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

Actually, I like evidence a lot. I like evidence for why a particular exegesis and interpretation is warranted. “Daniel Mann thinks so” is not evidence in support of a valid interpretation in my book. No offense. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Links are fine, if they back up what you are saying and provide information of general interest. We don’t appreciate links that are included for the main purpose of directing traffic away from discussion here to promote discussion elsewhere. And we don’t want our boards to become the surrogate comment boards for someone’s personal blog, which is pretty much what you did here, and why it was skating close to the line as far as our policy goes. It was technically allowable because you didn’t start a new thread with a link to your personal blog. That isn’t allowed.

Allow me to question this wording for a moment. Facts cannot be “more trustworthy and authoritative.”

A fact is objective reality. It is either true or it is not a fact. I think the word you could use in your claim is ‘statement.’ Statements can be more trustworthy and authoritative than other statements, and on the face of it, believing that the statements in the Bible are more trustworthy and authoritative than other statements is not very objectionable.

The problem is the claim that there is no such thing as facts that contradict statements in the Bible. This claim cannot be disproven if people assume from the start it is true, and if this is so, it is a worthless foundation for people to argue that everything in the Bible has been shown to be true, which I have seen people say.

It strikes me as a very fear-based response, to be afraid that if every detail of the Bible is not true, that the whole book is “worthless.”

Thanks for your response!

1 Like

The areas don’t agree because the writers had a different idea on how to write history. Once you admit to copyist errors or mistranslations where does it end? You would be willing to admit to text errors to maintain YOUR sense of what history should be? Talk about a slippery slope.

Was Jesus lying when he said he would be in the tomb for “three days and nights?” He was actually only in the tomb for two nights, one full day, and small parts of two days. As a history text I would have to say Jesus is the one who is lying. (No not really just making a point).

@Daniel_Mann

It seems to me that you assume there are only two kinds of people:

Type A: Believes the Bible is full of propositions that accurately and objectively depict historical events and scientific realities. Because we know based on evidence that all these facts are true, we can have confidence that the Bible is true and its theological message is trustworthy.

Type B: Believes the Bible is full of propositions that are inaccurate depictions of historical and scientific realities. Because they have deemed the Bible (or at least Genesis 1-11) untrustworthy and full of factual errors, they really have no confidence that anything the Bible says is true or that its theological message is trustworthy.

You really need to step out of your narrow worldview for just a moment and acknowledge that these are not the only two ways to look at the Bible.

The Bible has a bunch of narratives that need to be interpreted carefully to understand what their didactic points are. Sometimes a culturally conditioned way of presenting history allows for exaggerations, mythologizing, rearranging chronology, using numbers and genealogies in symbolic ways, apocalyptic imagery, etc., so we should not assume that every narrative is doing nothing more than presenting objective, unvarnished facts. That doesn’t mean the narratives are fiction, or allegories, or poetry, or lies. That doesn’t mean the Old Testament doesn’t present actual history. It just means that maybe we should be less concerned about going through with a highlighter and trying to separate out historical fact from “other” and more concerned about asking questions like, “What point is this narrative making?” “How am I supposed to respond to this narrative?” “What does this narrative reveal about the character of God?”

Someone with the approach I just described never has to “let go” or “deny” the historicity of the Bible. They have just always conceived of its historicity differently than Type A and B. They don’t have to “lose confidence” in anything, because their confidence was never in the literal historical and scientific accuracy of the Bible’s narratives in the first place. They never decide parts of the Bible must be dismissed because they are “false” or “made up” or “just a myth” or “not true” or “unreliable” because that is not the grid they impose on the Bible in the first place.

When are you going to accept the fact that not everyone fits in one of the two categories you are capable of imagining?

6 Likes

I think your comments revolves about what a person believe is God inspired. Another point that is often missed is that the writers (Moses and all others) demonstrated they walked with God in faith. Faith is not emphasised sufficiently in todays materialistic/atheistic culture (I guess it answers a question I find emphasised in the Gospel - will He find faith on this earth in our times?)

1 Like

Yes—plus, I guess, hoping to inspire a little awareness that saying you believe “The Bible is the Inspired Word of God” doesn’t have to be the same thing as “Every word is true in the most literal sense.”

In some ways, our culture is able to have discussions over a broader range than was possible at many points in the past. On the other hand, we very easily get distracted and entertained by having so much information at our fingertips, and pondering things deeply can get crowded out.

"… saying you believe “The Bible is the Inspired Word of God” doesn’t have to be the same thing as “Every word is true in the most literal sense.”

I feel this outlook (inspired vs literal) is relatively recent in Christianity - the common ground is that of faith as displayed by the life a person is and thus the type of person is synonymous with their faith - and all of this is relevant to reading the Bible. When this dimension is included, there is little to no difference between “I believe it is the Word of God” and “every word is inspired by the Holy Spirit” (and btw my understanding also requires guidance by the Holy Spirit).

I am unsure how literal sense gets into this, but perhaps you may mean scholars may argue about language and translations.

1 Like

Perhaps now, while not confronted with challenges to their faith, apologetics (cognitive reasons for faith), might not seem relevant to them. However, as we experience challenges to our faith, we will need to rationally confront those challenges. While Jesus was with the Apostles, they might not have needed rational reassurances, as long as they weren’t drowning in a boat in the middle of the Galilee. However, Jesus would often prepare them:

• John 14:28-29 You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place you may believe.

They would later require other infusions of reassuring evidences:

• Acts 1:3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. (Acts 2:22).

John the Baptist would also require further cognitive reassurances. Although he had been Israel’s greatest prophet and testified to the identity of Jesus, his faith began to fail him as he languished in prison. He therefore sent out his disciples to ascertain whether Jesus was really the Messiah.

Jesus could have told them, “Tell John not to put his faith in evidences and proofs.” Instead, he sent back John’s disciples with these words:

• Matthew 11:4-5 “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.”

TE has made our faith less than what it should be. All of us, including your indigenous people, are required to:

• 1 Peter 3:15 …always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.

By emptying Scripture of its historicity and reinterpreting it otherwise, TE has not only deprived us of our defenses but has made Scripture increasingly unapproachable, depriving us of the necessary historical interpretive context. This is why TEs go around warning, “We have to be humble about our Biblical conclusions.” They have become so humble they have little to stand upon.

You are adopting an unnecessary conclusion, perhaps one that is more in line with your worldview. “Three days and nights” might simply be a way of talking, a manner of speech, that denotes any part of three days?

Unfortunately, your stance takes you far afield of Jesus’ teachings about how we should take Scripture:

Matthew 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

By not embracing this vital piece of the puzzle, we tend to exercise such freedom that we become Scripture’s judge rather than allowing Scripture to judge and direct us.

However, the TE has designated Genesis 1-11 as non-historical. Essentially, it has cut it off from its necessary historical context. Did the TE arrive at this conclusion exegetically? Did the TE determine that Noah’s flood wasn’t worldwide from any Scriptural reference? Can the TE make a Biblical case that sin and death did NOT enter the world through Adam and Eve? Not at all! Instead, the TE imposed upon Scripture an alien philosophy derived from their own university culture.

By doing so, Scripture is no longer a coherent whole. Jesus cannot be the second Adam. He cannot reverse a Fall that had never taken place. There cannot be a “restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21) to the killing endemic to the survival-of-the-fittest. Instead, God is at fault for instituting a plan that involved sin and death at the outset.

Yes. And also by observing God’s creation too --both before and after the concept of evolution was on the scene.

Yes.

Regarding physical death – yes.

Probably. Our present cultures of origin and educational immersions [for better or worse, and despite YEC protestations to the contrary] cannot be left to one side as we read Scriptures or anything else. So TEs are guilty of seeing through current lenses of understanding. They are also guilty of being more self-aware of this than apparently most YECs are willing to be. While YECs are busy denying that anything at all mediates between God’s direct message and their reception of it, TEs are generally busy critically examining those mediating influences – even on themselves.

Many of us, while under the YEC paradigm experienced [edit: observed] an incoherence in Scripture (even apart from any scientific considerations). [additional edit: As Christians we trust that the incoherence is not really in Scripture but instead in our own inconsistent approaches to understanding it --which then make it look incoherent.] Those willing to address this head-on by examining their own presuppositions inspire more confidence in their growing grasp of truth than those willing to engage in theological gymnastics for the purpose of denying that any such self-examination is needed. Which bank would you deposit your money in?

2 Likes

Hi Daniel-

You keep repeating yourself, as if force of assertion could answer questions of genre, culture, and message. Questions that you have never addressed.

Ironically, here’s what is really happening: the YEC movement empties historicity of its meaning. It sweeps aside overwhelming evidence about the history of life on earth with the ultimate post-modern rhetoric–by claiming that “worldview” is the one and only factor that drives the interpretation of scientific evidence.

Thus your protestations that others are making an assault on Scriptural historicity are extraordinarily ironic. The YEC position on historicity that I have heard enunciated by Ham and Lisle is that history depends solely on worldview. Yet when others want to talk about the worldview of the readers of ancient texts, you will have none of it!

4 Likes

And what did Jesus promise them in light of his departure? The Bible and some good apologists to defend it? Nope. The Holy Spirit. I still think you are projecting your own struggles on everyone. You know what was the most challenging year for my faith? It was the year one of my best friends’ husband died suddenly of colon cancer when she was seven months pregnant, another really close friend lost her baby at 37 weeks gestation, another friend’s baby was born with all its organs outside of its body and died minutes after birth, another friend’s son was killed in Iraq, and several women I cared about had their husbands walk out on them under really crappy circumstances. All of these situations were things I prayed really faithfully and diligently about and it sure seemed like God did not hear or care. I knew lots of arguments for the historicity of the gospels and the rationality of faith, but they were no comfort when it seemed like everyone around me was suffering and hurting for no reason. What was comforting? The Holy Spirit reminding me of the reality of God’s love, even when I wasn’t sensing it at all.

That’s what I’m trying to do here. There is more than one way to defend your hope. Yes, I “am deprived” of the defenses for the faith based on a literal interpretation of OT history. I was never convinced those “defenses” were all that amazing in the first place, so no big loss as far as I’m concerned.

I have Jesus to stand on. He’s huge. :relaxed:

3 Likes

You are correct. This is how most people would understand it. However, you want to take the worldview that the Bible is literal history. Once you admit that the Bible contains bits that aren’t really literal history where do you draw the line? You seem to be saying that every word that comes from the mouth of God may not be literally historically correct. If this is so why make the case the Genesis HAS TO BE literally historically correct? Couldn’t it be another case of a word from God that is not meant to be taken as literally historical.

Go back to Deuteronomy and look at that in context. It is not talking about Scripture but the power of God. We live because of the power (word) of God.

1 Like

You keep talking about “the TE” as if there is some sort of creed or doctrinal statement all Christians who accept evolution are baptized into. There isn’t. There are as many kinds of Christians who accept evolution as there are kinds of Christians. Beyond the really basic stuff, Christians have lots of differing ideas. For crying out loud, STOP talking about “the TE” as if there is only one way all of us are allowed to see things and as if you have omniscient access to “the TE’s” mind and heart. It is extremely off-putting. I think Genesis 1-11 is historical on its own terms. We have different ideas about what that entails when it comes to interpreting the text.

Yes, those who care a whole lot about the global/local distinction can make a pretty good case based on textual evidence. Same thing with the idea that Genesis 1 is an account of the domains of creation and their filling with life and function, not a blow-by-blow of the chronology of natural history. You weren’t aware of this?

Do we need to? The important take-away is that sin entered the world and we all need a Savior. This is self-evident to anyone who looks at the world and/or their own pathetic life.

Sure he can. I believe he was. No cognitive dissonance at all if Adam is an archetype. The point of Jesus being the second Adam is that he is a faithful image of God, where Adam and every other human being have failed to be faithful images of God. Just curious, but what Scripture text says to you that Jesus “reversed the Fall”? When I read Romans it seems the focus of Jesus’ mission is on freeing people from slavery to sin, something that is an obvious current and historical and corporate and personal condition of humanity, and reconciling them to God. The focus is not on Adam’s historicity and the genetic transmission of the sin condition.

The restoration of all things does not refer to a time machine that sends us back to the moment of creation. It is the setting right of all injustice and the destruction of all systems that thwart God’s plan for his creation. Besides, the New Creation is described differently than the original creation. We don’t get beamed back to Eden to cavort with all the vegetarian animals naked among the flowers. The New Jerusalem is established and God dwells among his people in a big multi-cultural party. It is a totally different picture.

Actually, you don’t solve theodicy problems with a “no death before the Fall” theology. Where evil comes from and why God allowed it is still an issue.

4 Likes

Just when I thought my own imaginings of Heaven didn’t need any help … be careful what sorts of images you impart to the visually-oriented among us! :flushed:

On another topic … you’ve mentioned William Lain Craig (WLC) several times in fairly neutral terms. I’m with you 100% that our foundational cornerstone is Christ alone and that we should never attempt to replace that with clever argumentation. I think he would agree – he insists that apologetics should retain its important place at the table, though, on the strength even of those few (important ones! – think C.S. Lewis) that were brought to Christ through that. And I would add that there may be an even bigger open door through which people are leaving the faith for the same (tragically unnecessary) reason. So even the demonstration that Christianity at its best is of course reasonable and plausible is important, I think. It helps stem the tide of those who feel compelled to leave over misguided intellectual reasons. I take Craig’s point. And then of course Craig goes on to show that the reasoners among us can do even better than mere plausibility, thereby possibly inviting some in through that door.

But all of it is but one means of delivery only … toward Christ who does the real saving work.

3 Likes

@Christy @Daniel_Mann

I have a suggestion on how to resolve some of the confusion about “apologetics” and “evidence” that is being expressed by some here. There is a tendency to be anti-“apologetics and evidence”, at least in our rhetoric. At the same time, we know that there is evidence and good arguments too. How do we make sense of that contradiction.

Regarding “apologetics”, there are two ways to understand it. One is problematic, but the other makes space for William Lain Craig, NT Wright, Aquinas, and a whole lot of important Christian thought, without falling into idolatry.

  1. The Bad: Apologetics is a “Defense” of the faith. Based on a mistranslation of the Greek, this teaches that God some how needs our effort to defend Himself or for us to defend or own faith. This is just false teaching. God does not need our defense. The work of Jesus is complete in us, and does not need to be made perfect.

  2. The Good: Apologetics is an “Explanation” of the faith. This correctly affirms work of NT Wright, Craig, Aquinas, Molinists, Plantinga, and more. It is more inviting because we know we have nothing to lose (to defend) in the conversation, and it is an invitation to think about how the world makes sense in light of Jesus. This also broadens apologetics beyond evidentialism to include the work of BioLogos, theology, and testimony. This also is very close to the apologetics we see in the new testament.

And #2 is valuable because it recovers a more truthful understanding of apologia, and I would argue this apologetics if essential to the health of the Church.

Regarding evidence, there is a similar duality. A good way of thinking of evidence and a bad.

  1. The Good. There is tons of evidence in this world that points to God, the Bible, and to Jesus. He is, after all, the Truth, and we expect that there is evidence in this physical world we all share. We also see that Jesus is not averse to giving people evidence (thomas, etc.), however the only evidence he offers is of his identity and his Resurrection. He goes so far as to describe the Resurrection as the One Sign: the only miracle with evidence He leaves for skeptics. Therefore, we should gladly embrace this evidence and explain it the best we can. Evidence is good because it points us to Jesus, in whom we can place our trust.

  2. The Bad. We are still prone to idolatry. Encountering Jesus in evidence, we then turn to trust in evidence. This is the danger that we cannot escape apart from His grace. Idolatry of evidence is most apparent when we cling to false data and bad arguments as if the confidence of our faith depended on it. This is a clear sign we are trusting created things rather than the One Who Creates them.

In our reaction against “evidentialism”, which I define here as trust in evidence over Jesus, there is danger in rejecting the truth that Jesus made the evidence for a purpose. Improper use does not negate proper use. We should gladly discuss the evidence, while carefully insisting our trust (or faith) be placed in the One two whom the evidence points, not the evidence itself. In holy fear and repentance, we must lay this evidence down to follow Him.

In the end, we must follow Jesus, not evidence.

Thoughts?

4 Likes

Beautifully expressed. Apologetics may help reassure us that we are rational in our faith, but to rely upon on that evidence for our faith means to put our faith at risk when presented with a convincing argument. To me, that is one of the biggest dangers in both the YEC and ID movements, though I know many in both who have solid vibrant faiths.

This does need to be emphasized. The Bible does repeatedly cite historical evidence for its claims (and yes evidence is not proof). Paul repeatedly appeals to eyewitness testimony which he claims is reliable. Scripture does not suggest we retreat into mysticism and shelter our faith in a tiny bubble insulated from reality. The Christian faith is a historical faith insofar as it rests on events which occurred in history and altered its course.

I am wary of efforts to remove Christianity and the Bible from the real world, and shelter it from scrutiny by representing it as making no independently verifiable truth claims. I am even more wary of substituting the Bible’s own appeal to historical evidence, with an appeal to a subjective and unverifiable inner witness called “the Holy Spirit”. Neither Christ nor the apostles did this. On the contrary, when Thomas demonstrated he needed physical evidence to convince himself of Christ’s resurrection, Christ gave him exactly the evidence that he needed. He didn’t even rebuke him. He certainly didn’t say “Well come on Thomas, you have the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, what more do you want?”.

1 Like