tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260262501726711051.post7013178420830861646..comments2020-08-24T16:30:51.874-07:00Comments on Evolution for the Avid Creationist/Bible Believer: We've Evolved to Disbelieve Evolution?Paul Pavaohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03135622914331255065noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260262501726711051.post-30606573164110848452012-06-18T10:13:48.347-07:002012-06-18T10:13:48.347-07:00Hi Darek. Thanks for the comment.
I don't thi...Hi Darek. Thanks for the comment.<br /><br />I don't think most Christians know they're lying when they repeat what's passed on by creation organizations. I even think that AiG is trying very hard to correct the gross dishonesty that they've passed on in the past (thus their page on arguments creationists shouldn't use anymore). In that I agree with you.<br /><br />Believers don't have to be that science savvy. They need two or three people they trust in their congregation to look at the issue for them ... if they're that interested.<br /><br />I believe the early Christian approach to Scripture leaves room for evolution. I believe the modern approach to Scripture that does not leave room for evolution is not only faulty, but it produces a faulty, pharisaic brand of Christianity that causes many to fall away and that God cannot fully get behind.<br /><br />My concern is not evolution. My concern is the worship of the Bible and the lack of willingness most people have to judge fruit and trust the Spirit of God. They have immense trust in their own interpretations of Scripture, so much so that not even God himself can lead them away from it. Evolution is just one of many tools I use to teach the Scriptural and historical truth that is the very basis of the new covenant, which is that the sons of God are those who are led by the Spirit of God, and if that leading is in the church, as a united people, it can be trusted to be "true, and not a lie."<br /><br />As for believing that the apostles died for the message they preached, I don't lean on the New Testament for that. As you say, it only talks about one of them doing so. I lean on history for that. Yes, there is only tradition, but the existence of churches from India to England started by those apostles and the existence of many firsthand testimonies to the persecution and death of early Christians make it very safe to infer that the apostles really did give up their lives for the Gospel as tradition holds.Paul Pavaohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03135622914331255065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260262501726711051.post-91166796689326055222012-06-17T17:57:48.059-07:002012-06-17T17:57:48.059-07:00Dear Paul
Your blog and pages are informative and...Dear Paul<br /><br />Your blog and pages are informative and thought-provoking. I continue to pray fervently for your recovery. You have faith, integrity, and incredible energy. You are an inspiration to the rest of us.<br /><br />Now I'd like to offer a couple of measured criticisms of your comments.<br /><br />Believers who intentionally lie and deceive and fail to repent do have much to answer for, of course. But do most believers who argue against evolution fall into that category? I doubt it. Many believers reject evolution in part because they have read anti-evolution material that seems God-honoring and persuasive, although that material might contain deceptions they are unaware of. But an even greater reason for their rejection is their straightforward historical reading of Genesis, the same way you read the gospel accounts about Jesus. Adam seems to be a historical figure insofar as he is said to have had sons who lead in an apparently historical line of descent to, among others, Abraham, who is the subject of what you yourself probably take as a more-or-less straightforward historical narrative.<br /><br />Now, I see the problem with resisting mountains of scientific evidence. But if such evidence is to be the basis for a pretty radical departure in the way we read a crucial part of the Bible, then it must be either intelligently digested and evaluated or else taken on the authority of those who advocate it. This in turn means that in order for believers to interpret Genesis 1-11 correctly, they must educate themselves in all the arcane knowledge of the geological and biological sciences. That is at the very least counter-intuitive to what we know of the early Christians' approach to the Scriptures, which would not seem to require long, difficult courses in worldly education.<br /><br />Effectively, we're saying that believers must be so science-savvy that they can weigh, parse, and then finally reject the kind of scientific-sounding arguments they encounter in Answers in Genesus, which are made by seemingly Godly men who seem to be defending the integrity of the Scriptures. If they are not inclined to educate themselves to that rather high standard, then alternatively we expect them to accept purely on authority the opinions of scientists who mostly reject the Bible as inspired revelation over the opinions of the aforesaid seemingly godly men seemingly defending it.<br /><br />Is this what we are asking of ordinary believers? If yes is the answer, it is not an easy answer, not a slam-dunk in terms of spiritual discernment.<br /><br />To go on, you repeat the argument that I often come across that we can believe what the New Testament says about Jesus because the apostles were willing to die for those propositions. The trouble is, I don't know of independent, objective evidence that the apostles did die for them. The New Testament says that one them did (James brother of John) and that others would, but the credibility of the New Testament is what the argument is designed to establish. Extra-biblical Christian tradition says that they did, but the documents carrying that tradition are not held by believers to be inspired, and contain certain other historical claims that few believers would be inclined to defend. Extra-biblical tradition is very much a mixed bag and hardly qualifies as strong, objective historical evidence. The historical case is probably strongest for Paul, who did not claim to have witnessed Jesus' ministry, teachings, and crucifixion.<br /><br />Do I doubt that at least some of the original apostles endured martyrdom? Absolutely not. But I believe they were martyrs because I believe the New Testament is inspired, not the other way around.<br /><br />Darek BarefootAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407981491621730002noreply@blogger.com