A Question about BioLogos

Faith & Science Conversation
21

I agree

I disagree with this. There were not like God (“already had that”), in that they have not always been, they were created, and they didn’t know what is best for them as they were created, not the Creator. Like you said first correctly, reflected God, not like God. That was their sin, rejecting God’s way, they were basically idolaters thinking they knew better than God. The only reason we were image bearers/reflections of God, was because we did His will. So it was always a reflection of God that made us image bearers, not our human self. We were not like God, we were human. We just had the capability to reflect God, and if we did, were His image bearers.
.

I guess to explain, we are mirrors. A mirror is not light, it has the capability to reflect light, but it isn’t the light. Satan tempted us by lying to us, and said that we could become light, though we never could.

I agree. I like to think of it as a ‘coveting’ sticker that gets places on the mirror. I can no longer fully reflect God, as some of my mirror is marked with this sticker or like a tv with a burn in image of coveting. I can still reflect parts of God, but everything I do outside of God, gets a new label burned into it, that limits that much more of how I can reflect God.

Like given a new mirror, have the power, or ability to reflect God, but when you look towards anything but God, you give that power, or ability to the label, whether that label is coveting, anger ect., you gave it the power to mark up your mirror.

It wasn’t till Jesus came with His pure mirror as the ultimate bearer of the Image of God. This is what our faith is in, we look towards the cross, and see the perfect mirror. Our mucked up mirrors no longer matter, we are now able to come to God through the mediation of our high priest of Jesus who lived a life as a mirror and never got one mark on it.

We still get marks on our mirror, but it no longer has authority over us. We are now under the power of Jesus. Of course we try not to mark up our mirror, as we want to reflect God the best we can out of love, but we no longer need to have a perfect mirror, Jesus did that for us.

Now in that day when we focus on Jesus, we will see waving us in, and holding the door to heaven open to us, saying “They ware will me God, they can come in”. When we get new mirrors. And again will be given a vocation to show the image of God in the new heaven and earth were there will be no more sin to mess up our mirrors.

But we must look on Jesus, all those who wither dropped their mirrors and don’t care, or who stare at themselves in the mirror, or who try to get the fewest marks on their mirrors, they are going to miss the wave in from Jesus. That is why we must be ready, always looking to Jesus, or like a thief in the night, He will call us unexpectedly, and if we are busy looking at ourselves in the mirrors, we will miss Him.

Basically saying, if in your heart, you trust Jesus, you know what He did for you, you will always looking in His direction. As it was always about your heart, and not your actions.

Which verse says this? To rule what? The physical or spiritual world?

I think when Lucifer was thrown down, he was given rule of the spiritual realm, and maintained this rule over human (that the law amplifies) until Jesus conquered Him on the cross.

Subduing the earth was just a vocation God gave us. In this vocation we could bear His image. Whatever vocation you have, you can through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, bear His image again. No need to subdue earth.

Jesus took all authority back for Him. “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me”. Not to humans, but to Jesus. And He had almost all authority anyway, except that which Satan did have, which was authority of sin over man, that’s what was what was taken back. Jesus is worthy of all authority, as He was the only One to take on sin, and conquer it. We have been given authority over sin’s reign (if we accept Jesus as our priest). But not over the heaven and the earth.

God’s purpose was never for us to subdue the earth, that was just a vocation, with which to bear His image in doing. So we do not need to re-gain the subduing the earth. But we are still called to be image bearers of God in whatever vocation we have.

22

Don’t worry, I didn’t mean that we were like God as in eternal, with divine qualities etc. I meant more in the sense of a child inheriting from a father - as expressed by the term “image of God”. The main idea is that we are to reflect, but the Bible also says that we are the light of the world (Matt 5:14), so at least for those who have the Holy Spirit inside, there is something that people see in us that speaks of God.

I think Jesus is more than a mirror - but all analogies break down and yours isn’t bad.

Luke 10:19 Jesus gave the disciples authority over Satan. He hadn’t actually died yet - but this implies they didn’t have that authority before. They had at least allowed Satan to have it. They now had the authority to heal, to command storms to stop and to raise people from the dead!

You know when you hear a great talk on a subject and then can’t find all the verses again?! There are other verses, but I can’t find them now! There is also the inference from the temptations of Jesus - though I admit that could just be Jesus not addressing the claims of Satan.

God never gave him any authority - but by sinning, it seems we did! But he has no rights any more. In as much as the cross works outside of time, you could say, he never really had that authority! But we live as if he does quite often!

I’m not sure the Bible splits up physical and spiritual as much as we do - though clearly that is an issue when talking about death.

I’m not sure we really disagree - it is more the way we explain it.

I don’t understand your logic here. I see subduing earth as spreading God’s kingdom - and I think we are very much called to that now, in the power of the Holy Spirit. We are involved in seeing God’s kingdom on earth as it is in heaven, not single-handedly, but God involves us in this and wants us to use the authority he gave us over sin, sickness and suffering. We have a lot to learn in how to do that, and the kingdom isn’t fully here yet - but God wants us to use that authority in His name. The disciples were commanded to do that, and they were also sent by Jesus to teach their disciples to obey all that Jesus commanded them to do - so we have the same commission from Jesus!

God has all authority and never gives it away! Though Jesus on earth did not keep hold of that. (He actually still had it, but limited it’s use most of the time.)

23

I took the idea from NT Wright who used Rev 5:9-10, we are made to be kings and priests. A king is one who looks after the poor and lowly, using the fruits of the spirit (Gal 5:22-23) on man. And the priest is one who takes all the praises of man, and brings them to God. Like a 45 degree mirror, reflecting God’s goodness to man, and praises of man to God.

The rest is my expansion of that, as I like analogies. But like you said, all break down.

That’s a good point. I need to find a way to incorporate that into my analogy

I don’t think that means all man does, rather those specific people.

He gave them authority over the enemy, a being. Sin is not a being, it is tool used by our enemy. The law also took advantage of our flesh and used sin. Meaning they could cast our demons and the spirits submitted to them.

That’s a good point, I think I spoke on that in my analogy. But I did contradict myself.

I don’t know about that. Jesus speaks of spiritual birth with Nicodemus. Paul speaks of the spiritual armor of God. Jesus says to not worry about those who harm body, but the spirit. I think there is much reference to the spiritual world that is separate from the physical world. The powers and principalities that can’t separate us from the love of God.

Yea, on most of the important things. Or we are mis-speaking what we ourselves believe. Which I think is good to see and learn to fix like iron sharpen iron.

I don’t know of any verse to subdue the earth other than Genesis. This is a forceful control of the earth.
I agree we are to spread God’s kingdom, but not in any means anything associated with the word subdue.

Like we are instructed to make disciples. That does not mean force people into being disciples, that is to train those willing to be one. Like you can’t make a doctor, but you can hold a med school and train those willing to become one.

We can show them what a doctor is, so that they might want to be one, but we can’t force them to be one or make them want to be one.

That is why it is important to show the love and light of God to man, so he will then search for God, and God can use us to reveal Him to them.

I don’t agree He gave Christians authority over sin. More accurately, over the power(death) sin has on us. But we can’t forgive anyone’s sin nor have authority in that respect. Only God has authority to forgive sins. I don’t think we have carte blanche authority over sickness either. I think it was specifically given to those very people it was given too and can be given today, but not all Christians have this authority.

I don’t agree with that either. They were a specific group of people Jesus was talking to, to go tell the world. Not in that we should withhold anything from them. But we need doctors, trash men, lawyers ect. And they are to tell the world they live in about the gospel, and more so, demonstrate it. But I don’t think all are directly called ot be missionaries. Luke 8:39. “Return home and tell how much God has done for you”. Some are called to be missionaries and travel the world, some are given authority over things, and some are given the command to maintain their household, raise their little disciples, or show God to workers and make them disciples when asked.

That is what I mean by honoring Him in the vocation He gave us and the vocation He gave Adam was to subdue the earth and rule animals.

I guess I shouldn’t say God gave authority to others, but He gives stewardship of that to others. God allows man to be stewards of His kingdoms, His money ect. But it is always God’s to take back, as He does have ultimate authority of it as Creator of it.

24

@T_aquaticus,

I believe Darwin writes as you or I might express ourselves if we were talking about what should be logical for a Trinitarian to believe.

25

@Bilbo I don’t know anyone currently affiliated with BioLogos who would say God has never intervened in how the world has developed. I’d also be surprised to learn that what you state was the “official” position of BioLogos in the early days (though I don’t doubt that some of the people then believed something like it).

What you really seem to asking about, though, is divine action. We did a big series on that awhile back, with several people giving different perspectives. My own view on this (which of course I think is correct, but is not the official BioLogos view), is that evolution is the best scientific description of how the diversity of life we see today came to be, but that science does not tell the whole story. I think it is perfectly legitimate to say theologically that God created human beings in his own image. But that’s not a scientific statement, and is not translatable into scientific terminology. It is a personal statement (God being a person). We have the same problem of speaking with two different vocabularies when we talk about human persons: will, intention, and morality are not scientific concepts, and to reduce them to such does so at significant violence to what mean by them. We can put a human under the microscope and make great strides in understanding how the stuff we’re made of works. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. This is essentially (though not identical to) Polkinghorne’s boiling teakettle parable. We have different discourses for different purposes. They are often describing the same thing (this isn’t NOMA). But both are perspectives on that one thing. That’s why dialogue is so important.

6 Likes
26

Hi Jim,

I’m still pretty confident the initial view of BioLogos was that God did not intervene in natural history. The view was that He created the universe and continued to keep it in existence, but allowed the universe to evolve according to whatever (probabilistic) laws that He had built into it.

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that BioLogos was and is open to the idea that God may have intervened in natural history. In that case, what is their big objection to ID? That ID’s case is weak and unproven? But that’s a matter for empirical research and argument. Thus, someone like Behe should be welcomed at BioLogos as providing possible, even if mistaken, lines of research, not rejected. Likewise, Dr. Swamidass’s suggestion of a recent creation of Adam and Eve should be welcomed at BioLogos, also. So why was he kicked out of the club?

It seems that BioLogos’ objection was and is more profound: That there was something theologically or philosophically wrong with the idea of God intervening in natural history.

27

  1. It contradicts established scientific facts, especially evolution. Although IDers often say ID is compatible with evolution (at least leaders of the movement do), most of what they write is aimed at arguing that evolution is not a fact (rather than making the effort to show ID is true).

  2. It’s looking for something it can’t detect with the scientific tools it says it’s using. To me, it’s like claiming you have a scientific method of detecting demonic possession or affliction, or detecting illnesses caused by God, using science. Do you think those things are possible?

After a very long time of empirical research and argument, the case for ID is still weak and unproven. That’s a problem. Another problem is that ID leaders refuse to acknowledge this. Turning it around why do ID leaders argue against evolution?

That’s patently untrue given they believe in creation, miracles, and the resurrection.

1 Like
28

I think you at on the right track, but are going the wrong way. BioLogos seems to have no theological or philosophical problem with I D, and in fact has common ground there. However, the disagreement is when ID makes it a scientific position, when it cannot be shown to be good science. The origin of ID was to get creationism in the science classroom, and that has not been shown to be an appropriate.

3 Likes
29

Hi Jon,

The creation, miracles (within human history), and the resurrection are not considered part of natural history.

1 Like
30

Hi Phil,
You write:
“I think you at on the right track, but are going the wrong way. BioLogos seems to have no theological or philosophical problem with I D, and in fact has common ground there.”

Yes, this would seem to be the revised view of BioLogos, not the original view.

" However, the disagreement is when ID makes it a scientific position, when it cannot be shown to be good science."

Cannot or has not?

" The origin of ID was to get creationism in the science classroom, and that has not been shown to be an appropriate."

The origin of ID or the origin of the DI?

1 Like
31

Of course not. They are cases of God intervening in natural history, which is what I classified them as. Do you have any comments on the rest of my post?

32

But for those of you who contend that BioLogos has no philosophical or theological problem with ID, what is BioLogos’ beef with Dr. Swamidass?

33

I’m not aware that they have one. If they do I don’t know what it is. You seem to be constantly fishing for a useful soundbite.

2 Likes
34

The only things BioLogos believes are clearly stated in our What We Believe statements. There is no dark, smoky back room where we get together and talk in hushed tones about what we really believe but don’t want people to find out. Our belief statements are intentionally broad, and so you will find a fair amount of diversity of beliefs among those who are affiliated with us. It could be that in the early days, many of the people held the views you suggest about God never intervening, but I’d still be very surprised to learn that it was an official view of the organization (and it certainly isn’t now).

One of the things on which you’ll find diversity among us is just what is wrong with ID. In our Common Question (CQs, by the way, aren’t quite official belief statements, since we don’t have to say we agree with them as a condition of employment, but they are kind of like organizational midrash) on How is BioLogos different from YEC, OEC, and ID we say:

At BioLogos, we believe that our intelligent God designed the universe, but we do not see scientific or biblical reasons to give up on pursuing natural explanations for how God governs natural phenomena. We believe that scientific explanations complement a robust theological understanding of God’s role as designer, creator, and sustainer of the universe.

That still leaves a lot of room for interpretation on how we differ from ID. And part of the problem is that what ID believes is more nebulous than what BioLogos believes. The DI site (do they speak for all of ID??) has a philosophy statement that starts with “Mind, not matter, is the source and crown of creation.” OK, I think I could agree with that… but it is pretty tricky to pin down what mind means in this (or any) context. It is a word that gets used in lots of different ways, and apart from something more specific, I’m not sure what they mean. I’ll say that I think a personal God is the source of creation, and I think human persons are “called to an elevated position within the created order” (BL belief statement). Personhood seems to depends on will, intention, acting for reasons, moral culpability, and like concepts. But these are not scientific concepts (even if they bump up against scientific concepts from time to time). So, I’m skeptical of research programs that aim to derive personal (or even theological) conclusions from scientific premises. That seems to me like what a lot of IDers try to do. I’m happy to talk about resonances we find for our theological beliefs in and among the sciences. But that is more in line with Alister McGrath’s “theology of creation” approach or what I have defended as fides quaerens intellectum than it is the kind of natural theology which thinks theological conclusions follow from scientific premises.

4 Likes
35

Especially concerning the age of the earth. According to ID, the earth is 6 thousand years old or 4.6 billion years old. One of those.

1 Like
36

You’d think people who do so much science would have a firm answer on this point.

2 Likes
37

You mean that’s not a firm answer?

1 Like
38

I’ve been here since the beginning, and I even made the very first comment. There is a bit of truth in what Bilbo says. BioLogo once was ok with the natural outworking of evolution without prodding and pushing by God. However they never ruled out God’s intervention in natural history. Even Ken Miller said that could never be ruled out. I believe more in God’s constant interaction with us, as opposed to pushing genes around. I certainly believe that we should pray that more superbugs don’t evolve!

3 Likes
39

Yeah that’s what I thought.

1 Like
40

@Bilbo

I am confident that you encountered that view more than once. But I believe it was this view’s frequent appearance that may have triggered the need to put Mission Statements in writing.

Early on I was frequently encouraged to read the Mission Statements … and it helped me focus my thoughts considerably.

I encourage you to do the same.