THEISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS MINIMIZE APOLOGETICS, THE SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCES FOR THE FAITH

My Response to a Biologos Foundation “Moderator”:

“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 theistic evolutionists (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For one thing, the TE cannot expect to deprive Genesis 1-11 of its historical content and still retain a viable faith.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 also 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.

Of course, if you dismiss the Bible’s historical testimonies, you cannot consistently use them. 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.”

HERE IS MY RESPONSE TO HER NEXT RESPONSE:

“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?”