Speaking of quote mining. This decontextualized quote has been addressed before on this forum: My ID Challenge - #477 by Chris_Falter
And Karl Giberson is not one and the same as BioLogos. That is like taking an Al Mohler or Russell Moore quote out of context and then attributing the viewpoint to all Southern Baptists. Worse actually, since Karl Giberson is as you said, a former contributor and no longer publishes here.
Your brother in Christ went on to write this about my friend Karl: “Later, he entirely rejected the God of the Old Testament.” Does anyone want to comment on that? Or just delete it? I wonder if you all can tell just how damning this kind of thing actually is. @Jay313 talks of “irony,” but that word might not be quite enough for what is happening in this whole thread.
Daniel,
By making this assertion, you seem to be deliberately avoiding my question. In other words, your assertion seems to take for granted that your hermeneutical method is so obviously correct that you don’t need to answer any questions. I suspect, however, that you just overlooked my question. I don’t want readers of the thread to think you are afraid of answering a question, or are unable to, when in fact you just missed it in the buzz of the conversation. So here you go: another chance to answer my question:
Chris, You might have a very sincere faith. However, I am deeply troubled by the influence of theistic evolution. I fear that if their influence continues in your life, your faith will suffer.
You are correct that I did cut off Giberson’s quote. After this quote, he insisted that Darwin’s acid would burn no further. However, a few years later, he demonstrated that the acid had continued to dissolve his faith. He now describes the god of the OT as a “genocidal” maniac, insisting that theology has long past discarded such a god.
I know Karl very well. I’ve never heard him refer to the god of the OT as a genocidal maniac. (I would be proud of him if he did, since it’s true, but I digress.) Please be so kind as to provide a citation to Karl writing (or saying) this. You can contact me by personal message.
Karl was in charge of BioLogos for a while.
It still confuses me why people think that God suddenly changed between Malachi and Matthew. If anything, the New Testament proclaims that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament (John specifically says that Jesus was the one Isaiah saw on the throne in Isaiah 6; see John 12:41). So Jesus’ character is not and should not be considered inconsistent with that of the God of the OT. If you believe that the OT presents Dawkins’ caricature of God (which is just that: a caricature), I would humbly submit that you’re reading it wrong.
Whether I have taken advanced course or even have advanced degrees in evolutionary science or not doesn’t change the fact that evolution is a theoretical science that lives in the realm of the natural observable world. The creation of the world, the flood, the miracles of Jesus, and the resurrection et. al are not natural events and are therefore outside the authority of the most fashionable scientific theories.
Most creationists don’t seem to think that creation and the flood are outside of science’s purview; how did you arrive at your conclusion?
This is true. However, you do need to realise that it is also based on evidence. If you are going to attempt to refute evolution, you need to be aware that the evidence exists, and to be able to demonstrate how it has been misinterpreted. If you don’t have any training in the relevant sciences, you will espouse arguments that are demonstrably incorrect, and this will only highlight your lack of understanding. That is not a good witness for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It’s what Paul talks about when he tells us to avoid foolish controversies in Titus 3:9.
Basically: (a) make sure you know what you are talking about, and (b) make sure your facts are straight.
Again, evidence.
We don’t necessarily need to see evidence to affirm creation, the flood, miracles, the resurrection etc. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, and in fact faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (Hebrews 11:1).
However, if you favour one particular creation model (e.g. young earth) over another, you need to be able to account for any evidence that contradicts it. As it stands, the only way that the earth can be six thousand years old is if it were created with evidence for 4.5 billion years of history that never happened. Personally I do not believe that God would create evidence that deceives us, especially not concerning aspects of a subject about which, as I said earlier, the Bible leaves a lot wide open to interpretation.
Again, you need to make sure you understand the science properly before you attempt to refute it, so that you don’t end up bringing the Body of Christ into disrepute by spouting demonstrable untruths.
Evolution isn’t merely theoretical. It’s highly empirical. You don’t need courses or degrees to see that.
Here’s the thing: I think maybe you do if you’re a skeptic.
I personally have been a skeptic for many years. I am a pastor at a YEC church and only recently accepted evolution.
@Joe_Stout I don’t have degrees in science, either. Mine are in divinity and theology, I have no science background. I’m sorry if my question came off as condescending. I don’t want you to think I was trying to say that whoever has the most degrees wins.
I did realize something, however, after talking with some atheists recently. These people were bringing up “problems” with the Bible that are easily solved in first year theology classes. It amazes me that so many people reject the Bible who have only read bits and pieces of it. Their entire Bible knowledge comes from YouTube videos of debates between atheists and Christians, and from Sunday School classes that they quit when they were teenagers.
When they argue, they are arguing from smugness and ignorance, and it’s not a good look for them.
As I was lamenting this fact, I realized I was guilty of the same thing about evolution. All my knowledge of the subject came from basic high school level classes, popular-level books that only give broad outlines of evolution (Bill Nye, anyone?), debates with Christians, and lots of reading of Christians who were explaining it only with the purpose of trying to dispute it (“Is Genesis History?”).
You don’t have to go back to school to take some great classes on evolution. There are many free courses online that start with a bit more than a high school level of knowledge, and move to an introductory college level. Here’s a great one:
I didn’t even take tests, I simply audited the videos and reading material and learned a great deal. As a pastor, one of the things I learned was that I, at the very least, needed to change my tone toward evolutionists. The evidence was not fickle (as you said above), it was my understanding of it that was fickle.
I shudder to think of what some of the teens that I taught, who went on to college, must think of Christians, based on what I taught them about evolution. To preach the gospel of Jesus Christ alongside ignorant errors based on my fickle understanding of evolution, dilutes the perfect truth of that message and places a stumbling block to the gospel in front of anyone who knows better. I have grievously misled many sheep, and harmed their faith by my ignorance. I will stand before God and give account for that. I’m not looking forward to that day. There are real consequences to preaching a message without being educated on that message.
I wish I could give you more than one “like” for this post…
What Casper said.
Daniel, the question arises, how should we as Christian brothers and sisters respond to incorrect or demonstrably false information given by other Christians? True much is opinion, and can be argued as such, but in the case of the movie, some of the geology is arguably misrepresented, and in some eyes, that sullies the gospel witness.
It seems that we have done a poor job of correcting ourselves in the Christian community, whether it be leadership with financial or sexual misconduct or other failures. I am not sure I know the answer, as we believe in grace and redemption, yet must hold ourselves accountable as a community of believers.
I also know Karl very well and have corresponded with him for more than 20 years.
I think the passage @Daniel_Mann has in mind is found in a blog Karl wrote last year: http://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2016/07/noahs-ark-park-keeping-christians-in-the-eighteenth-century.html
Here’s the full paragraph containing the part that @Daniel_Mann apparently has in mind:
“Noah’s story, as a tale for children, has a certain adventurous charm, and I was fascinated by it as a kid in Sunday School. Much of that adventure came back to me when I visited Ham’s other project, the Creation Museum, a story I recount in Saving the Original Sinner. But I have to confess that I am horrified by the story as an adult and wonder why it took me so long to see just how horrifying the story is. Taken literally—the entire point of Ham’s new park—the story suggests that God drowned all the children on the planet for their parents’ sins. Even if we assume that all adults outside of Noah’s family were terrible sinners deserving to be drowned, the collateral damage in the deaths of innocent children and animals dwarfs every major genocide in history combined. If Noah’s story is literally true, God is a monster.”
This is a long way from saying that God is a genocidal maniac. Indeed, Karl’s point is that, since (I assume based on this paragraph) he cannot believe that God is a monster, he can’t take the Noah story literally. In other words, Karl does what all theologians do at one time or another, regardless of whether they are biblical “literalists.” He’s interpreting a biblical text in light of his theological convictions–and his convictions (in this instance) seem to be the same as yours, @Daniel_Mann. He doesn’t believe God is a monster, and I gather you don’t either. However, Karl’s idea of what would qualify as monstrous is apparently different from yours, since the wholesale destruction of the living world (including “innocent children and animals”) obviously qualifies as monstrous for Karl, whereas it apparently doesn’t for you, @Daniel_Mann.
If I’ve assumed too much about your position, @Daniel_Mann, then please correct my mistaken impression.
I have already provided the link above.
I guess you have read Giberson’s “Saving Darwin,” where he wrote:
“Acid is an appropriate metaphor for the erosion of my fundamentalism, as I slowly lost confidence in the Genesis story of creation and the scientific creationism that placed this ancient story within the framework of modern science. Dennett’s universal acid dissolved Adam and Eve; it ate through the Garden of Eden; it destroyed the historicity of the events of creation week. It etched holes in those parts of Christianity connected to the stories—the fall, “Christ as the second Adam,” the origins of sin, and nearly everything else that I counted sacred.” (Saving Darwin, 9-10)
Actually, I appreciate his transparent confession about the effects of the belief in evolution, even though I find it tragic.
And it predictably got worse: http://biologos.org/blog/exposing-the-straw-men-of-new-atheism-part-five/
@Daniel_Mann, I think you missed the point I was making. I was responding only to that part of your comment about depicting God as a “genocidal maniac.” What I wanted you to see is the context in which he said that, in which Karl clearly (IMO) implies that he does NOT believe that God is like that.
Yes, I own Karl’s book, “Saving Darwin”; he sent me a copy. It’s already been pointed out to you that, immediately after the sentences you quoted, Karl denies that the “acid” has eaten away his core Christian beliefs, including the Resurrection (which is at the top of my own set of core beliefs). You quoted him fairly, but you extrapolated unfairly beyond that by not quoting him further.
I wrote a column touching on related matters a few years ago, but that server is down at the moment so I can’t link it. Maybe I can do that later.
Hi Daniel,
That quotation of Karl Giberson is misleading. That’s what we call quote-mining. Please read this:
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.