Does Modern Science Make Jesus a Liar?

Faith & Science Conversation
64

[quote=“Colin, post:24, topic:37280”]
There is an unsubstantiated presumption to your comment that “God initiated physical creation to unfold over long periods of time.” How is that provable?

[Al Leo] It isn’t provable. A god that is provable by science is not one I would want to worship. As a spirit, my God must be approached through the spiritual nature that He bequeathed to me–thru metaphysics, if you will.

Probably you are stating what many (most?) evangelical Christians believe: that God inspired the authors of Scripture two millennia ago to impart this information to all humans who followed but choses NOT to continue to do so in modern times. I disagree. I am in much closer agreement with Chardin who saw that a belief in evolution could inspire humanity to accept their conscious role as co-creators of a continually evolving Universe–a Universe inevitably destined to return to its source, Omega.
Al Leo

65

George,

I was intending to move on but your question deserves a response.

When Christ began His earthly ministry, He proclaims (Mark 1:15), “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of heaven is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Not a gospel. Not “take your pick among the various gospel options My adversary is dangling about you.” No, Jesus uses the definite article because He knows there is the one, true gospel that saves, among a variety of counterfeits.

The Apostle Paul knew there was one true gospel, and was so convinced of this that he became apoplectic when his spiritual children in Asia Minor strayed in their absolute adherence to it (Gal. 3:1). He was so irate at those who would alter that one, true gospel by adding a little human contribution to what saves the sinner that he damned such teachers to hell (Gal. 1:6-8). That is the attitude and language of someone who is certain there is one gospel to believe among an onslaught of evil options.

You ask why should Biologos choose one particular gospel? Here’s the best reason: because all those who believe any gospel other than the one true gospel are going to be subject to the wrath of Christ Himself when He returns with His mighty angels (2 Thess. 1:8), “in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” Again, there’s that definite article. It seems Jesus will be pretty worked up against those who miss what that one gospel is.

This last example shows why it is actually blasphemous to imply there are multiple competing gospels in Scripture of equal weight and imperceptible if any substantive differences. Why? Because the Bible says (Ps. 19:9), “the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.” How could that possibly be true if His gospel is veiled in any way? After all, He has promised to destroy those who do not believe and obey the true gospel when He returns. How righteous and just is the Judge who promises this retribution for failing to believe this particular gospel, and then makes it hard to know exactly what that gospel is? To hold that there are many optional forms of the gospel which might be chosen and embraced, all acceptable before God, is to call God a liar (for using the definite article when He writes about the gospel) and unjust (for throwing those who don’t know and believe it into hell).

The one true gospel is “the power of God for the salvation of all who believe, first for the Jew, then for the Greek.” It says the problem with the world is sin; that the answer to sin is the Savior; that the response to the Savior is surrender; and that the reward for surrender is salvation. Every true believer from the time of Christ’s earthy ministry until today has believed and been saved by this one true gospel. This is not my particular view of Scripture. This is the view that God has made plainly manifest on the pages of His Word.

If Biologos is desiring, as you suggest, “to show how evolutionary ‘science’ is compatible with several different interpretations of the gospel,” its mission is not only its own but the enemy’s as well.

Colin

67

OK, let me try again. How about, instead,

“There is broad scholarly consensus that Genesis 1:1 has an introductory purpose, and that the creation of the heavens and the earth is the subject of the whole chapter, not just the first verse.”

1 Like
68

I think that’s more accurate. But “consensus” is still relative of course. There are some still who see an initial creation and then the six days are arranging the stuff (even this view leaves the timeframe open). And then there’s the Sailhamer/Postell position (mentioned by Walton) that Gen 1:2ff is only about the land of Israel. But that’s quite a minority position. But my understanding is that what you stated is on point.

69

Hello brother,

Are you aware that yours isn’t the definition of the gospel that Scripture itself uses?

1 Cor 15:1-8:

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

Mark considered his whole gospel (all sixteen chapters) “the gospel.” That’s why we call them “the gospels.”

Mark 1:1: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Your gospel is a particular distillation of the gospel. The gospel is actually bigger than you think.

If this Biblical perspective on “gospel” intrigues you, you might consider reading Scot McKnight’s The King Jesus Gospel.

By the way, nobody here on the Forum speaks for BioLogos officially, so I hope you won’t walk away from George thinking that he spoke for BioLogos. He’s not even part of BioLogos’s target demographic! :slight_smile: He’s just a friendly guy who likes to jump into the fray with us.

Peace to you, and happy Advent!

3 Likes
70

OK, I’ve changed the text to better reflect the scholarly conversation. Many thanks for helping me out with this.

I credited your help in the notes section below the post.

CC @TedDavis

71

Ok. But I’m now at Toccoa Falls College :slight_smile:

1 Like
72

Oh crap, I forgot about that switch. I was working off your site bio. I’ll make the changes.