Thank you for the lively interchange. You make some good points. Science isn't determined by poll taking, I knew when I listed these folks that I was reverting back to the Medieval approach of proof by citation of "authorities" and you were quick enough to catch it. But I wasn't merely taking a poll, but highlighting that credible persons in other disciplines have raised serious questions to how scientists are currently interpreting the "evidence". I'm not refuting that there is evidence out there that needs to be accounted for. However, I think because of epistemological concerns, no area of investigation, even science, can claim autonomy from these other important disciplines as scientists do their work. If the human capacity for reason has been impaired by the effects of the Fall, then we must be cautious about being too absolute in conclusions drawn in any area of investigation, science and theology as well. And, if the Fall of creation has impaired the creation itself in any way (which I believe Scripture indicates) then we shouldn't be surprised that there are limitations on our ability to accurately describe events as far remote from our immediate investigation as the very beginnings. I'm much more confident of the abilities of science to unfold and explain "real time phenomena" that can be empirically tested by direct observation and experimentation than trying to reverse engineer to draw conclusions about events that happened possibly aeons ago.
Have you read Tim Keller's paper that was offered on the website Biologos.com? Keller, interacting with Derek Kidner crafts a view which takes the Scriptures seriously and does in fact embrace the view of macro-evolution to explain the origins and development of biological species up to humans. He takes the view I believe I hear is also yours; however, from his listening to Scripture sees no need to interpret the evidence to the denial of two original human parents of the race, even while allowing for the possibility of their selection from a population of pre-human hominids. Its not my preferred view, but given my stated preference for a certain latitude of possibilities and permissible scenarios accounting for Scripture and physical evidence, I am only concerned that we not too hastily adopt an interpretive view that prevails among some (or many) to the exclusion of others. So, I hope you see I'm not entirely dismissive of a God-backed theistic evolutionary view of the processes by which life may have arisen under God's direction. I'm not sold on this view, but not dismissive either. Some days I lean toward a vastly ancient universe. Other days of the week I'm a young-earth creationist, simply because I think its possible in line with all other miraculous deeds God has performed that would be beyond the investigative capabilities of our present science. Let's end our dialogue here for the time being. Again, thank you for the lively exchange. :-)
Steve Van Noort and Chad Werkhoven, in their 6/03/2011 postings do add very helpful thoughts to this discussion. I would like to echo some of these concerns. My own reflections (over the past 27 years) and reading in this area lead me to share the following concerns:
1. I am concerned that we not capitulate to what we are told is the "vast consensus" and the "overwhelming evidence" that leads to believe that theistic evolution assuming a gradualist, uniformitarian development of life is the only acceptable view to be held by prudent and informed believers. We are often accused of taking a "God of the gaps" approach, yet few acknowledge that there are many inconsistencies and "gaps" in neo-darwinian evolutionary theories. Let's be done with saying that young earth, 24-day creationists are incapable of doing responsible and credible science. Let's quit dissing "intelligent design theorists as not quite doing responsible science or engaging in "folk science" at best (ala Van Til). It seems to me that even theistic evolutionists fall under the banner of "folk science." All creationists of young earth or old earth stripe that i know, believe in evolutionary processes for adaptation and change within species. But we've moved into a whole new realm of speculative and interpretive theorizing when we move to evolution producing new species out of existing species.
2. Lets agree that, beyond the core doctrines of the Scripture, which are perpiscuous (sp?), some of these areas aren't, e.g. trying to lay rationally bare all points of the interplay between God's predestining decrees and man's will. But I would contend that the "Book of General Revelation" has greater perspicuity only in science done in present time with immediately observable phenomena, but increasingly less so as we move to the earliest beginnings. Science in this realm is, of necessity, more speculative and open to misconstructed hypotheses, etc. So, when we get in a shoving match between the Book of Special Revelation (i.e., the Scriptures) and the Book of General Revelation (i.e., creation and our scientific approximations of how it works), humility is in order when speaking of beginnings on both sides of the conversation. Scripture should not be the first to be radically reinterpreted or scrapped.
I'm not terribly sympathetic when our own scientists "whine" that if God, by an intervening miracle, produced in a moment or a day a fully mature human that in all other situations would appear to be at least 20-30 years of age, that God is somehow "playing a trick on us." This is unworthy and anthropomorphizes God's motives for what He has done. Simply because the earliest points of beginnings might be beyond the reach of our ability to give a total scientific explanation doesn't mean that God deceived those who are called as scientists to unfold and explore His creation. Frankly, I have not been sold on a young earth and 24-hour days of creation; yet, I would still maintain it is possible and not improbable given the character of almost every other miracle God has done as recorded in the Scripture, e.g. water-to-wine, feeding the 5000 and the resurrection.
So, when we come to the first humans I fully believe it possible to believe that two individuals were created by a special immediate act of God. Literarily, I can see how "dust of the earth" could also be figurative and not exclude evolutionary processes just as "knit in my mother's womb" figuratively describes conception and gestation culminating in actual birth. However, I more appreciate Derek Kidner and Tim Keller as they attempt to craft a "permissible" view and a "possible" view that still takes seriously the historic event character of the opening chapters of Genesis. I'm not comfortable with the idea of pre-hominid forebearers of the human race, but these two efforts at a concordist approach to Scripture and Science strike me as much more faithful to both. Kidner and Keller and others rightly see that to deny the two original humans (even if culled from pre-hominid forbearers) results in no gospel. I am convinced, moreover, that neither science nor our theologizing will be able to conclusively nail down these matters. Is it possible that God created in 6 24-hour days and is it unworthy to embrace a personal preference for this view of origins? I think not. Is it permissible and possible to see a vastly old universe and interpret Gen 1 as a highly stylized and exalted prose, using figurative descriptions of God's creative work that in no way address the actual length of days or the processes by which He formed man from the "dust of the earth"? Certainly! But, as Keller et al. warn, Genesis 2 is a retelling not in conflict with Genesis 1 but more is narrative more historical in character than poetic and, even if culled from 10 or 100,000 pre-hominds, the first two humans were at the very least such upon whom God bestowed His unique image and who fell in an actual historical fall. To say otherwise, Keller notes, is unsafe and not necessitated by either science or Scripture. Some theistic evolutionsists have even admitted with a bit of a sneer that Common DNA (between primates and humans) does not conclusively prove Common Descent, but as easily argues for Common Designer. So, even 98% shared DNA between humans and primates does not compel or prove the view that man arose from primates via evolutionary processes. But this admission has been dismissed with a sneer by some who derisively chide that we're putting God in the gaps. Folks, frankly I think permissible and possible is the best we can get in this area. You may like one view better than the other, find it more compelling, and only one view (maybe with modifications) will actually be found to be true. But If our theologizing in some areas of reflection must admit to unresolvable mystery, why don't we expect the same of some areas of the scientific enterprise?
My concern is that no miracle recorded, of the original creation or any other, in Scripture can be scientifically analyzed to correct conclusions about age and processes; not any. If we say of the more traditional views of biblical origins that they're to be scrapped because they cannot be harmonized with our current scientific musings, what do we do with all the rest biblical miracles? Are they, too, suspect? Surely we are not suggesting that creative miracles in the scripture could not have happened because they do not conform with the current scientific consensus of gradualistic, uniform evolutionary processes. Did Jesus "deceive" or "trick" the crowd at the wedding in Cana by producing a grape wine of the best sort from water and not even using the grapes or normal processes of fermentation? Did he do this to trick scientists or play games with them? Did He sin against the calling for scientists to explain the creation when he produced from a few loaves and fishes, by a creative miracle, enough food to feed a crowd of more than 5000? This spontaneous production of so much food from so little original biomass certainly could not be accounted for by our scientific formulae of physics and matter. No, I don't want to argue for a flat earth or a geo-centric universe or repeat the historical tragedy of censuring Galileo. But neither do I want to utterly cave to a science held hostage to atheist materialism and make as Berkhof called it a "theology of embarrassment."
I would like to see our institutions of Christian learning invite to their faculty the diversity of theoretical views and their proponents, within the bounds of what scripture may, with integrity, be considered to allow. Wouldn't it be neat if Calvin and Dordt and Wheaton, et al. all had on their faculties colleagues in the sciences and the theology departments of young earth and ancient universe, of a limited theistic evolutionary view, some of intelligent design, all respectfully reflecting, interacting in a robust conversation without hubris and thinly veiled slander? I fear when we let one group get a lock on our institution and we refuse to hear dissenting voices we create a worse environment for doing responsible science and theology. I think this is especially true in this matter of bio-origins and the beginnings of all things. I believe our Synod needs to do something constructive to address these matters. Simply dropping Declaration F or reinstating it does not fix the problem. I initially felt reinstating Declaration F was called for, but I do no longer. But I believe the recent articles by Daniel Harlow and John Schneider have not been helpful either, however well intentioned these men may be.
Sorry for being so long and rambling. But I hope this gets traction with some of us in the conversation. I'm praying for our Synod and all you delegates, our professors and the churches. May God guide and lead us well and for His glory.
You provide an excellent example of exactly what gives me great concern about this discussion. Your tone is belittling and patronizing. I am not a specialist in science, though for the past 27 years beyond my post graduate studies, I have read widely in this subject. I've considered the works of those I agree with and those I don't. I've even had my views opened to ways of framing this issue I would not have earlier imagined I might allow or adopt. But I justify "having the debate" because there are many credible dissenting voices at Phd. level in various scientific, legal and philosophical disciplines. And anyone who has taken high school bio, on the subject of evolutionary theories knows that the high school level discussion is merely a propagandistic selling of the GTE with little or no honest discussion of the tertiary level of discussions of difficulties that the promoters of GTE know full well exist . These "gaps" in the theorizing of those scientific proponents of GTE simply refuse to go away because they have not been adequately resolved by the current evidence. And, yes, while I do not use my Bible to do science, I think it has more implication for the scientific enterprise than simply "baptizing" theistic evolution with a stamp of approval by saying "God did it, no matter what the processes might be." This is far too limiting of the role the Scriptures have to play in regard to science of any other discipline in our world.
You should consider the historian Barbara Tuchman's definition of folly, which has been amply illustrated in history. Folly is when a majority which doggedly persists in an idea where there is also a persistent minority of dissent, which fails to get a hearing. That is roughly a paraphrase, but accurate to the idea. Consider the scientific/ medical establishments ridicule of Louis Pasteur's idea of germs as the cause of disease. It was not the religious establishment that rose up in lock-step ridicule of his life-saving theory turned fact; but the medical specialists and others in the scientific community. So, we all have our "poster child" for the foolish mob verses the wise few. Admittedly this sword cuts both ways.
Not at question, here, is whether there are biological evolutionary processes at all, but whether macro evolution suffiiciently accounts for the gradualist rise of all species from one primordial living cell. This discussion touches on philosophical, theological issues and epistemological questions as well as purely scientific inquiry. Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, A.E. Wilder Smith, Philip Johnson, and many others, all raise highly credible doubts to the neodarwinian mantra of evolution as the GTE. Johnson, admittedly not a scientist, but a legal scholar and analyst of evidence, has contributed to his discussion with such clarity and charity of discussion that even his critics have quoted his text with appreciation and as an example of how to carry on this debate. Infact, Stephanie, no less a heavyweight than Alvin Plantinga, weighed in on this evaluation of Phillip E. Johnson's, "Darwin on Trial" and stated: "Shows just how Darwinian evolution has become an idol." Have you read Johnson's book? Michael Denton remarked, "Unquestionably the best critique of Darwinism I have ever read." Theologian Richard John Neuhaus, observed, "Calm, comprehensive, and compellingly persuasive."
Did I mention that not one of these credible voices feels compelled to subscribe to GTE although on the evidence they have been convinced of an ancient universe and other related issues? Are these also morons who somehow just didn't grasp their high school biology courses or must be assumed to disbelieve in something as fundamental as gravity? You and I both know better.
So, this is why we and many others are having and will continue to have the debate. The issues here are of such gravity that they deserve it and much better than the dismissive ridicule that you have brought to it in your posting.
Sincerely,
Neil Culbertson, Pastor
and avocational reader of science texts for and against the Grand Theory of Evolution (GTE) and many other fascinating and interesting features of this vast wonderful creation of God.
Hi Sam, I greatly appreciate your posting. For more than 36 years I've been a "Reformed Charismatic" as you describe. Just finished a year-long preaching series on I Corinthians and, yes, Gordon D. Fee is one of my "go to" theologians. I especially appreciate his strong and balanced affirmation of all the gifts of the Sprit coupled with his biblically supported clear rejection of "subsequentalism" (i.e., Fee's term for the classic Pentecostal doctrine of a two-phased initiation into the life and ministry of the Holy Spirit. This is something often lacking in certain renewal groups that go under the Banner of Reformed. I whole-heartedly affirm God's sovereignty and His freedom to reveal his will/leading in ways often incomprehensible but not thereby irrational or unreliable. I have written a brief guildeline on" How to Hear God without Getting Goofy" on my journal website: http://www.christianstraininglog.com. Ignore the merchandise and click on articles. Friends have affirmed the article has been very helpful to them. http://www.christianstraininglog.com/resources/guidance.html Sincerely in the Savior, Neil Culbertson, Pastor
Amen!!! I did my independent research project while at Dordt College (1978/9) in an effort to develop a Biblically Reformed view of tongues speaking: "Glossalalia: Between Laughter & Language," in which I apllied biblical exegetical work and used the analysis of Herman Dooyeweerd's modalities structures analysis. It was not really taken too seriously at the time because skepticism of this phenomenon was still very high but it was tolerated. I hope for this tribe to increase and am glad to hear ongoing evidence of it in the CRC. I personally rejoiced when the CRCNA dropped the theology of cessationism.
I, too, am thankful for your initiative in starting off this discussion. I also appreciate the thoughtful responses, from others who are interacting in this conversation. The give-and-take respectful tone of this discussion and the ringing affirmation of the controls of Scripture and the firm commitment to the central doctrines of biblical and Reformed teaching is testament to how far our denomination has grown in this area. I, too, would indentify with your affirmations of the reality of the Holy Spirit's working in the church, the spiritual birthright of all Christians to, in keeping with their particular gifting , to "hear" God, i.e., in a range of Scripturally illustrated means to recognize God's leading and be led by the Spirit. I fully expect to read some of the books referenced above.
I agree! These last few posts have been superb and very illuminating. I find that the "in" compared with "upon" distinction rings true not only with my experience individually, but also have seen the same happen corporately when the church has been gathered on occasion. No amount of effort can manipulate this, but there have been times when pronouncing the benediction such a tangible sense of God's presence descended upon the congregation that we just sat in reverent silence and sort of "soaked" in the moment. I even had at one point to just acknowledge and give words to what we were all sensing. And then we concluded and fellowshipped around coffee and cookies in the lobby.
I think we are all well aware of these lamentable aberrations and definitely have no intention of going down the prosperity gospel road. I, like you, Allejandro, am deeply grieved by and reject the implicit "superiority" that comes from that bad and unbiblical theology of subsequentalism which is often called the second blessing theology characteristic of classic pentecostal theology. If one follows the internet discussions, it is interesting to find that the most sustained critics of Word Faith cults, prosperity gospelers, latter rain folks, the Toxic Broadcasting Network (TBN) etc., are the classic Pentecostals.
For 36 years, since "coming out" of pentecostalism and embracing the Reformed faith, I have found the Reformed faith, its theological integrity, its ecclesiology that eschews "annointed leader" syndrome and power abuses in the church is far and away the most capable for embracing the positive features of charismatic pneumatology without giving way to its imbalances, excesses and errors. So, why would we deny the one the benefit of the other? For 27 years I saw people burned out on Pentecostal excesses join our church precisely because our theology provided theological integrity and ecclesial saftey without requiring them to deny spritual giftings the knew from Scripture and practice were legitimate.
The mere fact of imablances and unsavory character says nothing about the legitimacy of gifts, the many ways of the Spirit's leading, etc.
I don't claim to be enamored of taking a "Reformed Charismatic" label to distinguish myself from any regenerated Christian who has by Scripture's teaching the fulness of the Spirit and the capacity to be used in any way the Spirit in His sovereignty deems proper. I believe every regenerated Christian (the only kind there is) is "charismatic" to the degree that charis means grace. The Reformed emphasis on sovereignty and grace as opposed to man-centered and Arminian teachings is the greatest antidote to abuses of spiritual gifts. So, good enough, let's forgo the label and avoid any hint of occasioning division or elitism, but let's be done with ignoring legitmate, biblically supported giftings and biblically illustrated ways in which the Spirit leads not just individuals but the church corporately in exercising all the charimata as the Sovereign apportions them for the common good. Does this suggestion help allay fears and promote confidence that the Reformed theological tradition is equal to the task of incorporation, evaluation, balance and providing proper accountability?
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Hi Stephanie,
Thank you for the lively interchange. You make some good points. Science isn't determined by poll taking, I knew when I listed these folks that I was reverting back to the Medieval approach of proof by citation of "authorities" and you were quick enough to catch it. But I wasn't merely taking a poll, but highlighting that credible persons in other disciplines have raised serious questions to how scientists are currently interpreting the "evidence". I'm not refuting that there is evidence out there that needs to be accounted for. However, I think because of epistemological concerns, no area of investigation, even science, can claim autonomy from these other important disciplines as scientists do their work. If the human capacity for reason has been impaired by the effects of the Fall, then we must be cautious about being too absolute in conclusions drawn in any area of investigation, science and theology as well. And, if the Fall of creation has impaired the creation itself in any way (which I believe Scripture indicates) then we shouldn't be surprised that there are limitations on our ability to accurately describe events as far remote from our immediate investigation as the very beginnings. I'm much more confident of the abilities of science to unfold and explain "real time phenomena" that can be empirically tested by direct observation and experimentation than trying to reverse engineer to draw conclusions about events that happened possibly aeons ago.
Have you read Tim Keller's paper that was offered on the website Biologos.com? Keller, interacting with Derek Kidner crafts a view which takes the Scriptures seriously and does in fact embrace the view of macro-evolution to explain the origins and development of biological species up to humans. He takes the view I believe I hear is also yours; however, from his listening to Scripture sees no need to interpret the evidence to the denial of two original human parents of the race, even while allowing for the possibility of their selection from a population of pre-human hominids. Its not my preferred view, but given my stated preference for a certain latitude of possibilities and permissible scenarios accounting for Scripture and physical evidence, I am only concerned that we not too hastily adopt an interpretive view that prevails among some (or many) to the exclusion of others. So, I hope you see I'm not entirely dismissive of a God-backed theistic evolutionary view of the processes by which life may have arisen under God's direction. I'm not sold on this view, but not dismissive either. Some days I lean toward a vastly ancient universe. Other days of the week I'm a young-earth creationist, simply because I think its possible in line with all other miraculous deeds God has performed that would be beyond the investigative capabilities of our present science. Let's end our dialogue here for the time being. Again, thank you for the lively exchange. :-)
Ciao
Neil Culbertson
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Steve Van Noort and Chad Werkhoven, in their 6/03/2011 postings do add very helpful thoughts to this discussion. I would like to echo some of these concerns. My own reflections (over the past 27 years) and reading in this area lead me to share the following concerns:
1. I am concerned that we not capitulate to what we are told is the "vast consensus" and the "overwhelming evidence" that leads to believe that theistic evolution assuming a gradualist, uniformitarian development of life is the only acceptable view to be held by prudent and informed believers. We are often accused of taking a "God of the gaps" approach, yet few acknowledge that there are many inconsistencies and "gaps" in neo-darwinian evolutionary theories. Let's be done with saying that young earth, 24-day creationists are incapable of doing responsible and credible science. Let's quit dissing "intelligent design theorists as not quite doing responsible science or engaging in "folk science" at best (ala Van Til). It seems to me that even theistic evolutionists fall under the banner of "folk science." All creationists of young earth or old earth stripe that i know, believe in evolutionary processes for adaptation and change within species. But we've moved into a whole new realm of speculative and interpretive theorizing when we move to evolution producing new species out of existing species.
2. Lets agree that, beyond the core doctrines of the Scripture, which are perpiscuous (sp?), some of these areas aren't, e.g. trying to lay rationally bare all points of the interplay between God's predestining decrees and man's will. But I would contend that the "Book of General Revelation" has greater perspicuity only in science done in present time with immediately observable phenomena, but increasingly less so as we move to the earliest beginnings. Science in this realm is, of necessity, more speculative and open to misconstructed hypotheses, etc. So, when we get in a shoving match between the Book of Special Revelation (i.e., the Scriptures) and the Book of General Revelation (i.e., creation and our scientific approximations of how it works), humility is in order when speaking of beginnings on both sides of the conversation. Scripture should not be the first to be radically reinterpreted or scrapped.
I'm not terribly sympathetic when our own scientists "whine" that if God, by an intervening miracle, produced in a moment or a day a fully mature human that in all other situations would appear to be at least 20-30 years of age, that God is somehow "playing a trick on us." This is unworthy and anthropomorphizes God's motives for what He has done. Simply because the earliest points of beginnings might be beyond the reach of our ability to give a total scientific explanation doesn't mean that God deceived those who are called as scientists to unfold and explore His creation. Frankly, I have not been sold on a young earth and 24-hour days of creation; yet, I would still maintain it is possible and not improbable given the character of almost every other miracle God has done as recorded in the Scripture, e.g. water-to-wine, feeding the 5000 and the resurrection.
So, when we come to the first humans I fully believe it possible to believe that two individuals were created by a special immediate act of God. Literarily, I can see how "dust of the earth" could also be figurative and not exclude evolutionary processes just as "knit in my mother's womb" figuratively describes conception and gestation culminating in actual birth. However, I more appreciate Derek Kidner and Tim Keller as they attempt to craft a "permissible" view and a "possible" view that still takes seriously the historic event character of the opening chapters of Genesis. I'm not comfortable with the idea of pre-hominid forebearers of the human race, but these two efforts at a concordist approach to Scripture and Science strike me as much more faithful to both. Kidner and Keller and others rightly see that to deny the two original humans (even if culled from pre-hominid forbearers) results in no gospel. I am convinced, moreover, that neither science nor our theologizing will be able to conclusively nail down these matters. Is it possible that God created in 6 24-hour days and is it unworthy to embrace a personal preference for this view of origins? I think not. Is it permissible and possible to see a vastly old universe and interpret Gen 1 as a highly stylized and exalted prose, using figurative descriptions of God's creative work that in no way address the actual length of days or the processes by which He formed man from the "dust of the earth"? Certainly! But, as Keller et al. warn, Genesis 2 is a retelling not in conflict with Genesis 1 but more is narrative more historical in character than poetic and, even if culled from 10 or 100,000 pre-hominds, the first two humans were at the very least such upon whom God bestowed His unique image and who fell in an actual historical fall. To say otherwise, Keller notes, is unsafe and not necessitated by either science or Scripture. Some theistic evolutionsists have even admitted with a bit of a sneer that Common DNA (between primates and humans) does not conclusively prove Common Descent, but as easily argues for Common Designer. So, even 98% shared DNA between humans and primates does not compel or prove the view that man arose from primates via evolutionary processes. But this admission has been dismissed with a sneer by some who derisively chide that we're putting God in the gaps. Folks, frankly I think permissible and possible is the best we can get in this area. You may like one view better than the other, find it more compelling, and only one view (maybe with modifications) will actually be found to be true. But If our theologizing in some areas of reflection must admit to unresolvable mystery, why don't we expect the same of some areas of the scientific enterprise?
My concern is that no miracle recorded, of the original creation or any other, in Scripture can be scientifically analyzed to correct conclusions about age and processes; not any. If we say of the more traditional views of biblical origins that they're to be scrapped because they cannot be harmonized with our current scientific musings, what do we do with all the rest biblical miracles? Are they, too, suspect? Surely we are not suggesting that creative miracles in the scripture could not have happened because they do not conform with the current scientific consensus of gradualistic, uniform evolutionary processes. Did Jesus "deceive" or "trick" the crowd at the wedding in Cana by producing a grape wine of the best sort from water and not even using the grapes or normal processes of fermentation? Did he do this to trick scientists or play games with them? Did He sin against the calling for scientists to explain the creation when he produced from a few loaves and fishes, by a creative miracle, enough food to feed a crowd of more than 5000? This spontaneous production of so much food from so little original biomass certainly could not be accounted for by our scientific formulae of physics and matter. No, I don't want to argue for a flat earth or a geo-centric universe or repeat the historical tragedy of censuring Galileo. But neither do I want to utterly cave to a science held hostage to atheist materialism and make as Berkhof called it a "theology of embarrassment."
I would like to see our institutions of Christian learning invite to their faculty the diversity of theoretical views and their proponents, within the bounds of what scripture may, with integrity, be considered to allow. Wouldn't it be neat if Calvin and Dordt and Wheaton, et al. all had on their faculties colleagues in the sciences and the theology departments of young earth and ancient universe, of a limited theistic evolutionary view, some of intelligent design, all respectfully reflecting, interacting in a robust conversation without hubris and thinly veiled slander? I fear when we let one group get a lock on our institution and we refuse to hear dissenting voices we create a worse environment for doing responsible science and theology. I think this is especially true in this matter of bio-origins and the beginnings of all things. I believe our Synod needs to do something constructive to address these matters. Simply dropping Declaration F or reinstating it does not fix the problem. I initially felt reinstating Declaration F was called for, but I do no longer. But I believe the recent articles by Daniel Harlow and John Schneider have not been helpful either, however well intentioned these men may be.
Sorry for being so long and rambling. But I hope this gets traction with some of us in the conversation. I'm praying for our Synod and all you delegates, our professors and the churches. May God guide and lead us well and for His glory.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Nicely said.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Stephanie,
You provide an excellent example of exactly what gives me great concern about this discussion. Your tone is belittling and patronizing. I am not a specialist in science, though for the past 27 years beyond my post graduate studies, I have read widely in this subject. I've considered the works of those I agree with and those I don't. I've even had my views opened to ways of framing this issue I would not have earlier imagined I might allow or adopt. But I justify "having the debate" because there are many credible dissenting voices at Phd. level in various scientific, legal and philosophical disciplines. And anyone who has taken high school bio, on the subject of evolutionary theories knows that the high school level discussion is merely a propagandistic selling of the GTE with little or no honest discussion of the tertiary level of discussions of difficulties that the promoters of GTE know full well exist . These "gaps" in the theorizing of those scientific proponents of GTE simply refuse to go away because they have not been adequately resolved by the current evidence. And, yes, while I do not use my Bible to do science, I think it has more implication for the scientific enterprise than simply "baptizing" theistic evolution with a stamp of approval by saying "God did it, no matter what the processes might be." This is far too limiting of the role the Scriptures have to play in regard to science of any other discipline in our world.
You should consider the historian Barbara Tuchman's definition of folly, which has been amply illustrated in history. Folly is when a majority which doggedly persists in an idea where there is also a persistent minority of dissent, which fails to get a hearing. That is roughly a paraphrase, but accurate to the idea. Consider the scientific/ medical establishments ridicule of Louis Pasteur's idea of germs as the cause of disease. It was not the religious establishment that rose up in lock-step ridicule of his life-saving theory turned fact; but the medical specialists and others in the scientific community. So, we all have our "poster child" for the foolish mob verses the wise few. Admittedly this sword cuts both ways.
Not at question, here, is whether there are biological evolutionary processes at all, but whether macro evolution suffiiciently accounts for the gradualist rise of all species from one primordial living cell. This discussion touches on philosophical, theological issues and epistemological questions as well as purely scientific inquiry. Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, A.E. Wilder Smith, Philip Johnson, and many others, all raise highly credible doubts to the neodarwinian mantra of evolution as the GTE. Johnson, admittedly not a scientist, but a legal scholar and analyst of evidence, has contributed to his discussion with such clarity and charity of discussion that even his critics have quoted his text with appreciation and as an example of how to carry on this debate. Infact, Stephanie, no less a heavyweight than Alvin Plantinga, weighed in on this evaluation of Phillip E. Johnson's, "Darwin on Trial" and stated: "Shows just how Darwinian evolution has become an idol." Have you read Johnson's book? Michael Denton remarked, "Unquestionably the best critique of Darwinism I have ever read." Theologian Richard John Neuhaus, observed, "Calm, comprehensive, and compellingly persuasive."
Did I mention that not one of these credible voices feels compelled to subscribe to GTE although on the evidence they have been convinced of an ancient universe and other related issues? Are these also morons who somehow just didn't grasp their high school biology courses or must be assumed to disbelieve in something as fundamental as gravity? You and I both know better.
So, this is why we and many others are having and will continue to have the debate. The issues here are of such gravity that they deserve it and much better than the dismissive ridicule that you have brought to it in your posting.
Sincerely,
Neil Culbertson, Pastor
and avocational reader of science texts for and against the Grand Theory of Evolution (GTE) and many other fascinating and interesting features of this vast wonderful creation of God.
Posted in: What is a Reformed Charismatic?
Hi Sam, I greatly appreciate your posting. For more than 36 years I've been a "Reformed Charismatic" as you describe. Just finished a year-long preaching series on I Corinthians and, yes, Gordon D. Fee is one of my "go to" theologians. I especially appreciate his strong and balanced affirmation of all the gifts of the Sprit coupled with his biblically supported clear rejection of "subsequentalism" (i.e., Fee's term for the classic Pentecostal doctrine of a two-phased initiation into the life and ministry of the Holy Spirit. This is something often lacking in certain renewal groups that go under the Banner of Reformed. I whole-heartedly affirm God's sovereignty and His freedom to reveal his will/leading in ways often incomprehensible but not thereby irrational or unreliable. I have written a brief guildeline on" How to Hear God without Getting Goofy" on my journal website: http://www.christianstraininglog.com. Ignore the merchandise and click on articles. Friends have affirmed the article has been very helpful to them. http://www.christianstraininglog.com/resources/guidance.html Sincerely in the Savior, Neil Culbertson, Pastor
Posted in: What is a Reformed Charismatic?
Amen!!! I did my independent research project while at Dordt College (1978/9) in an effort to develop a Biblically Reformed view of tongues speaking: "Glossalalia: Between Laughter & Language," in which I apllied biblical exegetical work and used the analysis of Herman Dooyeweerd's modalities structures analysis. It was not really taken too seriously at the time because skepticism of this phenomenon was still very high but it was tolerated. I hope for this tribe to increase and am glad to hear ongoing evidence of it in the CRC. I personally rejoiced when the CRCNA dropped the theology of cessationism.
Posted in: What is a Reformed Charismatic?
Hi Sam and all,
I, too, am thankful for your initiative in starting off this discussion. I also appreciate the thoughtful responses, from others who are interacting in this conversation. The give-and-take respectful tone of this discussion and the ringing affirmation of the controls of Scripture and the firm commitment to the central doctrines of biblical and Reformed teaching is testament to how far our denomination has grown in this area. I, too, would indentify with your affirmations of the reality of the Holy Spirit's working in the church, the spiritual birthright of all Christians to, in keeping with their particular gifting , to "hear" God, i.e., in a range of Scripturally illustrated means to recognize God's leading and be led by the Spirit. I fully expect to read some of the books referenced above.
Cordially in Christ,
Neil Culbertson, Pastor
Tacoma Christian Reformed Community Church
Posted in: What is a Reformed Charismatic?
I agree! These last few posts have been superb and very illuminating. I find that the "in" compared with "upon" distinction rings true not only with my experience individually, but also have seen the same happen corporately when the church has been gathered on occasion. No amount of effort can manipulate this, but there have been times when pronouncing the benediction such a tangible sense of God's presence descended upon the congregation that we just sat in reverent silence and sort of "soaked" in the moment. I even had at one point to just acknowledge and give words to what we were all sensing. And then we concluded and fellowshipped around coffee and cookies in the lobby.
Posted in: What is a Reformed Charismatic?
I think we are all well aware of these lamentable aberrations and definitely have no intention of going down the prosperity gospel road. I, like you, Allejandro, am deeply grieved by and reject the implicit "superiority" that comes from that bad and unbiblical theology of subsequentalism which is often called the second blessing theology characteristic of classic pentecostal theology. If one follows the internet discussions, it is interesting to find that the most sustained critics of Word Faith cults, prosperity gospelers, latter rain folks, the Toxic Broadcasting Network (TBN) etc., are the classic Pentecostals.
For 36 years, since "coming out" of pentecostalism and embracing the Reformed faith, I have found the Reformed faith, its theological integrity, its ecclesiology that eschews "annointed leader" syndrome and power abuses in the church is far and away the most capable for embracing the positive features of charismatic pneumatology without giving way to its imbalances, excesses and errors. So, why would we deny the one the benefit of the other? For 27 years I saw people burned out on Pentecostal excesses join our church precisely because our theology provided theological integrity and ecclesial saftey without requiring them to deny spritual giftings the knew from Scripture and practice were legitimate.
The mere fact of imablances and unsavory character says nothing about the legitimacy of gifts, the many ways of the Spirit's leading, etc.
I don't claim to be enamored of taking a "Reformed Charismatic" label to distinguish myself from any regenerated Christian who has by Scripture's teaching the fulness of the Spirit and the capacity to be used in any way the Spirit in His sovereignty deems proper. I believe every regenerated Christian (the only kind there is) is "charismatic" to the degree that charis means grace. The Reformed emphasis on sovereignty and grace as opposed to man-centered and Arminian teachings is the greatest antidote to abuses of spiritual gifts. So, good enough, let's forgo the label and avoid any hint of occasioning division or elitism, but let's be done with ignoring legitmate, biblically supported giftings and biblically illustrated ways in which the Spirit leads not just individuals but the church corporately in exercising all the charimata as the Sovereign apportions them for the common good. Does this suggestion help allay fears and promote confidence that the Reformed theological tradition is equal to the task of incorporation, evaluation, balance and providing proper accountability?
SIncerely in his grace & peace, Neil