you already know about this, be careful. Do not be carried away with the error of evil people and lose your own stability.
Q - you brought it this time. lol. good work...
i read your full townhall article. well written, thanks for the shout out.
First, it undercuts the authority of God's Word, the Bible, because if we choose to excise the first eleven chapters of the Bible as not being true truth
the slope is definitely slippery when talking about genesis in allegory vs literal means. where do you draw the line between story and reality? from a literary perspective, you kinda do have to switch gears in an unnatural way. it's kinda hard to believe in orginal sin and that the world is born into it through the sin of ONE man (and that sin is removed by ONE man for that matter) if you think that adam was an allegorical figure. i feel you on that.
...orginal sin and that the world is born into it through the sin of ONE man (and that sin is removed by ONE man for that matter)
and these are not negotiable points of the christian faith IMO.
"...can He really say that if Adam and Eve is not an accurate accounting of Creation? If Adam and Eve are just figurative or allegorical, then raising the story as a point of argument is no more effective than, say, Hansel and Gretel."
Well said, Q!! Sadly, there are many in our day preaching the "gospel" of Hansel and Gretel, and they should listen to Peter's warning.
before i get stoned as a heretic and on everybodies wack theology list (i may have already landed on some of yours anyway). my biggest goal on this blog was not discuss wether the creation story is allegorical or literal but to discuss the issue of drawing lines in the sand that make it difficult for people to listen to the message of the kingdom and respond. i maintain that an evolutionist can enter the kingdom of god and the church has set a perspective that they can't. i agree with aaron in regards to the day - era thought process but do not have enough information or probably willing to spend the time to research it. becuz soccer is starting. lol.
On the heels of J-Lou, I too believe an evolutionist can be a genuine follower of Christ (Q stated he does as well). I too think we draw too many lines of division within the body of Christ (we try to exclude those Jesus has included). It seems we want to do Satan's bidding of bringing disunity and division, rather than doing Christ's work of practicing grace and love and forbearance (Col 3:13) and working diligently to maintain unity (Eph 4:3). Drawing dividing lines is the lazy way; maintaining unity takes work...hard work, and too many Christians don't want to do the work. I'm not accusing anyone who has posted anything in this discussion of doing Satan's bidding. And I don't think John is accusing any of us of alienating "outsiders." I think his statement regards the body of Christ in general, as does mine. To myself, and any of us, I say, if the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't fit, let's not get offended at a brother because we tried to force our foot into a shoe that was never intended for us.
I think we are all going to be surprised at who Jesus knows and who he doesn't (Mt 7:21-23). We can't tell the sheep from the goats, the weeds from the wheat, the good fish from the bad.
Having said all that, I think Q is correct to say Jesus' and the apostles' usage of the creation account says they took it as fact, not fiction. Am I going to divide from a bro or sis if they agree with me regarding the cross of Christ, but disagree about evolution/creation? Heavens no!
I know some of you don't like to do too much substantial reading (LOL), but if you can force yourself to read it, there's a great article on Inerrancy (here). What makes it great, in part, is it is an example of humble, gracious, genuine scholarship, as exemplified by this final paragraph:
In conclusion, people obviously have the right to disagree with me. I’m glad that they do! But it strikes me as a gross caricature to insinuate that I am a heretic, a wolf in evangelical clothing, because the way I construct my theological convictions is different from theirs. At bottom, our resultant views are much closer to each other than they would admit. But our views still differ. I am convinced that my explanations in this lengthy paper will not persuade all that I’m squeaky clean in my theology. A major part of the reason, I think, is that I am trying to take my cues about bibliology from the text itself rather than from modern assumptions that are superimposed on scripture. And precisely because my starting point for inerrancy is Christ himself—indeed, my starting point for almost all of my theology is Christ—we will simply not see eye to eye on doctrinal priorities, the importance of historical inquiry, or the nature of the text. I pray that we can nevertheless be charitable and recognize that each other is a true believer in the same risen Lord.
Inerrancy is for too many Christians a branding label, and they have never truly probed the real meaning of the term. In his massive (1300+ pages) Christian Theology, Millard Erickson lists seven different conceptions of inerrancy. How many times do we talk past one another regarding many matters of faith, all the while prejudging, labeling, boxing in, dividing with one another with no real understanding of what the other person is saying?
<< Home