Thanks for the review. You did a great job of pulling things together.
The reason that this website exists is to refute those who say that that evolution cont5radicts the Bible. This strain of Christianity did not originate in the Reformation, which is why you did not find the origins in inerrancy in that era. It originated at about the early 1900’s when conservative felt that the Bible was under attack by the science of that day and came up with a simple defense, that is the Bible was verbally inspired by God. It is literally the perfect Word of God.
This movement was called the Fundamentalist movement which gave us Creationism and YEC. The movement has changed names, but now it claims inerrancy. Look it up. This is a modern movement, not a traditional one. It’s failure is that it places the focus of Christianity on the Bible where it does not belong, instead of on Jesus Christ where it does belong, so that now we have the abomination that we have today.
I guess I was referring more to the historic position rather than the current one, as the Galileo bashers were quite the inerrent literalists, whereas Calvin and company not so much.
1 Like
Old teachers like me assign homework to others; we don’t do it ourselves.
Don’t you have to be officially approved or something? Now I’m tempted to go to some of @gbrooks9’s favorite pages and make his head spin!
You get yourself registered as an Editor … and then you submit proposals for changes. Interested Editors review the proposals. Sometimes a compromise change is approved. Sometimes a proposed change is denied completely.
Different topics have different levels of review assigned to them - - because they are controversial, or because they are INCREDIBLY CONTROVERSIAL.
1 Like
I have yet to edit any Wiki page… though I am registered to begin. I hope to make my Social Security years meaningful.
The one term I have spent quite a bit of time on (in the privacy of my own laptop) is:
Essene.
1 Like
I am very confused by this claim. Not all churches / people / organizations who hold to the doctrine of inerrancy are YEC creationists. Even the faith statement of Reason’s to Believe (who accept an Old Earth view of creation) includes inerrancy.
https://www.reasons.org/about
Even BioLogos says that some Evolutionary Creationists hold to the doctrine of inerrancy:
If you can’t trust the Bible, how do we know what to believe about Jesus’s life and teachings?
1 Like
Don’t you have to be officially approved or something?
Not really, but if you make a dumb edit, someone else will just revert it. If you add something in that isn’t cited, it may get reverted. Nevertheless, good edits and contributions (like my own of course) are easily accepted because if they’re well written, well cited, and are reflective of the academic consensus.
1 Like
Thanks for inviting me over to this discussion, which is interesting. I must say its a little confusing to follow who is being quoted/cited in the history thread you list. Sorry, I’m a little time-constrained in reading all of the documents/website posts, because I need to get little ones (any myself) to bed.
Since I was invited in from the GAE discussion (which has for some reason been locked already), my initial thought is: As a theologically untrained scientist, I am very unlikely to convince my theologically trained family, friends and pastors to give up on the doctrine of inerrancy to be able to accept a figurative, nonhistorical view of Adam and Eve. They are unable to embrace the idea of evolution, because they think that evolution would require them to say that Adam and Eve did not exist as real people. I’m wondering if that is where the Genealogical Adam and Eve (GAE) hypothesis could be helpful. The GAE idea just might let them accept the idea of evolution and keep a historical Adam and Eve couple: a potentially satisfying win, win. This GAE idea could be a great way of getting nontheological scientists like myself and nonscientist laypeople and their pastors back on the same page. But I take it that you disagree?
1 Like
Inerrancy is a tough subject partially because it is difficult to define. What most lay people think is inerrancy is not the way academics see it. I found the book Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy quite helpful, as well as some of Roger Olson’s blogs. In addition, this paper was quite interesting in looking at a commonly held standard of inerrancy:
https://evidenceforchristianity.org/a-case-to-rewrite-the-chicago-statement-on-inerrancy/
As to GAE, I think it remains to be seen. Quite honestly, I doubt it will change many minds, as the idea of other humans co-existing with Adam and Eve has been around a long, long time and linking them to us with genealogy but not genetics is not a real game changer for those who hold to a young or a concordist theology.
1 Like
Oh, absolutely. But even those who subscribe to inerrancy can’t agree on the definition of it. For example, John Piper’s definition is “perfection with respect to purpose.” That’s the same as Roger Olson’s definition of infallible and Vatican II’s definition of inerrancy as only extending to matters of salvation (the purpose of Scripture). Until the 1970s, inerrancy was more of an opinion than a doctrine. It became a doctrine when it became a litmus test for evangelical orthodoxy.
The little ones should always take priority over talking to me! Happy to accept the demotion.
Yes, I absolutely disagree, and I disagree for the sake of your little ones, not your theologically trained family and friends. Evangelical Christianity already has a credibility problem with the younger generation. The GAE is so convoluted and unbelievable that the atheist critics Jerry Coyne and Graham Coop practically laughed out loud the first time they heard the idea. I shudder to think what would happen if GAE became widely accepted. It’s a cheap card trick that would be another barrier to Christian belief. This particular bridge to unity leads nowhere. That’s my opinion.
Christians do not believe in the Bible. They believe in God and part of that is believing in God as Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior/Messiah, because He saved us from our sin, not because He is without error.
Sadly the “inerrant” Bible has been used to mislead believers. Jesus is not inerrant, but He is the Alpha and Omega of our faith. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, and His Way, the Way of Love and the Holy Spirit that leads to the Father, not the way of legalism and works righteousness.
The Chicago Statement was written by Evangelicals to replace Fundamentalist doctrine. The Chicago Statement is a step forward from Fundamentalism, but it still leaves the door open for OT legalism and Bibliolatry.
Perhaps to an extent, but it primarily functions and was worded to be a “litmus test” for who was on the team and who was out.
1 Like
New word for me.
noun
an excessive adherence to the literal interpretation of the Bible.
an excessive love of books.
I like it.
2 Likes
Well, my theologically trained friends, as well as other laypeople in their congregations are also raising children: so I am concerned about both people in my generation and those of my children’s generation. I would not write someone off simply based on their age.
@Relates et, al:
BTW: in reading many of these BioLogos forum threads. It seems to me that many of us see the same problems (e.g. unnecessary conflict between science and faith), but we have different opinions of the source of the problem, and therefore different ideas about what the solution would be.
I think more ideas and options for solutions would be a good thing.
4 Likes
I am willing to share my suggestions as to bringing up a family in these most difficult times. First and foremost Jesus Christ is the center of our faith, not the Bible and not the Church.
Second, Jesus is the Logos, the Rational Word of God. John 1:1-5, 12-14. If the universe was made through Jesus, then there can be no conflict between knowledge of Jesus and knowledge of the universe.
Third, if the house is burning down, you and your family need to get out right away and find a house that is not burning down regardless of what kind it is.
All true. I would have to write myself off based solely on age. (Maybe I should. Others have for lesser reasons!) My poorly-made point involved something larger.
I’m not concerned about your theologically trained friends because they are secure enough in their faith to reject evolution despite the evidence. Will getting them to embrace evolution bring them closer to Christ or increase their faith? Not in my judgment. It would certainly lessen conflicts within the body of Christ, but that can be achieved without asking them to upend their worldview. They don’t even have to change their minds about inerrancy or evolution. All that it takes to end the “conflict” is for them to allow for the possibility that a person can be a faithful follower of Christ without believing in a literal Adam & Eve. Conflict over. I think that’s an easier case to make. Your mileage may vary.
I brought up the younger generation because we are losing them. They are forming their worldviews and not mature in their faith, and when much of the information they are fed from Christian sources flatly contradicts the evidence, faith itself comes into question. This is a matter of evangelism – of life and death – not a difference of opinion over how best to interpret Genesis or Paul. The GAE hypothesis may appeal to someone whose interpretation requires a literal couple named Adam and Eve. But what is its appeal to someone who already accepts evolution but isn’t sure about the Bible? None, as far as I can see. Those are the people I worry about because their numbers are growing astronomically. GAE does nothing about the real problem. In my judgment, it’s likely to make it worse.
Now, please don’t take my next point personally, because it’s really a general observation. Almost everyone I’ve seen who is open to the idea of GAE likes it for someone else, not themselves. Even the people who endorse it don’t seem to believe it. What does that say?
“I don’t personally believe this, but if we could get these other folks to believe it …” I don’t see how that will work.
4 Likes
I whole heartily agree. I’ve no interest in making my YEC/ID friends and colleagues accept evolution. We can talk about it if they want, and if our discussion happens to change their mind - great! But my goal is not victory; its peace.
As to the terms of peace, I tend to go with: It is possible for a person to be a faithful follower of Jesus regardless of their views on science and evolution.
3 Likes
On reflection, Jay, I went through a phase sort of similar, as I could see the text allowed for Adam and Eve to live in the midst of a bigger population, though did not consider genealogy a factor ( and still do not). It was back in college days, so I am alittle fuzzy on what I thought. I wish I had recorded what I was thinking at the time, as it would be interesting to look back and see what changed. I suspect kids today will also not have that info, as despite nothing disappearing from the internet, technology will change and electronic media will fade quicker than ink.
1 Like