Quote miners extraordinaire over there. And such good editorial practice not to link quotes to a source so you can read them in context. Do they not understand how the internet works either? Lots of places publish articles by people, and that doesn’t mean they are “teaching” everything the author says or will ever go on to say in the next fifteen years.
What AIG quoted:
“If Jesus as a finite human being erred from time to time, there is no reason at all to suppose that Moses, Paul, John wrote Scripture without error.”
That is from Kenton Sparks’ book, God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship, (Baker Academic, 2008). Excerpts from that book did run as a blog series on the BioLogos website in 2010, but that series is no longer on the website. (ETA: I found that quote in a white paper that was at one time posted on BioLogos, back when the website had little more than a collection of white papers on various topics where scholars presented a range of ideas. You can find the full context of the quote here: After Inerrancy)
Though theologians seldom point this out, the fact that Jesus operated mainly within the horizon of his finite human horizon has other implications. If we assume for the sake of discussion that he was a carpenter like his father, did he ever miss the nail with his hammer? Hit his thumb? Did he think that he left his saw on the bench when, because he was distracted, he actually leaned it against the wall? Did Jesus ever look across a crowded town square and think that he saw his brother James only to discover that it was someone else? And did he estimate that the crowd was about 300 when it was really 200? To confess that Jesus was fully human is to admit that the answer to these questions must be yes. And if yes, then this observation surely has implications for how we think about Scripture. If Jesus as a finite human being erred from time to time, there is no reason at all to suppose that Moses, Paul, John wrote Scripture without error. Rather, we are wise to assume that the biblical authors expressed themselves as human beings writing from the perspectives of their own finite, broken horizons.
What AIG quoted:
[E]ven though the Bible assumes a certain way of looking at the cosmos, from a scientific point of view the Bible is wrong.
I searched for this in the 34 Peter Enns resources that BioLogos has up and couldn’t find that quote. Yes, we know Peter Enn’s says provocative things that annoy Ken Ham. (ETA: I found the quote in a 2010 creation.com article. Nice job doing your own current research, guys. From a half-hearted attempt at a footnote there, I found the old white paper saved on my computer. I could not find it on the internet. It was another one of the white papers from the original BioLogos website over a decade ago.)
Context of the quote (note that in context Pete Enns is just summarizing what most Christians believe about heliocentricity, and italics matter):
The science vs. religion question, although relevant, does not address the true heart of the
hermeneutical and doctrinal problem and misses why significant tensions continue to exist. Other scientific issues, like the heliocentric solar system or age of the universe, are things that most Christians have more or less reconciled to the Bible’s geocentric and “young earth” view. Most Christians understand that, even though the Bible assumes a certain way of looking at the cosmos, from a scientific point of view the Bible is wrong. And that is perfectly fine. The conclusion most draw is not that the Bible falls short of being a sacred text, but that it speaks in an ancient idiom, and so cannot be expected to speak to modern scientific matters. Problem solved. When it comes to evolution, however, this “science and faith” rapprochement is not adequate. Evolution strikes at issues that are of central importance to anyone whose Christian faith involves a serious accounting of the Bible. Evolution poses that humanity is not the product of a special creative act by God, but of a process that began with the simplest of one-cell life forms and over billions of years developed into the vast array of life on this planet—plants, reptiles, fish, mammals, etc., and, of course, humanity. These humans also happen to share a common ancestry with primates. One can certainly posit God’s role in initiating and providentially guiding such a process, but that is not the point here. The tension evolution creates with the Bible is far more significant than heliocentricity or the age of the universe, and the reasons are well known to anyone who has thought about this issue. To cut to the chase, if evolution is correct, one can no longer accept in any true sense of the word “historical” the instantaneous and special creation of humanity out of dust as described in Genesis.
What AIG quoted (there was a lot left out with those three little dots):
First, the incarnation is not primarily about the cross. God does not send Jesus to die. God does not require Jesus’ death in order to forgive humanity’s sin. I argue that God did not will the cross . . . Christ’s death was not part of God’s divine plan.
What the author said in context:
First, the incarnation is not primarily about the cross. God does not send Jesus to die. God does not require Jesus’ death in order to forgive humanity’s sin. As a result, God is not motivated by retribution or righteous anger. Instead, the incarnation is motivated by love. God wanted humanity to know him in a new and robust way. God wanted to be present to humanity in the midst of its sin and isolation. God desires right relationship. As a demonstration of God’s immense love and compassion, God takes on flesh and bone. He becomes a vulnerable child relying on humans for his every need. He learns what it is to hunger and thirst. He experiences torture, humiliation, and isolation on the cross. In the end, Jesus experiences death. And in so doing, Christ connects to humanity in a new and powerful way. His compassion both shows us the way of our salvation (revelation) and inspires us to follow after him.
I argue that God did not will the cross. An angry crowd, a prideful group of the religious elite, and a cowardly Roman prefect, put a perfectly innocent man to death. They willed the cross. And I believe this act is an example of sin. But God is holy, loving, and just. Thus, God cannot will or condone sin. Instead, I argue that the incarnation is about life, revelation, and inspiration—not death. I believe that God knew Jesus would be killed. That’s what happens when the kingdom of God collides with the kingdom of this world. But Christ’s death was not part of God’s divine plan. It was the tragic result of human sin. But as horrific as the cross was, God’s love extends beyond and redeems it. In spite of the anger, hatred, and violence displayed during the crucifixion, Jesus still calls out for God to forgive the crowd. “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34) God’s love is greater than human sin. And the redemption promised in the coming Kingdom of God is revealed most clearly in the resurrection that occurs three days later. What sin and violence destroyed, God’s love redeemed. This is a vision of the eschaton; it is a vision of our atonement. God promises to absorb violence and death and replace it with reconciliation, forgiveness, and love. This revelation, this vision, is the reason for the incarnation. It is the power behind the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. And it is the method and the means of our atonement and ultimate salvation.
Substitutionary Atonement and Evolution - BioLogos
AIG says:
“In contrast, an extensive search on the BioLogos website reveals they do not emphasize or explain the gospel in any detail.”
Something tells me maybe not so extensive.
I have personally written an article for BioLogos explaining the gospel, Calvin.
Then we come to the centerpiece of the gospel: Jesus Christ suffering the ultimate humiliation of crucifixion in order to defeat sin and death and bring salvation to those who don’t deserve it and can never earn it. As Paul and the other apostles traveled around preaching the good news of Christ’s death and resurrection, none of it made any sense by the standards of “human wisdom.” Kings and gods do not give up power and become nothing (Philippians 2:1-11). The religious status afforded by birthright, disciplined study, and conscientious living should count for something, not be looked down on as “rubbish” (Philippians 3:2-11). The right to approach the throne of heaven with confidence as one of God’s own children could not possibly be a free gift of grace requiring only faith (Hebrews 4:14-16, Ephesians 2:4-9, Galatians 3:26-29). But over and over in the New Testament, we see Paul confronting “human wisdom” about how the world should work with the amazing message of the cross; it thwarts one expectation after another with the demonstration of its power.
Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit, slaves and their masters become brothers, the dividing wall of hostility between Hebrews and Greeks is torn down, and women are valued co-laborers in spreading the good news. Human wisdom about the way the world is supposed to work is completely overturned.
AIG: " Many people seeing the title of my article will likely consider it overly provocative and extremely uncharitable according to Christian standards."
Yes, yes we do think this.