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

In the context of your entire post, this concluding sentence makes sense and I agree with it. But I would probably not have put it out there alone where it makes an extra target for a quote miner to find (although I know nobody visiting our high-quality forum here would ever think of quote mining – right? :innocent:) By itself it makes it sound like we leave some aspect of ourselves behind when we step into Jesus’ presence. And I don’t think you mean it that way. When Jesus saved me, he saved me warts and all. Yes some stuff does need to get left behind (my sin). But the core of who we are in Christ I think includes all those spiritual gifts (including our minds and our growth in reasoning with each other) even though we use them imperfectly. We know that those gifts don’t save us – Christ does. But the “us” getting saved – baptized if you will, includes our bodies, souls, and minds.

At its worst, such a sentence ends up being used pejoratively to show that we have a stark choice between truth or Jesus. “Evidence” is the code stand-in for “truth” in our culture today. For those that acknowledge that our pursuit of truth is always incomplete, we rightly value the place that evidence has in that pursuit. Jesus doesn’t ask us to disregard the value of that as long as we aren’t idolizing it.

2 Likes

How do we interpret Scripture? We interpret it the way we do any other form of literature – by the intent of the author. How do we interpret the intent of the author? There is only one way to do it – from the perspective of the ENTIRE body of the author’s work. This is also what it means to interpret Scripture by Scripture.

However, you are interpreting Scripture through a “higher” and more authoritative lens, the lens of the present-day scientific consensus on evolution. For the TE, this lens has become determinative about how Scripture is to be understood, as if the findings and conclusions of this Consensus are more reliable than Scripture.

As such, the TE has imposed upon Scripture an alien taskmaster coercing Scripture to agree with the Consensus.

As a result of the TE is doing what the typical cult leader does. They too claim that the Bible is the Word of God, but they also claim that it can only be understood by using their Key to the Scriptures. For example, the rabbis claim that the real meaning of Scripture is deep and spiritual. It is not to be found on the surface. However, they too claim that they have certain formulas to penetrate into the depths.

Hi Daniel -

As an evolutionary creationist (feel free to abbreviate as “EC”), I am incorporating the entire body of the author’s work. Is not nature the work of God?

2 Likes

You have a rather singular “key” to understanding scriptures: that it must pass your modernist ‘historicity’ test before it should be considered trustworthy on anything. I don’t hear any others here claiming to have an “only key” to understanding scriptures, though I suppose you could call the insistence on not ignoring reality a sort of general key. How does your own modern key get a pass from your very own criticism?

1 Like

Daniel-

You seem to believe that Scripture can be accurately interpreted without a deep understanding of the cultural milieu and literary forms of the prophets and apostles through whom God revealed the Scriptures. Am I understanding you correctly?

Best,
Chris

Last warning, Daniel, before I start ruthlessly deleting your posts for failing to follow the forum guidelines.

STOP saying what “the TE” thinks, believes, knows, is motivated by, etc.
You may discuss your own beliefs
You may discuss the specific beliefs of individuals that have been shared here or published elsewhere.
YOU MAY NOT discuss or refer to the beliefs of “the TE.”

4 Likes

While close to assigning motives to another, I feel this statement is worthy of comment in that for most EC folks, while we can never isolate our worldview from our interpretation, the goal is to read scripture not through but rather with the assistance of science. The view is that scripture does not speak to science except tangentially, and that science only speaks to scripture in that some science helps us better understand scripture through things like better understanding of language and its translation, better understanding of what words and language meant in that culture and so forth.

I would agree with you here, but feel that in the “Entire body” of God’s work, we must consider creation, and most of all through Jesus, including that work in our life.

Again dancing close to the edge with equating evolution with a cult, but if you read many of these posts, you will see referenced theologic ideas that stretch back to Augustine and certainly not related to any evolutionary ideas, and certainly not being interpreted using any “key.” In fact, the main argument with some YEC proponents is that they claim knowledge of ultimate truth in their interpretation, so will admit that inference of cultism is one that we are all guilty of at times.

2 Likes

I was referring more to people who may or may not be scholars, but are inclined to being overly literal. For example in another thread right now, Luke 17:27 came up, which is about the days of Noah and concludes, “the flood came and destroyed all of them.” Both the originator of the thread and the author of this article: http://creation.mobi/nt-global-flood straightforwardly take this to mean there were no people anywhere in the world the flood did not destroy, and this has to be true because Jesus said so.

Yet that isn’t the end of it, because Luke goes on to say, “Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot:”…“it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed all of them.” Nowhere does the text qualify “all of them” to mean those in Sodom and Gomorra! Yet people assume one has to mean a universal flood, and the next is only a local disaster.

It makes me wonder how many other times in the Bible the word “all” is taken in a sense it wasn’t meant in. In fact I expect it’s probably a topic worth starting a new thread about, once I get my thoughts in order!

ETA: New topic!

3 Likes

This is an example when hanging on a single word means anything but literal - I am not inclined to enter into arguments on something so elementary - since we need to at least consider sentences and meaning in anything written. So Jesus speaking of sinners or wicked people somehow gets swept aside to be replaced by arguments on “all”? I prefer to take the lesson from what is written - if others get “hung up” on a word here and there (btw hung does not mean executed in my comment, just to avoid another controversy) than that is their interest, and unlikely to focus on what the Gospel teaches us.

1 Like

I agree entirely! Perhaps ‘overly literal’ means different things to you and me, but that’s probably not a question worth pursuing. Like I said in the new topic, I’m sure others have thoroughly covered this ground before me, I’m just not sure where to read about it!

I read a bit of the thread of comments here and great discussion! I agree with Dr. Swamidass about the reason for Christian faith is not an experience of some feeling but rests upon the TRUTH of the resurrection of Christ. Therefore, the issue of the Christian faith is indeed one deeply tied to the issue of science as it clashes with history! I will explain.

I was talking with a person in college who was part of a deeply troubling cult that is so beyond far fetched and historically irrational in every respect. It was a faith fully engaging the sinful flesh and human pride to entice folks towards it and had no real substantive arguments to bolster it being true, yet this person was deeply embedded in it nonetheless. When I shared the gospel with this person which was contrary to her views, she said something like, “All I can say is that when I walked into a service one day( in the building housing this cult) I felt such a burning sensation in my chest and such love and I will NEVER abandon it!” I thought to myself, only thing to do is to put her on a prayer list. She placed faith in feelings and abandoned faith upon God ordained reason, logic, history, archeology as recorded in His Word.

So feelings are not the substance of the Christian faith. Facts are! And these facts, in a serious way, come into a face to face confrontation with science and declare it “inept” for determining the truth of the facts! Dead people wrapped in 20 lbs of grave cloth for 3 days don’t come back alive. When the heart stops for a few days, it does not ever re-start! Scientific fact-but the history as seen by many over 2,000 years ago says something very different. And the actions of those who witnessed this historical truth of Christ’s resurrection also reflected they were serious about what they saw!

I see some have entered into some 1Cor chapters in this thread and if you continue towards chapter 15 Paul says this:
1Co 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
1Co 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
1Co 15:6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep

1Co 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
1Co 15:18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
1Co 15:19 If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
1Co 15:20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
1Co 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

So Paul’s arguments for the Christian faith are not feelings. They are having faith based on historically reasonable facts. If Christ was not raised, then all of the apostles would be considered fools for being willing to even die for a faith in an un-risen Christ. Not only is there history bolstering the claim here, but Old Testament prophecy to boot…The apostles would use the OT prophecy to point to the legitimacy of Christ as well. Research this.

The Gospel is having faith and hope in Someone who history tells us did indeed defy science and reappeared to many alive and well after they saw him die and get wrapped in tomb cloth head to toe. If this be true, then everything He said about life and Himself and the Law as found in the OT must also be true. And if this is the case then those He engaged to carry this message of hope must also be listened to.

With that said, when I hear a Christian go out of their way to suggest that we can be sure about certain aspects of creation via evolution from simple cells billions of years ago etc WHEN THEY WERE NOT THERE to witness any of it, then where I will not question their faith in Christ because that is a category for God alone, I will question why that Christian is so quick to adhere to a faith about how we arrived on this planet based on ideas only seemingly scientifically practical to the human mind but not anywhere supported by eye witness account or by Biblical prophecy. Since the faith in Christ I have is founded upon prophets and apostles who wrote truths based on personal historical experiences, when I hear them say “God created kinds” I will revere those words and not get myself engaged in a process of cognitive gymnastics towards trying to prove the presupposition that we evolved from ameobas necessitating billions of years as bolstered in the secular science classroom!

I agree with virtually all you have said, but I will question your emphasis on what science and materialists propose. Since science cannot prove central aspects of the faith, why bother with science re our faith. Also, if Christ and the Apostles did not care what theory re the world was in vogue during their day, why should we care about such stuff today?

Yet creationists and ETs will waste tons of ink on such trivia in terms of the faith in Christ. Does not make much sense to me.

1 Like

Not sure if I get your point here. I do see secular science performing a lot of theory gymnastics in order to stiff arm God out of the picture as they FIRST believe that molecules to complexity evolution that eliminates God if not totally then surely significantly, THEN propose model after model of how this works and how this is seen in the fossils. They then do such a good job of developing these models that even good Christian folks will unwisely take these hypothetical models and suggest in a backwards sort of way that these prove evolution, the belief that the secularists believed in and trusted upon at the beginning!

So why is it that secularism wants to stiff arm God we must ask? Of course the reason is that we are sinners who tend to not want God in our lives and because satan is a powerful deceiver and a liar and if he pushes God out of sight, then sin cannot be called sinful. If sin cannot be called sinful, then grace will be not needed. If grace is not perceived to be needed, then hell is going to be home. I even believe that this whole deceitful picture can even fool someone who believes they are a Christian because, for example, they believe themselves to be finely behaved sort of chaps, yet are not Christians because they have so pushed God out of the picture that sin, grace and salvation are not truly realized!

So then why do Christians do gymnastics in support (albeit partial) of these evolutionary models that so seemingly push God substantially out of the picture minus a few little spotty miracles? It makes no sense to me. And I love all of you guys who disagree with me!

@grog

You must have read the BioLogos Mission Statement page by now, right? I thought I would re-state the most relevant ones:

[3] We believe that all people have sinned against God and are in need of salvation.

[4] We believe in the historical incarnation of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man.

[5] We believe in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, by which we are saved and reconciled to God.

[6] We believe that God is directly involved in the lives of people today through acts of redemption, personal transformation, and answers to prayer. We believe that God typically sustains the world using faithful, consistent processes that humans describe as “natural laws.” Yet we also affirm that God works outside of natural law in supernatural events, including the miracles described in Scripture. In both natural and supernatural ways, God continues to be directly involved in creation and in human history.

[7] We believe that the methods of science are an important and reliable means to investigate and describe the world God has made. In this, we stand with a long tradition of Christians for whom Christian faith and science are mutually hospitable. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Materialism and Scientism that claim science is the sole source of knowledge and truth, that science has debunked God and religion, or that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality.

[8] We believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life over billions of years. God continues to sustain the existence and functioning of the natural world, and the cosmos continues to declare the glory of God. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Deism that claim the universe is self-sustaining, that God is no longer active in the natural world, or that God is not active in human history.

[9] We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God. -

So, @grog, don’t these mission statements do a lot to comfort you?

Which one of these statements do you find the least comforting in your view?

1 Like

I suppose I see things as (a) people of faith believe in God, and Christians confess Christ as our Saviour, (b) people do not believe and seek to live as agnostics, and (b) there are those who oppose faith and religion and seek to convince others to look to materialism and nihilism as a type of pseudo-belief.

I think (a) is based on the Mercy and Grace of God, and thus I cannot see much value in arguing about (b) - as to (c), I understand some arguments may disturb some Christians - but Christianity has put up with such behaviour for 2000 yrs, so I for one get a bit bored with the repetition.

As far as Satan goes, Christ defeated him and while I get your point, we need to be aware of all deceit and seek the truth. I doubt if science and scientists in general are given to deceit, but many including non-scientists prefer a materialistic outlook, and this is the area that I prefer to examine.

I think this is a vast generalisation - many Christians do not push God out, but are sincere in their belief that science provides something true - I am a scientist and I approach my profession with a skeptical outlook, but this enables me to separate error from fact. Others who draw theological inferences from science imo are taking a wrong approach, but that does not mean they are not sincere or lack faith.

3 Likes

Please stay on topic. I have moved a bunch of posts to private messages because they are off-topic and I don’t want to keep starting new public threads for Greg’s assertions that there is no evidence for evolution. Please respond to Greg in the private messages, not on this thread.

It speaks volumes that Daniel keeps doing that…

3 Likes

But what does it mean that so many people keep responding to him and to grog? IMO there is an inflection point where “engaging the critic” becomes “feeding the troll.”

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.