Dr James White Attacking TE and BioLogos


(James Hiddle) #1

This was from a while back and I’ve looked through the search engine if this topic was discussed and didn’t get any hits so I’m not sure if the folks at BL or those who follow BL are aware of Calvinist Dr James White and his attack on BioLogos from his show The Dividing Line but here is a link to the discussion he had from a caller who was calling about the situations that were happening at BL James White And BioLogos


(Brad Kramer) #2

It wasn’t a discussion. It was a rant, with small phrases being contributed by a caller. The caller was interrupted in the middle of every sentence.


(Casper Hesp) #3

I believe this is a topic worthwhile to discuss, especially since I respect the apologetic work of Dr. James White in reaching the Muslim community. Apparently, your thread did not get any traction on the forum since the last reply was from October?? I haven’t listened to the recording yet, but I will and post my thoughts here! Right now I am not expecting much more than the standard YEC lines of defense such as:

“You disrespect the authority of the Bible.” (BioLogos does respect it)
“You ignore the straightforward interpretation.” (BioLogos aims for the appropriate interpretation which is not always straightforward)
“Jesus also believed in a young earth.” (this claim has no exegetical evidence in the Scriptures)

But who knows, maybe Dr. White will manage to surprise me!


(Casper Hesp) #4

Okay I listened to the recording. Unfortunately, nothing worth discussing. Main claims: (1) “if you don’t interpret the Bible like James White does, you reject the authority of Scripture” and (2) “stuff is just too complex for evolution”. Very weak, but probably very confirming for those who have exactly the same view as him.

There were also some dirty personal attacks by claiming that BioLogos just wants to “fit in with the worldly people”. He even went as far as comparing BioLogos with a cult, a heresy, et cetera.

This makes me disappointed with James White, I expected a deeper understanding of the matter and a more Christian attitude…


#5

I see that kind of childish argument at far too many ministry websites. Do they really think that everybody makes conclusions based on who will like them if they hold a particular view? That sounds more like junior high than it does science and adults reviewing the evidence.


Could the Universe of Genesis 1 merely be Eden?
(Wookin Panub) #6

It may sound childish to you, but it is quite true. Why else would Christians such as yourself not read the book of Genesis as plainly written? Why would Christians such as yourself delude yourself into believing that the bible and evolution can co-exist? Why would Christians such as yourself have to twist and contort scriptural interpretation to fit evolution? Why would Christians such as yourself believe that Adam and Eve were not real figures as the bible plainly states? I can go on. [content deleted by moderator] The truth is, you have jumped through too many hoops to make the bible say what it clearly doesn’t. And then you ask, why people such as I, believe that many theistic evolutionists are more man centered, and afraid what men will say rather than God.

If the Pharisees who believed that Jesus was who He says, He was, and still were afraid to open their mouth for fear of what the other Pharisees would do or think, then my friend, who are you to believe that you are somehow immune from doing the same thing?

(John 12:42) “Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue;”


Could the Universe of Genesis 1 merely be Eden?
(Chris Falter) #7

Hi WP,

Since you asked, I will take the time to respond to your sincere question. Speaking just for myself: there are 3 reasons I accept a non-literal hermeneutic for Genesis 1-3:

  1. The pre-eminent theologian and scholar of the church, Augustine of Hippo, rejected a literal hermeneutic. As you are no doubt aware, he ministered and wrote in about 400 A.D.

  2. A literal reading hermeneutic leads to very difficult problems, such as the different order of events in Gen. 2 compared with Gen. 1, and the survival of plants in day 3 despite the non-existence of the sun. I know that a determined exegesis can work around the issues. However, the difficulties were dispositive for Augustine, who rejected a literal hermeneutic because of them.

  3. Cultural/literary considerations. After spending several years serving Christ overseas, I realized that members of a non-western culture can have a dramatically different approach to writings than the one I grew up with. Until I had spent years overseas, it scarcely occurred to me that readers from different cultures might very well have a different “take” than I did. Once I realized that, I was open to gaining hermeneutical insights from Christian experts in Ancient Near Eastern culture like John Walton.

I do not expect you to suddenly agree with me. Instead, my hope is that you will recognize that I have plausible reasons for my convictions, and that we can serve our Lord Jesus Christ together, as brothers, even though we may disagree on the exegesis of Genesis 1-3.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter


(James McKay) #8

Wookin, evolutionary creationism does not reject “the book of Genesis as plainly written.” What it rejects is the thick, unbiblical layer of tradition, eisegesis and science fiction that YECs plaster on top of the Book of Genesis. Accelerated nuclear decay, catastrophic plate tectonics, and dinosaurs on the Ark are not in the Bible.

To any honest individual not confined to the bubble of the young-earth echo chamber, “reading the book of Genesis as plainly written” tells them that it leaves a lot of things wide open to interpretation and leaves a lot of questions about the how and when of creation unanswered. Remember too that 2 Peter 3:8, Psalm 90:4 and linguistic considerations all allow for the days of creation to be any length of time at all.

Be careful Wookin. I realise that your definition of the word “evolution” probably differs wildly from the careful and precise definition used by scientists who actually study the subject, and probably does include certain ideas that are dubious or false, but even so, there are still vast swathes of the subject that are indisputable facts, and it is simply not honest for anyone familiar with the evidence and the scientific method to claim otherwise. This being the case, insisting that the Bible and evolution can not coexist is not rejecting evolution; it is rejecting the Bible.

Many evolutionary creationists do believe that Adam and Eve were real historical figures and that the Fall was a real historical event.