Epistemology, apologetics, "feel-good religion," and evolutionary creationism

I certainly can agree with you!

1 Like

Hi Daniel,

I already agreed that there is value in art, science, and apologetics, so I’m in full agreement with Paul’s missiology.

However, nothing in Acts 17 or 18 contradicts the message of I Corinthians 1 - 2: there is no foundation other than Christ. Any foundation other than Christ is an idol, full stop (as the Brits say).

Now that I have engaged what you wrote, perhaps you would like to engage what I wrote:

So far, you are merely repeating the assertion that disagreeing with your hermeneutical approach to Genesis implies that we cannot reason from the Scripture.

This was based on a false dichotomy the first time you said it, in my opinion, and it’s still based on a false dichotomy.

Blessings,
Chris Falter

1 Like

Christy, Thanks for your response, especially in light of the fact that what I had written was deeply cutting. However, I have had many exchanges with TEs and believe that my remarks are warranted.

For one thing, the TE cannot expect to deprive Genesis 1-11 of its historical content and still retain a viable faith. Consequently, the TEs will then put themselves in opposition to the rest of the Bible, which regards these chapters as history. It is therefore not surprising that you write:

• None of the most important truth claims of the Bible (which I believe, by the way) can be proven with reference to historical or scientific facts.

You later cite WL Craig. However, he uses the historicity of the resurrection as one of his key proofs for the Bible and the Christian faith. If we have no convincing proof that Jesus rose from the dead, we have little compelling rationale to believe what He taught and how He affirmed the Scriptures. In contrast, you have written:

• This idea that the gospel is dependent on fact-checking the Bible and the Bible passing with flying colors just doesn’t ring true to me. The gospel depends on God being a trustworthy person whose revelation of himself in Scripture and in Jesus and by his Spirit is true. God is the source of truth. That is why the gospel is compelling.

While you are correct that we must believe that God and His revelation are trustworthy, we also must know WHY they are trustworthy. However, once you reject the history of the Bible is trustworthy – that the ENTIRETY of the Bible is “God-Breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) – it then becomes very difficult to believe that what remains of the Bible’s revelation is trustworthy. If we refuse to believe what the Bible very clearly teaches as history, how are we to believe what the Bible teaches as theology?

However, you have written:

• The authority of Scripture comes from God, not from some one to one correspondence with Scripture and facts. All throughout the New Testament what is held out as the basis for the authority of the message (whether it is being preached by Jesus, or the disciples, or the apostles) is the demonstration of the Spirit’s power.

However, “the demonstration of the Spirit’s power” was performed historically, as the OT and NT has often affirmed, but the TE does not receive His testimony:

• 2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

The entire Bible receives the testimony of the Spirit in Scripture as history, but the TE does not. Jesus so clearly quoted Genesis 1 and 2 as history:

• Matthew 19:4-6 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

However, the TE rejects Genesis 1-11 as history, contrary to the uniform testimony of the rest of the Bible. Consequently, if we refuse to believe what the Bible teaches as history, how are we to receive what it teaches as theology?

In fact, these two aspects of Scripture cannot be separated. We cannot separate the theology of the Cross from its history – that Christ historically died for our sins.

You claim that “at the end of the day, it’s Jesus only Jesus.” While I do not doubt your sincerity, I would like you to see that you have begun to descend on a slippery slope that can only take you away from the Jesus of the Bible.

The former co-head of Biologos, Karl Giberson, describes this slope:

• “Acid is an appropriate metaphor for the erosion of my fundamentalism, as I slowly lost confidence in the Genesis story of creation and the scientific creationism that placed this ancient story within the framework of modern science….[Darwin’s] acid dissolved Adam and Eve; it ate through the Garden of Eden; it destroyed the historicity of the events of creation week. It etched holes in those parts of Christianity connected to the stories—the fall, “Christ as the second Adam,” the origins of sin, and nearly everything else that I counted sacred.” (Saving Darwin; 9-10)

He then assured us that the acid would dissolve no further. However, we later find that Darwin’s acid had also dissolved the God of the OT. I also find that this acid has dissolved away huge chunks of the Christian worldview of the many TEs with whom I have had exchanges. For example, I haven’t found one who is against same-sex marriage. You can easily prove me wrong here.

Chris, Sorry if I hadn’t respond directly to you challenge:

• “There are many areas of knowledge that the Bible does not address. Set theory. Particle physics. Nuclear fusion. Double-blind experiments. Calculus. Alveoli. I could go on and on and on. Stating that God’s revelation of Himself in the Scripture is intended to give us teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness – so we can know Him, love Him, and share His love with one another – rather than scientific knowledge is consequently the obvious application of 2 Timothy 3:16.”

As you have correctly pointed out, Scripture doesn’t cover all forms of knowledge. Instead, we simply want to address what Scripture does cover.

My issue is with the history (not the “science”) of the Bible, which TEs deny, especially in Genesis 1-11. If Genesis 1-11 is mistaken about history, why not also the rest of the Bible? If these chapters aren’t fully God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17), what reason do we have to believe that the rest of the Bible is historically accurate?

Consequently, the Bible is seriously degraded. However, this problem is greatly multiplied by the fact that theology cannot be separated from history. For example, without the history of the Cross, there cannot be a theology of the Cross. If Christ didn’t historically die for our sins, then we still bear them.

More specifically, if Genesis 1-11 is not historically accurate, the theology of the Bible cannot stand. Jesus had based His teaching on divorce on the historicity of the creation account:

· He [Jesus] answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female [quoting Gen. 1:26 as actual history], and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ [quoting Gen. 2:24 as actual history]? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Had God not historically joined them together, divorce would not contradict what God had historically accomplished.

Similarly, Peter argued that we need to take seriously God’s promise of a future judgment, basing this on the fact that God had historically judged:

· For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly…then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment. (2 Peter 2:4-9)

Peter’s conclusion about the future judgment depends upon the historicity of God’s former judgments. Had they simply been parables teaching a spiritual lesson, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the promised future judgment is also nothing more than a parable.

The entire NT regards Genesis 1-11 as historical. Therefore, to deny the historicity of Genesis is also to deny the NT commentaries on Genesis.

However, TE problems do not stop here. While to deny history is to deny theology, it is also to deny any degree of certainty about our interpretations of the Bible. History grounds interpretation. If a worldwide flood did take place which destroyed the entire human race except Noah and his immediate family, this account says something concrete about the extent of sin and God’s hatred and judgment of it.

If, instead, this event did not take place, everything that it teaches remains in the darkness of uncertainty. Does God really hate sin, or is this a parable to merely scare humanity into conformity to a benign Santa Claus God? Does God judge? Perhaps not?

Historical context provides the necessary guidance to accurately interpret Scripture. Without this guidance, any interpretation is possible. Without the interpretive clarity, which the historical context provides, the TE is left without confidence. Without confidence, cultural norms fill the vacuum and become authoritative.

Consequently, it seems that TEs have been influenced in a “progressive” direction. To demonstrate this, I have often asked them, online, if they do not agree with same-sex marriage. Never has any of them gone on record to write that they do not agree with it. While they claim that they still believe in the basics of Christian teachings, their claims always seem insubstantial.

This kind of statement is a violation of our forum guidelines. Please avoid evaluating the faith of other people. You are not in a position to do that.

He uses it for evidence of the reliability of Scripture. There is a key difference between proofs and evidence that you keep ignoring. If WLC told me he based his faith on the historical evidence for the resurrection I would tell him he is misguided.

This just isn’t true. A person could live their whole Christian life completely ignorant of any evidences for the historical reliability of the gospels and it would not effect their salvation in the least, because salvation depends on faith in Christ. There is not must there. You think it is a good idea. Let’s be clear on the difference.

You can’t make prooftexts mean something they don’t mean. What does God-breathed-ness accomplish? It makes God’s word useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. It doesn’t make God’s word into a science textbook. It doesn’t make Genesis into a historical record that follows modern standards of objective reporting. I affirm all Scripture is God-breathed and completely trustworthy. We disagree about what the Bible “very clearly teaches as history” not because we have different origins views, but because we do exegesis differently. Like I said above, the way I do exegesis makes absolutely no reference to science. It does make reference to language, culture, and communication theory, as do a whole bunch of Evangelical Bible scholars with PhDs who think the Bible is God-breathed and trustworthy.

You know this statement makes no sense to people who don’t share your exegetical approach. There is a coherent process for moving from the text to theology. I recommend the Zondervan counterpoint book Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology.

Yes, and the Spirit continues to work with power today. Stop telling us what is inside the heads and hearts of others. You don’t know. what “the TE” believes. Again, it is a violation of forum guidelines to tell other people what they think and believe.

Jesus was talking about the establishment of marriage. I fully accept that marriage was historically instituted by God and complementary genders are God’s design. Jesus was not making a point about the literal historical accuracy of the Adam and Eve account. If that is what you see in it, you are reading into the text what is not there. It’s just as bad to add to the Bible’s message as it is to subtract, you know.

Flag on the play. You just conflated the literal historical accuracy of the entire text of Scripture with the historical accuracy of a single event. I agree it is theologically necessary that Christ historically died for our sins. And historically rose again. But it does not follow that it is therefore theologically necessary that every sentence of the Bible be literally historically accurate in order to communicate theological truth. Nothing in our salvation depends on Job literally sitting on the garbage heap covered in boils. Maybe he did, but the theological lessons of Job are accessible independent of the historical reality.

Well, if that is the case, then it is familiar, comfortable territory because I’ve been hanging out here on the slippery slope for twenty years. I even decided to become a missionary Bible translator so I could stay nice and close to Jesus and the Bible. Nobody who actually knows me is worried about my imminent descent into the abyss.

We already talked about this quote mine of yours. It is still inappropriate. It is a violation of forum guidelines to keep repeating the same argument, especially when you have been shown you are misrepresenting facts.

2 Likes

Great! Then…

I am a TE. I do not deny any of the historical content in Genesis.

This is falsehood. Show me where I put myself in opposition to the Bible. You cannot.

Where in the Bible does it teach this?

So your confidence comes from your own ability to interpret the Bible. Please explain to me your clear interpretation of Revelations. Does your difficulty here mean you have no confidence in the Gospels?

And regarding my faith, you preach falsehood. I am confident. http://peacefulscience.org/. Continuing to preach falsehood about others when corrected becomes slander. Please do not slander me.

Hi Daniel -

I agree with everything that @Christy and Joshua @Swamidass wrote regarding history in Genesis, so I won’t repeat it.

Since you posed the issue of same-sex marriage to me, I will answer you: I believe that same-sex marriage, like marital infidelity, is morally wrong.

It is another question altogether as to whether everything that is morally impermissible (such as being drunk in one’s home, or marital infidelity, or same-sex marriage) should also be legally impermissible. It is important to keep the difference between morality and legality in mind when we read what our fellow believers write.

Blessings,
Chris Falter

2 Likes

Thanks again for your patience with me. You responded:

• If WLC told me he based his faith on the historical evidence for the resurrection I would tell him he is misguided.

Would you say the same thing to doubting Thomas who had been persuaded by the evidence?

• A person could live their whole Christian life completely ignorant of any evidences for the historical reliability of the gospels and it would not effect their salvation in the least, because salvation depends on faith in Christ. (Christy)

Without having a sound cognitive basis to believe, the Christian will live a very truncated, uncertain, and defensive life, one that will remain highly vulnerable to attack, for example the false assertion that our four Gospels found their way into our Bible because of Constantine.

Consequently, I have often observed that Biologos and its followers are very reluctant to witness to the many professedly non-believers who feel very at home with their blogs.

When I stated that “the ENTIRETY of the Bible is “God-Breathed (2 Timothy 3:16),” you retorted:

• What does God-breathed-ness accomplish? It makes God’s word useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness…It doesn’t make Genesis into a historical record that follows modern standards of objective reporting.

Had the rest of the Bible never referred to Genesis 1-11, you might have a point. However, the Bible does refer to these chapters as history, and its theology is often inseparable from its history. For example, Peter, in proving that the coming judgment is not just a scare-tactic or myth, invoked God’s HISTORICAL judgments in support:

• 2 Peter 2:4-9 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly…then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment.

If this argument does not rely on actual history, then there is no reason to believe that a future judgment will also be actual. Let’s now turn to:

• 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ALL Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

First, ALL Scripture is God-breathed. Consequently, it is all “profitable.” However, the TE insists that they believe this way also, but they simply interpret it differently. Yes, they do interpret differently, disqualifying its historicity and the Bible commentary affirming its historicity.

This represents a major departure from Scripture, much like Mary Baker Eddy’s departure. She too insisted that Scripture is all correct as long as long as it is rightly interpreted.

Let’s now apply this to the Petrine verses above. By separating the Bible from its history, Peter’s argument collapses entirely. It means that these judgments didn’t take place, and if these didn’t take place, there is no reason to anticipate a future judgment.

Would you (or anyone else) care to comment on same-sex marriage?

I am glad to here that you have not compromised Scripture to accommodate Darwinism. I guess you are willing to live with the tensions between the Darwinian narrative and the Biblical, of which there are many points of conflict.

However, I am sure that you have observed the many problems that TEs have brought upon themselves with their interpretive uncertainty, having rejected the historical context. No wonder they have often written, “We have to remain humble about our interpretation of Scripture.” If only they were equally humble about Darwin.

1 Like

Good and solid distinction, Chris!

Thank you for backing of your claims about my faith. You will find that there are many types of TE.

I have not compromised Scripture. For me, evolution drove me back to Scripture and strengthened me and into connection to it.

I found that evolution conflicted with many interpretations of Genesis. However, I could not find any place that did not conflict with Scripture itself. Yes, you will point out some “apparent” contradictions, but I can point out equally “contradictory” statements between Scripture and old earth creationism and young earth creationism. Many of these contradictions, also turn not even to be in Scripture! For example, Genesis does not teach that animals reproduce “after their kind.” Rather it teaches that the “land gave forth plans animals of many kinds.” Even YEC OT scholars know this.

I find, also, that the purpose of the Bible is to bring me into correct understanding of Jesus. And this is what it does. However, there is no claim in Scripture that, “The Bible iss easy to interpret in all areas it touches upon.” That is an extra-biblical claim that appears obviously false. Outside of Jesus, the Bible can be difficult to interpret.

In fact Hebrews tells us that everything in the Old Testament is unclear, compared to Jesus. So we expect to be wrong about OT at times, but still have confidence we get Jesus right. If we are take Hebrews 1 seriously, we should doubt any one claiming to have a hermeneutic that confidently interpret every detail of Genesis. That appears to be false.

I’m certainly glad that St. Peter handed you the keys to the kingdom. Just to save time, can you give me a complete list of unforgivable sins?

Although I have quoted Mr. Mann here, I am not really interested in responding to him as to the oft-repeated canard that equates the historicity of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus to the historicity of Genesis and, by (il)logical extension, often the whole of the Old Testament.

For instance, John Walton, who I respect greatly, uses speech-act theory of locution, illocution, and perlocution to discuss inerrancy and historicity in The Lost World of Scripture. (Locution = literal/semantic meaning. Illocution = speaker’s intention/purpose for communicating. Perlocution = how listener received/understood the message.) Walton locates inerrancy not in the author’s locution – the literal meaning – but in his illocution – the theological purpose. I believe that Walton is absolutely correct here. Unfortunately, Walton then goes on to assert that although the illocution (author’s purpose) in Genesis was to teach theological truths about God and “the perlocution (audience response – ed.) focuses on a response to God rather than to the events themselves or the people engaged in the events,” he adds the parenthetical comment “at the same time realizing that they must therefore be considered real events and real people in a real past.” So despite the fact that Walton recognizes the theological truths of the illocution are primary, “the theology loses its force if the events did not happen.” This conclusion does not follow either logically or theologically from what preceded it.

In essence, Walton is claiming that the historical aspects should be considered part of the author’s illocution – his intended purpose – in early Genesis. Walton is in error in this. When the historicity of an event is part of the inspired author’s purpose (his illocution), he makes it clear. For instance, in regard to the historicity of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the inspired authors of Scripture make it obvious that this is their purpose. Just a few examples from the many available:

Luke – Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

John – one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

John again – That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

Peter – For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”[b] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

Paul – But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Clearly, the authors of the New Testament go out of their way to assert the historical fact of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. It is part of their illocution – their purpose in writing, which they make clear in passages such as these. There is nothing even remotely close to statements such as these in support of the historicity of early Genesis.

2 Likes

Ironically, that line of reasoning is why I find it difficult to accept the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. When read as poetry or as allegory, the obvious contradictions become mute, and acceptance of God’s message is unimpaired. If read literally, it makes for a very “truncated, uncertain and defensive” posture, and one that is vulnerable to collapse when challenged, and if that is the foundation of faith, threatens faith itself.
Regarding the gospels, also bear in mind that the early church survived and thrived without them being in their canon, though definately in a different situation being near to eye witness accounts.

5 Likes

Psalm 131
1 My heart is not proud, Lord,
my eyes are not haughty;
I do not concern myself with great matters
or things too wonderful for me.
2 But I have calmed and quieted myself,
I am like a weaned child with its mother;
like a weaned child I am content.
3 Israel, put your hope in the Lord
both now and forevermore.

2 Likes

You are making the mistake of applying the modern definition of history to an ancient document. You are trying to say the Bible is literally historical when in fact it is only historical. Speaking of slippery slopes, if you insist the Bible is literally historical then you have problems with major portions of the OT not matching the history of the surrounding cultures. You also have problems with the chronologies of the Gospels not lining up. The writers of the Scriptures were not trying to be a Edward Gibbon.

I must take issue with you here. When God finished creating, He pronounced His creation “very good.” How so? He had created the animal kingdom as herbivores. There was absolutely no indication of animal death. Adam and Eve were so comfortable and sinless that they were able to go naked without any shame. Death only came after they had sinned (Gen. 3) for the first time, in their rebellion against God. At this point, the world also sustained the effects of the Fall.

Scripture later informs us about the great hope - the restoration of all things. But to what? The survival of the fittest? Certainly not, but to the Edenic peace.

Yes, I deny the ‘history’ of the bible. The bible says that fruit-trees were created before fish, which I don’t think is true. I think fish appeared before fruit trees. And I think mosquitoes and tigers were carnivores from the moment they arrived. Does this mean that I deny that the Jews were transported to Babylon? Or that King Saul preceded King Solomon? Or that Jesus was crucified? Not at all.

This kind of statement often leaves more literal interpreters of the bible flummoxed. If you don’t believe one bit, how can you believe any of it? they wail, or, more astutely, how can you decide which bits are literally historically true and which bits aren’t? The answer lies in that other great witness to God’s divinity, namely his creation, the understanding of which is gradually unfolding. It is apparent to everyone, I think, that the bible must be interpreted. Even the most literal of the literalists finds himself explaining his interpretation to his friends - what is a ‘day’, what is a ‘kind’, what is meant by ‘fruit-trees’, or nephilim, and so on, and although he will nearly always claim that his interpretation is the only correct one, he will rarely be able to justify this. How, then, are we to discover the true interpretation? Well, as I said before, by studying the other pillar of God’s manifestation, his creation.

1 Like

Please note that I am not arguing against the poetic or figurative aspects of Scripture. I believe as you do that we have to understand Scripture as it was intended to be understood. Instead, I am arguing against the false dichotomy that claims that a passage is EITHER history or poetry. Instead, a passage can be both.

Bill-II, If we cannot trust the history of the Bible, I don’t see how we can trust the theology of the Bible, especially in light of the fact that it is often based on the history.

Unfortunately, too many TEs do not regard the Bible as maximally authoritative and therefore judge it from what they do regard as maximally authoritative - secular histories and the ToE. Does this preference demonstrate our “first love,” conveying where our treasure truly lies?

That’s for your exposition on Walton’s distinctions. However, I think you will find that the OT also makes its claims on history and eyewitness accounts:

Deuteronomy 4:32-35 (ESV) “For ask now of the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and ask from one end of heaven to the other, whether such a great thing as this has ever happened or was ever heard of.
33 Did any people ever hear the voice of a god speaking out of the midst of the fire, as you have heard, and still live?
34 Or has any god ever attempted to go and take a nation for himself from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs, by wonders, and by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and by great deeds of terror, all of which the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?
35 To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him.